Optimising the Nadroparin Dose for Thromboprophylaxis During Hemodialysis by Developing a Population Pharmacodynamic Model Using Anti-Xa Levels

INTRODUCTION

The optimal nadroparin dose in patients undergoing hemodialysis is difficult to determine in clinical practice. Anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL and < 2.0 IU/mL are suggested to prevent thrombus formation within the extracorporeal circuit whilst minimizing bleeding risk. We aimed to characterize the variability in the association between dose and anti-Xa levels, identify patient and dialysis characteristics that explained this variability, and optimize nadroparin dosing based on the identified characteristics.

METHODS

Anti-Xa samples were collected in patients who received intravenous nadroparin as thromboprophylaxis during routine dialysis sessions. A population pharmacodynamic model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. The percentage of patients ≥ 0.4 IU/mL (efficacy) and < 2.0 IU/mL (safety) was simulated for different doses, patient and dialysis characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 137) were predominantly receiving standard hemodialysis (84.7% vs. hemodiafiltration 15.3%) and had a mean bodyweight of 76.3 kg (± 16.9). Lean body mass (LBM), mode of dialysis, and dialyzer partially explained between-subject variability in anti-Xa levels. Patients on hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM (≥ 80 kg) had a low probability (< 29%) of anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL during the entire dialysis session. All patients, except hemodialysis patients with a low LBM (< 50 kg), had a high probability (> 70%) of peak anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL.

CONCLUSION

Mainly patients receiving hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM can benefit from a higher nadroparin dose than currently used in clinical practice, while having anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL.

Pharmacological and clinical application of heparin progress: An essential drug for modern medicine

Heparin is the earliest and most widely used anticoagulant and antithrombotic drug that is still used in a variety of clinical indications. Since it was discovered in 1916, after more than a century of repeated exploration, heparin has not been replaced by other drugs, but a great progress has been made in its basic research and clinical application. Besides anticoagulant and antithrombotic effects, heparin also has antitumor, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and other pharmacological activities. It is widely used clinically in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, cancer, etc., as the first anticoagulant medicine in COVID-19 exerts anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects. At the same time, however, it also leads to a lot of adverse reactions, such as bleeding, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminase, allergic reactions, and others. This article comprehensively reviews the modern research progress of heparin compounds; discusses the structure, preparation, and adverse reactions of heparin; emphasizes the pharmacological activity and clinical application of heparin; reveals the possible mechanism of the therapeutic effect of heparin in related clinical applications; provides evidence support for the clinical application of heparin; and hints on the significance of exploring the wider application fields of heparin.

Evaluation of the anticoagulant effect of low-molecular-weight heparins based on the anti-Xa level during haemodialysis

AIM

Evaluate the relationship between anti-Xa activity and anticoagulant effect, and ascertain whether accumulation of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) occurs during haemodialysis.

METHODS

There was an observational, single-centre study among participants who received the LMWH dalteparin, enoxaparin or nadroparin. A standard haemodialysis session lasted 4 hours. All included participants had anti-Xa activity measures at 0.5 and 4 hours. Extracorporeal circuit (ECC) clotting was evaluated by visual inspection of the haemodialyser and bubble trap after each haemodialysis session. The same person was tested at three consecutive haemodialysis sessions.

RESULTS

Overall, 90 participants were enrolled and 259 haemodialysis sessions assessed. There was no significant difference in the mean anti-Xa activity at 0.5 and 4 hours for three consecutive sessions, so LMWH accumulation did not occur. There were 69 (26.6%) sessions in which, ECC clotting was visible. Compared with the group where circuit clotting did not occur, the LMWH dose and anti-Xa activity in the group where circuit clotting occurred were significantly lower. At 0.5 hour, anti-Xa <0.88 IU/mL had significantly higher odds of ECC clotting than that at ≥0.88 IU/mL. At 4 hours, anti-Xa <0.35 IU/mL had significantly higher odds of ECC clotting than that at ≥0.35 IU/mL.

CONCLUSION

We found that over three haemodialysis sessions, no significant accumulation of LMWH was evident in subjects receiving a LMWH dose of between 2000 and 5000 IU for regular. Anti-Xa activity measurement can be used to adjust the dosage of LMWH and predict the anticoagulant effect during haemodialysis.