On the prophylactic and therapeutic use of danaparoid sodium (Orgaran) in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of non-heparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are not fully established, and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine precise rates of platelet recovery, new or progressive thromboembolism (TE), major bleeding, and death for all non-heparin anticoagulants and to study potential sources of variability.

METHODS

Following a detailed protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020219027), EMBASE and Medline were searched for all studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients treated with non-heparin anticoagulants (argatroban, danaparoid, fondaparinux, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC], bivalirudin, and other hirudins) for acute HIT. Proportions of patients with the outcomes of interest were pooled using a random-effects model for each drug. The influence of the patient population, the diagnostic test used, the study design, and the type of article was assessed.

RESULTS

Out of 3194 articles screened, 92 studies with 119 treatment groups describing 4698 patients were included. The pooled rates of platelet recovery ranged from 74% (bivalirudin) to 99% (fondaparinux), TE from 1% (fondaparinux) to 7% (danaparoid), major bleeding from 1% (DOAC) to 14% (bivalirudin), and death from 7% (fondaparinux) to 19% (bivalirudin). Confidence intervals were mostly overlapping, and results were not influenced by patient population, diagnostic test used, study design, or type of article.

DISCUSSION

Effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar among various anticoagulants, and significant factors affecting these outcomes were not identified. These findings support fondaparinux and DOACs as viable alternatives to conventional anticoagulants for treatment of acute HIT in clinical practice.

Treatment and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an antibody-mediated adverse drug reaction that can lead to devastating thromboembolic complications, including pulmonary embolism, ischemic limb necrosis necessitating limb amputation, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

Among the key recommendations for this article are the following: For patients receiving heparin in whom clinicians consider the risk of HIT to be > 1%, we suggest that platelet count monitoring be performed every 2 or 3 days from day 4 to day 14 (or until heparin is stopped, whichever occurs first) (Grade 2C). For patients receiving heparin in whom clinicians consider the risk of HIT to be < 1%, we suggest that platelet counts not be monitored (Grade 2C). In patients with HIT with thrombosis (HITT) or isolated HIT who have normal renal function, we suggest the use of argatroban or lepirudin or danaparoid over other nonheparin anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with HITT and renal insufficiency, we suggest the use of argatroban over other nonheparin anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with acute HIT or subacute HIT who require urgent cardiac surgery, we suggest the use of bivalirudin over other nonheparin anticoagulants or heparin plus antiplatelet agents (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies evaluating the role of fondaparinux and the new oral anticoagulants in the treatment of HIT are needed.

[Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia occurring after surgical treatment of atrial myxoma--a case report]

INTRODUCTION

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an acquired, prothrombotic disorder, caused by antibodies to a complex of heparin and platelet factor 4 (PF4) that activates platelets, resulting in the release of procoagulant microparticles, thrombocytopenia occurrence, generation of thrombin, and frequent thromboses.

CASE OUTLINE

We present a case of severe HIT in a 68-year-old female, which occurred after cardiosurgery of the left atrial myxoma with the aim to point out the importance of differential diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in patients recently exposed to heparin. Platelet count dropped on the eleventh postoperative day, six days after unfractioned heparin and enoxaparine threatment, to 4x10(9)/I.The correct diagnosis failed to be made at first. Since thrombocytopenia remained refractory to a corticosteroid treatment and platelet transfusion, the patient was hospitalized on the 13th postoperative day at the Institute of Haematology. The diagnosis of HIT was confirmed with the high-probability clinical score (4T's) and strongly positive anti-heparin-PF4 (PaGIA) test as well as positive platelet aggregation test. The treatment started with a smaller therapeutic doses of danaparoid than recommended of 750 U intravenous bolus and was followed by continuous infusions of 100 U per 1 h and intravenous gammaglobulins in full dosage for four days. The platelet count started to rise on the third day and it was completely normalized on the 5th day of the therapy.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of severe HIT with small doses of danaparoid supplemented by intravenous gamma globulin was successful. Additional awareness of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is needed, especially of HIT in differential diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in patients recently exposed to heparin.

A review of 122 published outcomes of danaparoid anticoagulation for intermittent haemodialysis

One hundred and twenty-two case reports of treatment outcomes of danaparoid use for intermittent haemodialysis (HD) in severely ill patients with heparin intolerance (including 97 HIT patients) have been analysed. HD sessions of 4 - 6 hours were successfully conducted daily to 3 times/week for periods of up to 4 years (median 7 sessions/patient (range 1 - >650). In these patients danaparoid use was relatively safe (4 unprovoked non-fatal major bleeds) and efficacious in protecting the circuit (95% no clotting problem) or patient (6 thromboses: 4 fatal or leading to danaparoid discontinuation). HIT diagnosis was improved if recurrent platelet count reduction with each HD and circuit/AV graft clotting were included. Alternative reasons for and very low nadirs of the platelet count undermined the usefulness of the 4 T pre-test HIT predictability scores, but a positive functional serological test confirmed HIT in most patients. Deaths (15.6%) and thrombosis only occurred in HIT cases. Possible reasons are discussed. Replacing the standard intermittent pre-HD dose regimen with the therapeutic infusion regimen to provide continuous daily systemic antithrombotic protection, should further improve efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Danaparoid appears to be a useful alternative antithrombotic for patients with heparin intolerance and renal failure requiring haemodialysis.

Treatment and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This chapter about the recognition, treatment, and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients receiving heparin in whom the clinician considers the risk of HIT to be > 1.0%, we recommend platelet count monitoring over no platelet count monitoring (Grade 1C). For patients who are receiving heparin or have received heparin within the previous 2 weeks, we recommend investigating for a diagnosis of HIT if the platelet count falls by >/= 50%, and/or a thrombotic event occurs, between days 5 and 14 (inclusive) following initiation of heparin, even if the patient is no longer receiving heparin therapy when thrombosis or thrombocytopenia has occurred (Grade 1C). For patients with strongly suspected (or confirmed) HIT, whether or not complicated by thrombosis, we recommend use of an alternative, nonheparin anticoagulant (danaparoid [Grade 1B], lepirudin [Grade 1C], argatroban [Grade 1C], fondaparinux [Grade 2C], or bivalirudin [Grade 2C]) over the further use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) therapy or initiation/continuation of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) [Grade 1B]. The guidelines include specific recommendations for nonheparin anticoagulant dosing that differ from the package inserts. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, we recommend against the use of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [coumarin] therapy until after the platelet count has substantially recovered (usually, to at least 150 x 10(9)/L) over starting VKA therapy at a lower platelet count (Grade 1B); that VKA therapy be started only with low maintenance doses (maximum, 5 mg of warfarin or 6 mg of phenprocoumon) over higher initial doses (Grade 1B); and that the nonheparin anticoagulant (eg, lepirudin, argatroban, danaparoid) be continued until the platelet count has reached a stable plateau, the international normalized ratio (INR) has reached the intended target range, and after a minimum overlap of at least 5 days between nonheparin anticoagulation and VKA therapy rather than a shorter overlap (Grade 1B). For patients receiving VKAs at the time of diagnosis of HIT, we recommend use of vitamin K (10 mg po or 5 to 10 mg IV) [Grade 1C].

The management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

The Haemostasis and Thrombosis Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology has produced a concise practical guideline to highlight the key issues in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) for the practicing physician in the UK. The guideline is evidence-based and levels of evidence are included in the body of the article. All patients who are to receive heparin of any sort should have a platelet count on the day of starting treatment. For patients who have been exposed to heparin in the last 100 d, a baseline platelet count and a platelet count 24 h after starting heparin should be obtained. For all patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH), alternate day platelet counts should be performed from days 4 to 14. For surgical and medical patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) platelet counts should be performed every 2-4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving treatment doses of LMWH should have platelet counts performed every 2-4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving prophylactic LMWH are at low risk and do not need routine platelet monitoring. If the platelet count falls by 50% or more, or falls below the laboratory normal range and/or the patient develops new thrombosis or skin allergy between days 4 and 14 of heparin administration HIT should be considered and a clinical assessment made. If the pretest probability of HIT is high, heparin should be stopped and an alternative anticoagulant started at full dosage unless there are significant contraindications while laboratory tests are performed. Platelet activation assays using washed platelets have a higher sensitivity than platelet aggregation assays but are technically demanding and their use should be restricted to laboratories experienced in the technique. Non-expert laboratories should use an antigen-based assay of high sensitivity. Only IgG class antibodies need to be measured. Useful information is gained by reporting the actual optical density, inhibition by high concentrations of heparin, and the cut-off value for a positive test rather than simply reporting the test as positive or negative. In making a diagnosis of HIT the clinician's estimate of the pretest probability of HIT together with the type of assay used and its quantitative result (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, only) should be used to determine the overall probability of HIT. Clinical decisions should be made following consideration of the risks and benefits of treatment with an alternative anticoagulant. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, heparin should be stopped and full-dose anticoagulation with an alternative, such as lepirudin or danaparoid, commenced (in the absence of a significant contraindication). Warfarin should not be used until the platelet count has recovered. When introduced in combination with warfarin, an alternative anticoagulant must be continued until the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is therapeutic for two consecutive days. Platelets should not be given for prophylaxis. Lepirudin, at doses adjusted to achieve an activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) ratio of 1.5-2.5, reduces the risk of reaching the composite endpoint of limb amputation, death or new thrombosis in patients with HIT and HIT with thrombosis (HITT). The risk of major haemorrhage is directly related to the APTT ratio, lepirudin levels and serum creatinine levels. The patient's renal function needs to be taken into careful consideration before treatment with lepirudin is commenced. Severe anaphylaxis occurs rarely in recipients of lepirudin and is more common in previously exposed patients. Danaparoid in a high-dose regimen is equivalent to lepirudin in the treatment of HIT and HITT. Danaparoid at prophylactic doses is not recommended for the treatment of HIT or HITT. Patients with previous HIT who are antibody negative (usually so after >100 d) who require cardiac surgery should receive intraoperative UFH in preference to other anticoagulants that are less validated for this purpose. Pre- and postoperative anticoagulation should be with an anticoagulant other than UFH or LMWH. Patients with recent or active HIT should have the need for surgery reviewed and delayed until the patient is antibody negative if possible. They should then proceed as above. If deemed appropriate early surgery should be carried out with an alternative anticoagulant. We recommend discussion of these complex cases requiring surgery with an experienced centre. The diagnosis must be clearly recorded in the patient's medical record.