Investigations of the immunoglobulin subtype transformation of anti-heparin-platelet factor 4 antibodies during treatment with a low-molecular-weight heparin (clivarin) in orthopedic patients

Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization

BACKGROUND

Immobilization of the lower limb is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are anticoagulants, which might be used in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization to prevent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and its complications. This is an update of the review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization in an ambulatory setting.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register, CENTRAL, and three trials registers (April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that described thromboprophylaxis by means of LMWH compared with no prophylaxis or placebo in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization. Immobilization was by means of a plaster cast or brace.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The review authors contacted the trial authors for additional information if required. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs that fulfilled our criteria, with a total of 3680 participants. The quality of evidence, according GRADE, varied by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. We found an incidence of DVT ranging from 4.3% to 40% in patients who had a leg injury that had been immobilized in a plaster cast or a brace for at least one week, and who received no prophylaxis, or placebo. This number was significantly lower in patients who received daily subcutaneous injections of LMWH during immobilization, with event rates ranging from 0% to 37% (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.61; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 26%, P = 0.23; seven studies; 1676 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Comparable results were seen in the following groups of participants: patients with below-knee casts, conservatively treated patients (non-operated patients), operated patients, patients with fractures, patients with soft-tissue injuries, and patients with distal or proximal thrombosis. No clear differences were found between the LMWH and control groups for pulmonary embolism (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; with no evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 0%, P = 0.56; five studies, 2517 participants; low-quality evidence). The studies also showed less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups compared with the control groups (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.76; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity: I² = 16%, P = 0.31; six studies; 2924 participants; low-quality evidence). One death was reported in the included studies, but no deaths due to pulmonary embolism were reported. Complications of major adverse events were rare, with minor bleeding the main adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of LMWH in outpatients reduced DVT when immobilization of the lower limb was required, when compared with no prophylaxis or placebo. The quality of the evidence was reduced to moderate because of risk of selection and attrition bias in the included studies. Low-quality evidence showed no clear differences in PE between the LMWH and control groups, but less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision.

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population at higher risk.Although LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by harmful effects such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism in postoperative patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4) and trials registries. The authors searched Lilacs (June 2016) and additional trials were sought from reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were postoperative patients allocated to receive prophylaxis with UFH or LMWH, in a blinded or unblinded fashion. Studies were excluded if they did not use the accepted definition of HIT. This was defined as a relative reduction in the platelet count of 50% or greater from the postoperative peak (even if the platelet count at its lowest remained greater than 150 x 10⁹/L) occurring within five to 14 days after the surgery, with or without a thrombotic event occurring in this timeframe. Additionally, we required circulating antibodies associated with the syndrome to have been investigated through laboratory assays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with participation of a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included three trials involving 1398 postoperative participants. Participants were submitted to general surgical procedures, minor and major, and the minimum mean age was 49 years. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of HIT with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.73); low-quality evidence. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 59. The risk of HIT was consistently reduced comparing participants undergoing major surgical procedures exposed to LMWH or UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75); low-quality evidence. The occurrence of HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism was significantly lower in participants receiving LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.84); low-quality evidence. The NNTB was 75. Arterial thrombosis occurred in only one participant who received UFH. There were no amputations or deaths documented. Although limited evidence is available, it appears that HIT induced by both types of heparins is common in people undergoing major surgical procedures (incidence greater than 1% and less than 10%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review demonstrated low-quality evidence of a lower incidence of HIT, and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism, in postoperative patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with UFH. Similarily, the risk of HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures was lower when treated with LMWH compared to UFH (low-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to concerns about the risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the study results. These findings may support current clinical use of LMWH over UFH as front-line heparin therapy. However, our conclusions are limited and there was an unexpected paucity of RCTs including HIT as an outcome. To address the scarcity of clinically-relevant information on HIT, HIT must be included as a core harmful outcome in future RCTs of heparin.

Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-leg immobilization

BACKGROUND

Immobilization of the lower leg is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is an anticoagulant treatment which might be used in adult patients with lower-leg immobilization to prevent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and its complications. This is an update of the review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-leg immobilization in an ambulant setting.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched June 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that described thromboprophylaxis by means of LMWH compared with no prophylaxis or placebo in adult patients with lower-leg immobilization. Immobilization was by means of a plaster cast or brace.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors contacted the trial authors for additional information if required. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan 5).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs fulfilling the above criteria with a total of 1490 patients. We found an incidence of VTE ranging from 4.3% to 40% in patients who had a leg injury that had been immobilized in a plaster cast or a brace for at least one week and who received no prophylaxis, or placebo. This number was significantly lower in patients who received daily subcutaneous injections of LMWH during immobilization (event rates ranging from 0% to 37%; odds ratio (OR) 0.49; fixed 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.72; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity with an I(2) of 20%, P = 0. 29). Comparable results were seen in the following subcategories: operated patients, conservatively treated patients, patients with fractures, patients with soft-tissue injuries, patients with proximal thrombosis, patients with distal thrombosis and patients with below-knee casts. Complications of major bleeding events were extremely rare (0.3%) and there were no reports of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of LMWH in outpatients significantly reduces VTE when immobilization of the lower leg is required.

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin for avoiding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a poorly understood paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population presenting a higher risk.Although LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by adverse reactions such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH specifically on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the incidence of HIT and HIT complicated by thrombosis in patients exposed to UFH versus LMWH in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of postoperative heparin therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (March 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 2). In addition, the authors searched LILACS (March 2012) and additional trials were sought from reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We were interested in comparing the incidence of HIT occurring during exposure to UFH or LMWH after any surgical intervention. Therefore, we studied RCTs in which participants were postoperative patients allocated to receive UFH or LMWH, in a blinded or unblinded fashion. Eligible studies were required to have as an outcome clinically diagnosed HIT, defined as a relative reduction in the platelet count of 50% or greater from the postoperative peak (even if the platelet count at its lowest remained > 150 x 10(9)/L) occurring within five to 14 days after the surgery, with or without a thrombotic event occurring in this timeframe. Additionally, circulating antibodies associated with the syndrome were required to have been investigated through laboratory assays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with participation of a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

In total two studies involving 923 participants met all the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk of HIT with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.82; P = 0.02). This result suggests that patients treated with LMWH would have a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 76% in the probability of developing HIT compared with patients treated with UFH.Venous thromboembolism (VTE) complicating HIT occurred in 12 of 17 patients who developed HIT. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in HIT complicated by VTE with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.90; P = 0.04). This result indicates that patients using LMWH would have a RRR of 80% for developing HIT complicated by VTE compared with patients using UFH. Arterial thrombosis occurred in only one patient who received UFH and there were no amputations or deaths documented.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a lower incidence of HIT and HIT complicated by VTE in postoperative patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with UFH. This is consistent with the current clinical use of LMWH over UFH as front-line heparin therapy. However, conclusions are limited by a scarcity of high quality evidence. We did not expect the paucity of RCTs including HIT as an outcome as heparin is one of the most commonly used drugs worldwide and HIT is a life-threatening adverse drug reaction. To address the scarcity of clinically-relevant information on the topic of HIT as a whole, HIT should be included as an outcome in future RCTs of heparin, and HIT as an adverse drug reaction should be considered in clinical recommendations regarding monitoring of the platelet count for HIT.

Assessment of HIT antibody complex in hip fracture patients receiving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin

Thromboembolic disease is a common complication of hip fracture in the elderly. Anticoagulants represent a standard of care in preventing postoperative thrombotic complications following surgical fixation. We asked whether levels of antibody to heparin-platelet factor 4 (PF4) complex were differentially present in unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus Enoxaparin, following hip fracture and whether one particular subtype of antibodies was more prevalent. Plasma samples from elderly patients sustaining a hip fracture treated with either enoxaparin or UFH were collected pre- and postoperatively and analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) sandwich method for the prevalence of antiheparin-PF4 antibodies and later subtyped. The prevalence of antiheparin-PF4 antibodies was higher in the UFH group especially on postoperative day 7. Patients treated with UFH showed a greater prevalence of antiheparin-PF4 antibodies and a greater prevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) subtype. Heparin and enoxaparin are capable of generating heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibodies in elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery but perhaps not to the same extent. When comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with UFH, the incidence of new antiheparin-PF4 antibody production is higher in patients treated with UFH.

Unfractionated heparin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin as related to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a severe side effect of treatment with unfractionated heparin. The relation of low-molecular-weight heparin to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is less well understood. This review will summarize what is known about the similarities and differences between thrombocytopenia induced by low-molecular-weight heparin and that induced by unfractionated heparin.

RECENT FINDINGS

The pathophysiology of unfractionated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, caused by the development of antibodies to heparin/platelet factor 4 complexes, holds true for low-molecular-weight heparin because the molecules of the latter are of the same saccharidic structure as those of unfractionated heparin. Owing to their smaller size, however, low-molecular-weight heparin does not interact with platelet factor 4 and platelets as efficiently as does unfractionated heparin. This translates to a two- to threefold lower risk of immune sensitization (antibody generation and occurrence of clinical heparin-induced thrombocytopenia). Low-molecular-weight heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies are more often immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin M, in contrast to the immunoglobulin G antibodies generated with unfractionated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, which tend to be more often associated with clinical heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The clinical expression of low-molecular-weight heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is generally similar to that of unfractionated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia but can have a slower onset, more severe thrombocytopenia, and slower platelet count recovery. Given that low-molecular-weight heparin, of itself, is linked with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia pathophysiology and it can interact with most preexisting heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies generated after exposure to unfractionated heparin, treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia patients with low-molecular-weight heparin is contraindicated.

SUMMARY

The risk of the development of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with low-molecular-weight heparin treatment is reduced relative to the frequency of unfractionated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, but it is not eliminated, and platelet counts should be monitored with treatment.

Diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin use is ubiquitous, wherein 1 to 5% of patients exposed to standard unfractionated heparin develop thrombocytopenia due to antibodies to a complex of heparin and platelet factor 4. Classic features include onset of thrombocytopenia after 5 to 10 days of ongoing heparin exposure, a 50% fall in the platelet count from baseline, resolution of the thrombocytopenia 5 to 10 days after cessation of heparin and a high risk of thrombosis noted in 30 to 75% of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in terms of every-other-day platelet-count monitoring in patients on standard unfractionated heparin. And those patients developing thrombocytopenia necessitate an accurate, readily accessible diagnostic test for HIT. Diagnosis has been recently facilitated by the development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test for the heparin-P4 antibody complex, although this test carries a relatively low specificity. Widespread use of the ELISA demonstrates a relatively high prevalence of the antibody in patients exposed to heparin in certain settings, such as cardiopulmonary bypass, wherein a quarter of patients have a positive ELISA of unclear significance. Once HIT is diagnosed, the high risk of thrombosis necessitates empiric anticoagulation with an antithrombin such as argatroban or lepirudin, or the heparinoid danaparoid. Additional agents under further study include the antithrombin bivalirudin and the pentasaccharide fondaparinux. Future issues in HIT include increasing awareness for HIT, improving the specificity of HIT testing and the development of new anticoagulants for HIT that will enable out-patient management.