↓ Skip to main content

Pentasaccharides for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pentasaccharides for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011782.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo MS Brandao, Daniela R Junqueira, Hamilton A Rollo, Marcone L Sobreira

Abstract

Standard treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is based on antithrombotic therapy, initially with parenteral administration of unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for five to seven days, then subsequent long-term therapy with oral vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin). Pentasaccharides are novel anticoagulants that may be favourable over standard therapy due to their predictable effect, no need for frequent monitoring or re-dosing, and few known drug interactions. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a harmful effect of heparins, appears to be rare during treatment with pentasaccharides. To assess the efficacy and harms of pentasaccharides for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (22 March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2) (searched 22 March 2017). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies and the reference lists of relevant articles for additional citations. We included randomised controlled trials in which people 18 years of age or older with a DVT confirmed by standard imaging techniques were allocated to receive a pentasaccharide (fondaparinux, idraparinux, or idrabiotaparinux) for the treatment of DVT in comparison with standard therapy or other treatments. We extracted data characterising the included trials according to the methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and employed the GRADE methodology to evaluate the quality of the evidence.The main primary outcome for efficacy was recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the main primary outcome for harm was major and clinically relevant bleeding. Since our outcomes were dichotomous, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined the effects of different comparisons through a meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We included five randomised controlled trials of 6981 participants comparing pentasaccharides with standard therapy or other pentasaccharides. The quality of the evidence varied depending on the outcome and was judged as of moderate to very low quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to risk of bias or imprecision, or both.Two studies evaluated fondaparinux, at doses of 5.0 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10.0 mg, plus vitamin K antagonist in comparison with standard therapy. A meta-analysis of these two studies showed no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47; 2658 participants); moderate-quality evidence. The frequencies of major bleeding were similar between interventions in the initial period of treatment (approximately five days) (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.44; 2645 participants) and at three months' follow-up (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; 2645 participants). We judged the quality of the evidence as moderate.One study (757 participants) compared idrabiotaparinux (3.0 mg) with idraparinux (2.5 mg) and demonstrated no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE at six months' follow-up (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69); low-quality evidence. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. Major bleeding at six-month follow-up was less frequent in participants receiving idrabiotaparinux versus participants treated with idraparinux (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71); low-quality evidence.The effect of an initial treatment with LMWH followed by three months of idraparinux (10 mg) showed no clear difference from standard therapy for risk of recurrent VTE (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.90; 263 participants); very low-quality evidence; one study. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. The frequency of major and other clinically relevant bleeding at three months' follow-up ranged from 2% to 15% in participants receiving LMWH and increasing doses of idraparinux of 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, or 10 mg. When dosage groups were combined, there was no clear difference in major plus other clinically relevant bleeding or in major bleeding alone between the idraparinux treatment group and the standard therapy group (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.40; 659 participants; RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 28.19; 659 participants, respectively); very low-quality evidence.One study (2904 participants) compared idraparinux (2.5 mg) to standard therapy. There was no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE at three months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.48); low-quality evidence. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. Major bleeding at three months of follow-up appeared to be similar in the idraparinux group and the standard therapy group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47); very low-quality evidence. We found moderate-quality evidence that the effects of fondaparinux at doses of 5.0 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10.0 mg plus vitamin K antagonist are similar in terms of recurrent VTE and risk of major bleeding compared with standard treatment for DVT.Low-quality evidence suggests equal efficacy of idraparinux at 2.5 mg and the equimolar dose of 3.0 mg of idrabiotaparinux with regard to recurrent VTE, but a higher frequency of major bleeding was observed in participants treated with idraparinux.We judged evidence on the effectiveness of idraparinux compared with standard therapy, with or without initial treatment with LMWH, and on associated bleeding risk to be low to very low quality, therefore we have very limited confidence in the estimated effects.The observed similar effectiveness in terms of recurrent DVT and harmful effects in terms of bleeding risk with fondaparinux plus vitamin K antagonist compared to standard treatment for DVT suggest that it may be an alternative to conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of DVT in certain circumstances.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,890,527
of 13,494,252 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,550
of 10,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,950
of 388,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#112
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,494,252 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.