ArticleHemaSphere
Higher Adherence to Treatment With Low-Molecular-Weight-Heparin Nadroparin Than Enoxaparin Because of Side Effects in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.
Article in HemaSphere. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Warfarin versus factor Xa inhibitors in the long-term treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis a single-center retrospective analysis.eNeurologicalSci · 2022Article
- Effect of 3 different anticoagulants on hidden blood loss during total hip arthroplasty after tranexamic acid.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight-heparins (LMWH) monotherapy for 3 to 6 months as first-line treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). In clinical practice, enoxaparin and nadroparin are common agents used. However, differences in therapy adherence between these LMWHs have never been reported. Therefore, our aim was to compare adherence to enoxaparin and nadroparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE. Consecutive patients with active cancer and objectively confirmed VTE, treated at a Dutch or a Spanish hospital, were followed during LMWH therapy with a maximum of 180 days. Cumulative incidences of discontinuation of both LMWHs were estimated and compared according to the Kaplan-Meier method, applying a competing risk analysis to correct for mortality. A total of 366 patients were analyzed during LMWH treatment, of whom 284 patients (78%) were treated with enoxaparin and 82 (22%) with nadroparin. The cumulative incidence of discontinuation of enoxaparin and nadroparin treatment because of side effects was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24-36) and 8.8% (95% CI 1.1-15), respectively. Competing risk analysis revealed a higher number of patients discontinuing enoxaparin due to side effects (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; 95% CI 1.06-7.2). Pain at the injection site was the most common reason of discontinuation in patients using enoxaparin, occurring in 32 patients, while it occurred in 1 patient using nadroparin (adjusted HR: 4.0; 95% CI 0.52-31). This analysis reveals that enoxaparin was associated with a higher risk of discontinuation because of side effects compared to nadroparin. However, given the nature of the patient groups, these findings should be followed by future studies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.