ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2025
A Clinical Practice-Based Comparison of Conventional and Individualized Dosing Strategies for Therapeutic Enoxaparin.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing Enoxaparin Dosing in Asian Patients: The Critical Role of Age and Renal Function in Achieving Target Anti-Xa Levels.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To understand differences in anti-factor-Xa levels produced by two different dosing strategies (conventional and individualized) for therapeutic enoxaparin in a cohort of hospital inpatients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study over a two- and a half-year period for inpatients with stable renal function and on therapeutic enoxaparin. Anti-factor-Xa levels were taken 3-5 h after enoxaparin administration and a minimum of 48 h of dosing. The final analysis included 278 patients from five hospitals: conventional dosing was used for 141, while 137 were given an unconventional dose, that is, individualized for their renal function and weight. Out-of-range levels were frequent (35% to 40% of all inpatients). After adjustment for age, renal function, and body mass index (BMI), the conventional group was more likely to experience above-range levels (> 1.0 IU/mL; OR 2.50 [95% CI 1.38-4.56], p < 0.003) than the individualized group. Individualized dosing was independently associated with higher odds of a below-range anti-Xa level (< 0.5 IU/mL) compared to conventional dosing (OR 2.27 [95% CI 1.07-4.76], p = 0.03). Within the conventional group, above-range levels were significantly and independently associated with decreasing renal function (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p = 0.004) and with increasing BMI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.10, p = 0.02). No such associations were seen with an individualized approach. Clinical event rates were low and not different between groups (p > 0.24). Conventional therapeutic dosing of enoxaparin exposed people with obesity or renal impairment to more frequent above-range anti-factor-Xa levels; individualizing the dose could improve this but might expose people to subtherapeutic levels. More research is needed.
Indexed as
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.