Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7712662›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics1995

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of the treatment of embolic disorders.

D M Lutomski, M Bottorff, K Sangha

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D M LutomskiDepartment of Pharmacy Services, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Ohio, USA.
M Bottorff
K Sangha
University of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Management of thromboembolic disease involves administration of anticoagulants, thrombolytics or antiplatelet agents to lyse or prevent thrombus extension. Despite widespread use and decades of experience with some of these agents, much is unknown about the effects of dose and plasma concentration on patient response. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) improves outcome in many thromboembolic disorders when administered to a target activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) or plasma heparin concentration. UFH exhibits dose-dependency both with absorption from subcutaneous sites and elimination. Doses based on bodyweight or estimated blood volume attain therapeutic aPTTs faster than fixed or standard doses. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) were developed to increase the anti-factor Xa:anti-factor IIa activities. Several different LMWHs are as effective as UFH in treating deep venous thrombosis. Evidence fails to support a relationship between anti-factor Xa activity and either thrombosis evolution or bleeding. No comparisons have been made between bodyweight-based and anti-factor Xa activity-based doses. The dose of orally administered warfarin is adjusted to achieve a target International Normalised Ratio (INR). Maintenance doses are estimated on the basis of the patient's INR during the first 3 days of therapy: the dose required to achieve an optimal INR decreases with age > 50 years. The thrombolytic agents are administered in standard doses to achieve rapid thrombolysis with minimal alteration in systemic haemostasis. Accelerated intravenous alteplase may result in the highest rate of coronary artery reperfusion. Nevertheless, standard doses of streptokinase, anisoylated plasminogen streptokinase complex and alteplase result in similar 1-month mortality rates. The minimal advantage seen with alteplase is offset by higher rates of stroke. Future trials will focus on administration strategies achieving rapid thrombolysis, while minimising the risk of serious bleeding. With the antiplatelet agents, unpredictability in the pharmacokinetic parameters of different products has confounded interpretation of published reports. Optimal aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) administration would include administration of an initial dose of 160 to 325mg after an acute vascular event, followed by maintenance dosages of approximately 75 mg/day for prophylaxis or treatment. Ticlopidine does not exhibit a relationship between either plasma concentration or dose and adverse effects, while pharmacodynamic effects may be dose-, but not plasma concentration-, dependent. The correlation between the concentration of dipyridamole and some of its antiplatelet effects may be the strongest amongst all the antiplatelet agents. However, unfortunately all clinical trials used standard doses and the current consensus is that dipyridamole alone is not an effective antiplatelet agent.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsClinical Trials as TopicDipyridamoleFibrinolytic AgentsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsThromboembolismTiclopidineWarfarinAnticoagulantsDipyridamoleFibrinolytic AgentsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTiclopidineWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID7712662
OpenAlexW2044276480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.