Replies to post #62775 on Biotech Values

[stockbettor]

Thanks, at some point I expect to buy MNTA. I am just not sure how soon.

I went back and reviewed relatively recent abstracts, several of which assert that the incidence of HIT is greater with UFH than with LMWH. However, a metaanalysis of trials appears to confirm the Lovenox label info, FWIW.

1: Thromb Res. 2008 Feb 7. [Epub ahead of print] Links
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A stoichiometry-based model to explain the differing immunogenicities of unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and fondaparinux in different clinical settings.Greinacher A, Alban S, Omer-Adam MA, Weitschies W, Warkentin TE.
Institut für Immunologie und Transfusionsmedizin, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by platelet-activating antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complexes. The frequency of HIT is highly variable in different clinical settings, and is more frequent with unfractionated heparin (UFH) than with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite the in vitro observation that HIT antibodies activate platelets similarly well with LMWH as with UFH. An important difference between UFH, LMWH, and fondaparinux is their widely differing plasma concentrations. We aimed to provide a model that included anticoagulant concentrations and PF4 availability as risk factors influencing the anti-PF4/heparin immune response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By photon correlation spectroscopy we determined the concentrations at which UFH, LMWH, and fondaparinux form complexes optimally with PF4. Plasma concentrations of UFH and LMWH were calculated based on ex vivo pharmacokinetic data, with information on fondaparinux and PF4 concentrations taken from the literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The main features of our model are: optimal complex formation occurs at prophylactic-dose UFH and high PF4 levels, whereas therapeutic-dose LMWH concentrations are too high for optimal complex formation; in contrast, concentrations of fondaparinux are usually below the optimal stoichiometric range. Thus, immunization should occur more often in situations with major rather than minor platelet activation, and-for a given degree of platelet activation (PF4 availability)-as: prophylactic-dose UFH>therapeutic-dose UFH>prophylactic-dose LMWH, fondaparinux>therapeutic-dose LMWH. Our model provides a framework for explaining empirical observations that LMWH induces less anti-PF4/heparin antibodies than does UFH, and that anti-PF4/heparin antibodies are more often found in patients undergoing major surgery than in medical patients.

PMID: 18262226 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

1: Chest. 2007 Oct;132(4):1131-9. Epub 2007 Jul 23. Links

Comment in:
Chest. 2007 Oct;132(4):1108-10.
No difference in risk for thrombocytopenia during treatment of pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis with either low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin: a metaanalysis.Morris TA, Castrejon S, Devendra G, Gamst AC.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of San Diego, CA, USA. [e-mail]

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is a popular alternative to unfractionated heparin (UH) for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in part based on the perception of a lower risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). To investigate the evidence supporting this perception, we performed a metaanalysis to compare the incidence of thrombocytopenia between LMWH and UH during PE and/or DVT treatment. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing LMWH with UH for PE and/or DVT treatment were searched for in the MEDLINE database, bibliographies, and by correspondence with published investigators. Two reviewers independently selected high-quality studies and extracted data regarding heparin-associated thrombocytopenia (HAT), HIT confirmed by laboratory testing, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITT). Outcome rates between LMWH and UH were compared using a binomial, generalized linear mixed model with a logit link and Gaussian random effects for study. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 5,275 patients met inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in HAT rates between the two treatments (LMWH, 1.2%; UH, 1.5%; p = 0.246). The incidence of documented HIT and HITT was too low to make an adequate comparison between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our review disclosed no statistically significant difference in HAT between LMWH and UH and insufficient evidence to conclude that HIT and HITT rates were different between them. There was no evidence from randomized comparative trials to support the contention that patients receiving treatment for PE or DVT with UH are more prone to these complications than those receiving LMWH.

PMID: 17646239 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]