Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drugs
Published in: Drugs 13/2004

01-07-2004 | Adis Drug Evaluation

Tinzaparin Sodium

A Review of its Pharmacology and Clinical Use in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Thromboembolic Disease

Authors: Susan M. Cheer, Christopher J. Dunn, Rachel Foster

Published in: Drugs | Issue 13/2004

Login to get access

Summary

Abstract

Tinzaparin sodium (tinzaparin; innohep®) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) formed by the enzymatic degradation of porcine unfractionated heparin (UFH).
In clinical trials, once-daily subcutaneous (SC) tinzaparin was effective and generally well tolerated in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disease. SC tinzaparin 75 anti-Xa IU/kg/day showed similar thromboprophylactic efficacy to adjusted-dosage oral warfarin in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty; in patients undergoing knee replacement, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was significantly lower with tinzaparin. The drug had similar efficacy to equivalent-dosage SC enoxaparin sodium in orthopaedic surgery. In patients undergoing general surgery, SC tinzaparin 3500 anti-Xa IU/day was of equivalent thromboprophylactic efficacy to SC UFH 5000IU twice daily. Encouraging preliminary results have been obtained with tinzaparin in the prevention of DVT in patients with complete motor paralysis. In the initial treatment of acute proximal DVT and pulmonary embolism, SC tinzaparin 175 anti-Xa IU/kg/day was at least as effective as adjusted-dosage intravenous (IV) UFH. In the outpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism, tinzaparin has demonstrated similar efficacy to dalteparin sodium (dalteparin) and warfarin. Tinzaparin was effective in preventing clotting in haemodialysis circuits; the anticoagulant efficacy of tinzaparin in patients undergoing haemodialysis was similar to that of SC dalteparin and similar to or less than (although in this case the tinzaparin dose was too low for sufficient anticoagulant efficacy) that of IV UFH.
Advantages of tinzaparin over UFH and warfarin include ease of administration and lack of need for laboratory monitoring. Tinzaparin is more cost effective than UFH in the treatment of established thromboembolic disease, and homebased treatment with tinzaparin may offer greater cost benefits than hospitalbased therapy. Tinzaparin is well tolerated, including in elderly patients and those with renal impairment receiving long-term treatment. Incidences of major bleeding complications were low and reports of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia were infrequent in clinical studies. In conclusion, tinzaparin is a valuable LMWH in the prophylaxis and management of thromboembolic disease.

Pharmacological Properties

Subcutaneous (SC) tinzaparin sodium (tinzaparin) increases anti-factor Xa and anti-factor IIa activities in plasma in a dose-related fashion. Tinzaparin stimulates the release of tissue factor pathway inhibitor, which contributes to the anticoagulant, and possibly the anti-tumour activities, of tinzaparin. Plasma antithrombin levels and platelet counts are not affected to a clinically significant extent by tinzaparin.
The absorption half-life of single-dose SC tinzaparin in terms of anti-factor Xa activity was 200–248 minutes in healthy volunteers, and the bioavailability of the drug is 87–90%. However, the pharmacokinetics of tinzaparin are subject to wide interindividual variability. Elimination is predominately by renal filtration. Clearance of tinzaparin may be reduced in patients with severe renal impairment. The pharmacokinetics of tinzaparin are not affected by bodyweight or body mass index when the drug is administered at 75 or 175 anti-Xa IU/kg.

Therapeutic Efficacy

Use in Thromboprophylaxis: Prophylactic dosages of SC tinzaparin were superior to placebo and intravenous (IV) dextran in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Efficacy tended to be greater with higher dosages of tinzaparin (approximately 75 anti-Xa IU/kg) than with lower dosages (approximately 50 anti-Xa IU/kg).
In a study of 1207 patients, SC tinzaparin 75 anti-Xa IU/kg once daily was of similar thromboprophylactic efficacy to adjusted-dosage oral warfarin when given for 14 days to patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, but the incidence of DVT was significantly lower with tinzaparin than with warfarin in patients receiving knee replacement. Tinzaparin 4500 anti-Xa IU/day was of equivalent antithrombotic efficacy to enoxaparin sodium (enoxaparin) 40 mg/day; both low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) were given as single daily SC injections in 440 patients undergoing total hip replacement.
Seven to ten days prophylaxis with SC tinzaparin 3500 anti-Xa IU once daily or SC unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000IU twice daily was of equivalent efficacy and superior to tinzaparin 2500 anti-Xa IU once daily in a double-blind study in 1290 patients undergoing general surgery. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with tinzaparin for up to an additional 28 days maintains, and may even improve on, short-term efficacy in terms of DVT reduction. The thromboprophylactic efficacy of tinzaparin has been further demonstrated in small studies in patients with motor paralysis.
Treatment of Established Venous Thromboembolic Disease: SC tinzaparin 175 anti-Xa IU/kg/day for approximately 5–7 days was at least as effective as adjusted-dosage IV UFH in the initial management of 432 patients with acute proximal DVT in one study, and in 812 patients with pulmonary embolism in two other studies. Preliminary data indicate that tinzaparin (175 anti-Xa IU/kg/day or dosage not stated) is as effective as SC dalteparin sodium (200 anti-Xa IU/kg/day) or long-term oral warfarin in the outpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism, and suggests that home treatment with an LMWH is well accepted by patients. Analyses of hospital costs from the perspective of healthcare or third party payers have indicated cost advantages with SC tinzaparin relative to IV adjusted-dosage UFH in the treatment of established thromboembolic disease. Costs may be further reduced with outpatient treatment with tinzaparin in this patient group.
Use in Haemodialysis: Tinzaparin was effective in the maintenance of patency of haemodialysis circuits, with additional benefits compared with UFH in terms of improvements in patients’ lipid metabolism, especially over the long term. Tinzaparin 3000–4500 anti-Xa IU was less effective than, or had similar efficacy to, IV adjusted-dose UFH in terms of clot formation in small crossover studies, although, in one study, the initial tinzaparin dose (3500 anti-Xa IU) was considered too low for sufficient anticoagulant effect. The anticoagulant efficacy of tinzaparin (mean 5024 anti-Xa IU/session) was similar to that of dalteparin (mean 5546 anti-Xa IU/session) in a randomised single-blind trial in 149 evaluable patients.

Tolerability

Major bleeding complications with SC tinzaparin are infrequent in clinical studies. There were no significant differences in incidence of postoperative bleeding between SC tinzaparin 2500 or 3500 anti-Xa IU daily or SC UFH 5000IU twice daily for thromboprophylaxis in 1290 patients (mean age 61 years) undergoing general surgery. In 1207 patients (mean age 66 years) undergoing orthopaedic surgery, rates of major bleeding over 14 days were 2.8% with SC tinzaparin 75 anti-Xa IU/kg/day and 1.2% with adjusted-dosage oral warfarin (p = 0.04). Incidences of major bleeding with SC tinzaparin 175 anti-Xa IU/kg once daily were either similar to or significantly lower (0.5% vs 5%; p = 0.006) than those with IV activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted UFH in patients with established VTE, including elderly individuals. Tinzaparin was well tolerated in patients undergoing haemodialysis; during long-term maintenance, the incidence of major or minor bleeding was similar with tinzaparin (mean 5024 anti-Xa IU) to that with dalteparin (mean 5546 anti-Xa IU). In patients with renal insufficiency relative to those with normal renal function, the incidence of bleeding events with tinzaparin appeared lower than that with UFH. The incidence of major bleeding (1.5%) in 200 very elderly patients (mean age 85.2 years) receiving tinzaparin (initial dosage 175 anti-Xa IU/kg) in an observational study was similar to that reported in clinical trials in younger patients.
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was rarely reported in clinical studies of tinzaparin (incidence approximately 1%). The drug appears well tolerated, with no evidence of placental transfer, in pregnant women. Effects of tinzaparin on liver function tests are transient and do not normally require cessation of therapy.
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Circulation 2003; 107: 14–8CrossRef
2.
Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest 2001 Jan; 119 (1 Suppl.): 132–175SCrossRef
3.
Hirsh J, Levine MN. Low molecular weight heparin. Blood 1992 Jan 1; 79: 1–17PubMed
4.
Morris TA. Heparin and low molecular weight heparin: background and pharmacology. Clin Chest Med 2003; 24: 39–47PubMedCrossRef
5.
Pineo GF, Hull RD. Low-molecular-weight heparin: prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Ann Rev Med 1997; 48: 79–91PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hull RD, Pineo GF, Valentine KA. Treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism. Sem Thromb Hemost 1998; 24 (5 Suppl. 1): 21–31
7.
Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Raschke R, et al. Heparin and lowmolecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing considerations, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest 1998 Nov; 114: 489–510CrossRef
8.
Boneu B. Low molecular weight heparins: are they superior to unfractionated heparins to prevent and to treat deep vein thrombosis? Thromb Res 2000; 100: 113–20CrossRef
9.
Neely JL, Carlson SS, Lenhart SE. Tinzaparin sodium: a lowmolecular-weight heparin. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002 Aug 1; 59(15): 1426–36PubMed
10.
Friedel HA, Balfour JA. Tinzaparin: a review of its pharmacology and clinical potential in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Drugs 1994; 48: 638–60PubMedCrossRef
11.
Barrowcliffe TW, Curtis AD, Johnson EA, et al. An international standard for low molecular weight heparin. Thromb Haemost 1988; 60(1): 1–7PubMed
12.
Tinzaparin sodium. European Parmacopoeia 2002; 4/e: 2040-1
13.
Matzsch T, Bergqvist D, Hedner U, et al. Effects of an enzymatically depolymerized heparin as compared with conventional heparin in healthy volunteers. Thromb Haemost 1987; 57(1): 97–101PubMed
14.
Matzsch T, Bergqvist D, Fredin H, et al. Influence of a low molecular weight heparin on the inhibition of factor Xa and thrombin in hip surgery. Thromb Res 1989; 56(4): 559–64PubMedCrossRef
15.
Fossler MJ, Barrett JS, Hainer JW, et al. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous and subcutaneous tinzaparin and heparin in healthy volunteers. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001 Sep 1; 58(17): 1614–21PubMed
16.
Hainer JW, Barrett JS, Assaid CA, et al. Dosing in heavyweight/obese patients with the LMWH, tinzaparin: a pharmacodynamic study. Thromb Haemost 2002 May; 87(5): 817–23PubMed
17.
Bara L, Planes A, Samama MM. Occurrence of thrombosis and haemorrhage, relationship with anti-Xa, anti-IIa activities, and D-dimer plasma levels in patients receiving a low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin or tinzaparin, to prevent deep vein thrombosis after hip surgery. Br J Haematol 1999; 104: 230–40PubMedCrossRef
18.
Leizorovicz A, Bara L, Samama MM, et al. Factor Xa inhibition: correlation between the plasma levels of anti-Xa activity and occurrence of thrombosis and haemorrhage. Haemostasis 1993 Mar; 23 Suppl. 1: 89–98PubMed
19.
Planès A, Samama MM, Lensing AWA, et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement: comparison between two low-molecular-weight heparins, tinzaparin and enoxaparin. Thromb Haemost 1999; 81: 22–5PubMed
20.
21.
Holst J, Lindblad B, Bergqvist D, et al. Protamine neutralization of intravenous and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin, logiparin): an experimental investigation in healthy volunteers. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 1994; 5(5): 795–803PubMedCrossRef
22.
Crowther MA, Berry LR, Monague PT, et al. Mechanism responsible for the failure of protamine to inactivate lowmolecular-weight heparin. Br J Haematol 2002; 116(1): 178–86PubMedCrossRef
23.
Mousa SA, Bozarth J, Barrett JS. Pharmacodynamic properties of the low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin: effect of molecular weight distribution on plasma tissue factor pathway inhibitor in healthy human subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 2003 Jul; 43(7): 727–34PubMed
24.
Gouin-Thibault I, Pautas E, Depasse F, et al. Heparin-releasable TFPI is not depleted after repeated injections of tinzaparin at therapeutic dosages for up to 30 days. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 1: 2694–5PubMedCrossRef
25.
Depasse F, Gonzalez de Suso MJ, Lagoutte I, et al. Comparative study of the pharmacokinetic profiles of two LMWHsbemiparin (3500 IU, anti-Xa) and tinzaparin (4500 IU, anti-Xa)-administered subcutaneously to healthy male volunteers. Thromb Res 2003 Jan 25; 109(2–3): 109–17PubMedCrossRef
26.
Valentin S, Ostergaard P, Kristensen H, et al. Synergism between full length TFPI and heparin: evidence for TFPI as an important factor for the antithrombotic activity of heparin. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 1992 Apr; 3: 221–2PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kristensen HI, Ostergaard PB, Nordfang O, et al. Effect of tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) in the HEPTEST assay and in an amidolytic anti factor Xa assay for LMW heparin. Thromb Haemost 1992; 68(3): 310–4PubMed
28.
Amirkhosravi A, Mousa SA, Amaya M, et al. Antimetastatic effect of tinzaparin, a low-molecular weight heparin. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 1: 1972–6PubMedCrossRef
29.
Sobel M, Adelman B. Characterization of platelet binding of heparins and other glycosaminoglycans. Thromb Res 1988; 50(6): 815–26PubMedCrossRef
30.
Padilla A, Gray E, Pepper DS, et al. Inhibition of thrombin generation by heparin and low molecular weight (LMW) heparins in the absence and presence of platelet factor 4 (PF4). Br J Haematol 1992 Oct; 82: 406–13PubMedCrossRef
31.
Fareed J, Walenga JM, Hoppensteadt D, et al. Biochemical and pharmacologic inequivalence of low molecular weight heparins. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1989; 556: 333–53PubMedCrossRef
32.
Mousa SA, Forsythe M, Walenga J, et al. Synergy between low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin and platelet GPIIb/IIIa antagonists, ReoPro and roxifiban in improving antiplatelet and anticoagulant efficacy. XVIIth Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis; 1999 Aug 14; Washington, DC
33.
Olivecrona T, Bengtsson-Olivecrona G, Ostergaard P, et al. New aspects on heparin and lipoprotein metabolism. Haemostasis 1993 Mar; 23 Suppl. 1: 150–60PubMed
34.
Liu G, Bengtsson-Olivecrona G, Ostergaard P, et al. Low-M(r) heparin is as potent as conventional heparin in releasing lipoprotein lipase, but is less effective in preventing hepatic clearance of the enzyme. Biochem J 1991; 273(3): 747–52PubMed
35.
Akiba T, Tachibana K, Ozawa K, et al. Long-term use of low molecular weight heparin ameliorates hyperlipidemia in patients in hemodialysis. ASAIO J 1992; 38(3): M326–30PubMedCrossRef
36.
Barrett JS, Gibiansky E, Hull RD, et al. Population pharmacodynamics in patients receiving tinzaparin for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 Oct; 39(10): 431–46PubMed
37.
Pedersen PC, Ostergaard PB, Hedner U, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a low molecular weight heparin, logiparin, after intravenous and subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers. Thromb Res 1991; 61(5–6): 477–87PubMedCrossRef
38.
Wolf H. Low-molecular-weight heparin. Med Clin North Am 1994 May; 78: 733–43PubMed
39.
Young E, Wells P, Holloway S, et al. Ex-vivo and in-vitro evidence that low molecular weight heparins exhibit less binding to plasma proteins than unfractionated heparin. Thromb Haemost 1994; 71(3): 300–4PubMed
40.
Brindley CJ, Taylor T, Diness V, et al. Relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tinzaparin (logiparin), a low molecular weight heparin, in dogs. Xenobiotica 1993 Jun; 23: 575–88PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bouchelouche PN, Ostergaard PB, Mortensen SA, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of a low molecular weight heparin (LHN-1, Novo), and conventional heparin after intravenous injection. Thromb Res 1986; Suppl. 6: 89
42.
Pharmion Corporation. Innohep® (tinzaparin sodium injection). Boulder (CO): Pharmion Corporation, 2003
43.
Hainer JW, Sherrard DJ, Swan SK, et al. Intravenous and subcutaneous weight-based dosing of the low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin (Innohep) in end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002 Sep; 40(3): 531–8PubMedCrossRef
44.
Siguret V, Pautas E, Fevrier M, et al. Elderly patients treated with tinzaparin (Innohep) administered once daily (175 anti-Xa IU/kg): anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities over 10 days. Thromb Haemost 2000 Nov; 84(5): 800–4PubMed
45.
Nagge J, Crowther M, Hirsh J. Is impaired renal function a contraindication to the use of low-molecular-weight heparin? Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 2605–9PubMedCrossRef
46.
Smith MP, Norris LA, Steer PJ, et al. Tinzaparin sodium for thrombosis treatment and prevention during pregnancy. Am J Ostet Gynecol 2004; 190(2): 495–501CrossRef
47.
Lassen MR, Borris LC, Jensen HP, et al. Dose relation in the prevention of proximal vein thrombosis with a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) in elective hip arthroplasty. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2000 Jan; 6(1): 53–7PubMedCrossRef
48.
Lassen MR, Borris LC, Christiansen HM, et al. Prevention of thromboembolism in 190 hip arthroplasties: comparison of LMW heparin and placebo. Acta Orthop Scand 1991 Feb; 62: 33–8PubMedCrossRef
49.
Mätzsch T, Berqvist D, Fredin H, et al. Comparison of the throboprophylactic effect of a low molecular weight heparin versus dextran in total hip replacement. Thromb Haemorrhagic Disord 1991; 3: 25–9
50.
Leizorovicz A, Picolet H, Peyrieux JC, et al. Prevention of perioperative deep vein thrombosis in general surgery: a multicentre double blind study comparing two doses of Logiparin and standard heparin. Br J Surg 1991; 78(4): 412–6CrossRef
51.
Lausen I, Jensen R, Jorgensen LN, et al. Incidence and prevention of deep venous thrombosis occurring late after general surgery: randomised controlled study of prolonged thromboprophylaxis. Eur J Surg 1998; 164(9): 657–63PubMedCrossRef
52.
Bergqvist D, Flordal PA, Friberg B, et al. Thromboprophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) in emergency abdominal surgery: a double-blind multicenter trial. Vasa 1996; 25(2): 156–60PubMed
53.
Hull R, Raskob G, Pineo G, et al. A comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with warfarin sodium for prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. N Engl J Med 1993 Nov 4; 329: 1370–6PubMedCrossRef
54.
Mätzsch T, Berqvist D, Fredin H, et al. Low molecular weight heparin compared with dextran as prophylaxis against thrombosis after total hip replacement. Acta Chirurg Scand 1990; 156: 445–50
55.
Jørgensen LN, Lausen I, Morten S, et al. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) following major general surgery: an individual patient data meta-analysis [abstract no. 1952]. Blood 2002; 100 (11 Pt 1): 501aCrossRef
56.
Green D, Lee MY, Lim AC, et al. Prevention of thromboembolism after spinal cord injury using low-molecular-weight heparin. Ann Intern Med 1990 Oct 15; 113: 571–4PubMed
57.
Green D, Chen D, Chmiel JS, et al. Prevention of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury: role of low molecular weight heparin. Arch Phys Med Rahabil 1994; 75: 290–2CrossRef
58.
Jorgensen PS, Warming T, Hansen K, et al. Low molecular weight heparin (Innohep) as thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with a plaster cast: a venografic controlled study. Thromb Res 2002 Mar 15; 105(6): 477–80PubMedCrossRef
59.
Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, et al. Subcutaneous lowmolecular-weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1992 Apr 9; 326: 975–82PubMedCrossRef
60.
Pineo GF, Hull RD, Raskob GE, et al. Decreased mortality in cancer patients treated for proximal deep vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin as compared with unfractionated heparin [abstract no. OC-1566]. Thromb Haemost 1997 Jun 6; Suppl.: 384
61.
Hull R, Pineo GF, Mah AF, et al. A randomized trial evaluating long-term low-molecular-weight heparin therapy for three months vs. intravenous heparin followed by warfarin sodium in patients with current cancer [abstract]. J Thromb Haemostasis 2003; 1 Suppl. 1: P1373a
62.
Hull RD, Raskob GE, Brant RF, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin vs heparin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2000 Jan 24; 160: 229–36PubMedCrossRef
63.
Simonneau G, Sors H, Charbonnier B, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 663–9PubMedCrossRef
64.
Kovacs MJ, Wells PS, Rodger M, et al. A randomised trial comparing two low molecular weight heparins for the outpatient treatment of DVT or PE [abstract no. 1116]. Blood 2001 Nov 16; 98 (Pt 1): 265–6
65.
Hull RD, Pineo GF, Mah AF, et al. Home-lite: safety and efficacy results for a study investigating the long-term out-of-hospital treatment of patients with proximal venous thrombosis using subcutaneous low-molecular-weigh heparin versus warfarin [abstract no. OC1647]. 18th Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis; 2001 Jul 6–12; Paris
66.
Pineo GF, Hull RD, Mah AF, et al. Does rebounding exist? A comparison of venous thromboembolic event rates in the posttreatment period for patients randomised to long-term lowmolecular-weight heparin vs warfarin sodium [abstract no. P1882]. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 1 Suppl.: 384CrossRef
67.
Hull RD, Pineo GF, Raskob GE. The economic impact of treating deep vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin: outcome of therapy and health economy aspects: lowmolecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin. Haemostasis 1998 Nov; 28: 8–16PubMed
68.
Rose P, Bell D, Green ES, et al. The outcome of ambulatory DVT management using a multidisciplinary approach. Clin Lab Haematol 2001 Oct; 23(5): 301–6PubMedCrossRef
69.
Lapidus L, Borretzen J, Fahlen M, et al. Home treatment of deep vein thrombosis. An out-patient treatment model with once-daily injection of low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin) in 555 patients. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2002 Mar; 32(2): 59–66
70.
Lim AY, Par DG, Stableforth DE, et al. Early discharge and home supervision of patients with pulmonary embolism treated with low molecular weight heparin. Eur J Intern Med 2003; 14(2): 89–93PubMedCrossRef
71.
Harrison L, McGinnis J, Crowther M, et al. Assessment of outpatient treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158(18): 2001–3PubMedCrossRef
72.
Simpson HKL, Baird J, Allison M, et al. Long-term use of the low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin in haemodialysis. Haemostasis 1996; 26: 90–7PubMed
73.
Egfjord M, Rosenlund L, Hedegaard B, et al. Dose titration study of tinzaparin, a low molecular weight heparin, in patients on chronic hemodialysis. Artif Organs 1998; 22: 633–7PubMedCrossRef
74.
Ryan KE, Lane DA, Flynn A, et al. Dose finding study of low molecular weight heparin, innohep, in haemodialysis. Thromb Haemost 1991; 66: 277–82PubMed
75.
Koutsikos D, Fourtounas C, Kapetanaki A, et al. A cross-over study of a new low molecular weight heparin (Logiparin®) in hemodialysis. Int J Artif Organs 1996; 19: 467–71PubMed
76.
Lord H, Jean N, Dumont M, et al. Comparison between tinzaparin and standard heparin for chronic hemodialysis in a Canadian center. Am J Nephrol 2002; 22(1): 58–66PubMedCrossRef
77.
Beijering RJR, ten Cate H, Stevens P, et al. Randomised longterm comparison of tinzaparin and dalteparin in haemodialysis. Clin Drug Invest 2003; 23(2): 85–97CrossRef
78.
Elisaf MS, Germanos NP, Bairaktari HT, et al. Effects of conventional vs. low-molecular-weight heparin on lipid profile in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 1997; 17: 153–7
79.
Caro JJ, Getsios D, Caro I, et al. Cost effectiveness of tinzaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20(9): 593–602PubMedCrossRef
80.
Hull RD, Raskob GE, Rosenbloom D, et al. Treatment of proximal vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecularweight heparin vs intravenous heparin: an economic perspective. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 289–94PubMedCrossRef
81.
Hoffmeyer U, Lewis D, Minhas N, et al. Economic evaluation of the use of Innohep in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism. J Med Econ 1998; 1: 148–62CrossRef
82.
Valette F, Hoffmeyer U, Lloyd A. Economic evaluation of the use of tinzaparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Med Econ 1995; 8: 111–23
83.
Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, et al. Subcutaneous lowmolecular-weight heparin vs warfarin for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation: an economic perspective. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 298–303PubMedCrossRef
84.
Wimperis JZ, Pout G, Dilks G, et al. Significant bed savings resulting from outpatient management of DVT with LMWH [abstract no. 231]. Br J Haematol 1998 May; 101: 80
85.
Wade WE, Spruill WJ. Cost comparison of tinzaparin versus enoxaparin as deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in spinal cord injury: preliminary data. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2001 Dec; 12(8): 619–25PubMedCrossRef
86.
Strauss WE, Cain VA, Assaid CA, et al. Risk of bleeding events with tinzaparin or unfractionated heparin used as treatment for venous thromboembolic disease in patients with renal insufficiency [abstract no. P2331]. 18th Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis; 2001 Jul 6–12; Paris
87.
Pautas E, Gouin I, Bellot O, et al. Safety profile of tinzaparin administered once daily at a standard curative dose in two hundred very elderly patients. Drug Saf 2002; 25(10): 725–33PubMedCrossRef
88.
Christiansen HM, Rudlassen M, Borris LC, et al. Biological tolerance of logiparin, a low molecular weight heparin used in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Semin Thromb Hemost 1991; 17 Suppl. 2: 224–7PubMed
89.
Christiansen HM, Lassen MR, Borris LC, et al. Biologic tolerance of two different low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost 1991; 17(4): 450–4PubMedCrossRef
90.
Dalsgaard J. Treatment of venous thromboembolism with tinzaparin during pregnancy [abstract no. ER075]. Ann Hematol 1999; 78 Suppl. 1: A3
91.
Jørgensen M, Landorph A, Dalsgaard Nielsen J. The low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin, is effective and safe as thromboembolic prophylaxis during pregnancy [abstract no. O44]. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2002; 32 Suppl. 2: 49
92.
93.
Leo Pharma Inc.. Product monograph innohep (tinzaparin sodium injection) anticoagulant/antithrombotic agent [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​leopharma.​ca [Accessed 2004 Jun 8]
94.
95.
96.
Turkstra F, Koopman MMW, Büller HR. The treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 1997; 78: 489–96PubMed
97.
98.
Hyers TM, Agnelli G, Hull RD, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease. Chest 2001; 119: 176–193SCrossRef
99.
White RH, Ginsberg JS. Low-molecular-weight heparins: are they all the same? Br J Haematol 2003 Apr; 121(1): 12–20PubMedCrossRef
100.
Wade WE, Martin BC, Kotzan JA, et al. Formulary management of low molecular weight heparins. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 1–12PubMedCrossRef
101.
US Renal Data System. USDRS annual data report. National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​usrds.​org/​ [Accessed 2004 Jun 11]
Metadata
Title
Tinzaparin Sodium
A Review of its Pharmacology and Clinical Use in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Thromboembolic Disease
Authors
Susan M. Cheer
Christopher J. Dunn
Rachel Foster
Publication date
01-07-2004
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drugs / Issue 13/2004
Print ISSN: 0012-6667
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1950
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200464130-00006

Other articles of this Issue 13/2004

Drugs 13/2004 Go to the issue

Therapy in Practice

Achieving Euglycaemia in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Review Article

Pramlintide for the Treatment of Insulin-Requiring Diabetes Mellitus

Adis Drug Evaluation

Cefdinir

Leading Article

Pharmacotherapies for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

Adis Drug Evaluation

Adapalene