Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2015
Generic versus branded enoxaparin in prophylaxis and treatment of vein thrombosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Casella Ivan Benaduce, Puech-Leão Pedro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: to compare the biological efficacy of generic enoxaparin (HeptronTM) versus branded Sanofi-Aventis enoxaparin for prophylaxis and treatment of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in a prospective, randomized, open-label study.
METHODS: patients with diagnosed lower-extremity DVT (therapeutic branch, n=57) and patients requiring venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after arterial vascular surgery or major lower-extremity amputations (prophylactic branch, n=57) were randomized to receive generic or branded enoxaparin for up to seven days. Enoxaparin activity was measured by estimating blood anti-factor Xa levels at the peak plasma concentration. As secondary outcomes, development or progression of VTE events, major adverse events and major bleeding events were considered for efficacy and safety comparisons.
RESULTS: DVT therapy: twenty-five patients received generic enoxaparin while 32 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 1 mg/kg BID). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 62 ± 35.4% and 67.5 ± 24.7%, respectively (p= .035 for non-inferiority). No patient presented DVT progression, clinically detectable pulmonary embolism, or major bleeding events in any subgroup. DVT prophylaxis: Thirty patients received generic enoxaparin and 27 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 40 mg/day). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 77.9 ± 30.9% and 77.8 ± 32.9%, respectively (p = .009 for non-inferiority). There were no cases of VTE or major bleeding events in any subgroup.
CONCLUSION: generic and branded enoxaparins exhibited similar in vivo responses as measured by the anti-factor Xa activity, as well as similar clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.
METHODS: patients with diagnosed lower-extremity DVT (therapeutic branch, n=57) and patients requiring venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after arterial vascular surgery or major lower-extremity amputations (prophylactic branch, n=57) were randomized to receive generic or branded enoxaparin for up to seven days. Enoxaparin activity was measured by estimating blood anti-factor Xa levels at the peak plasma concentration. As secondary outcomes, development or progression of VTE events, major adverse events and major bleeding events were considered for efficacy and safety comparisons.
RESULTS: DVT therapy: twenty-five patients received generic enoxaparin while 32 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 1 mg/kg BID). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 62 ± 35.4% and 67.5 ± 24.7%, respectively (p= .035 for non-inferiority). No patient presented DVT progression, clinically detectable pulmonary embolism, or major bleeding events in any subgroup. DVT prophylaxis: Thirty patients received generic enoxaparin and 27 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 40 mg/day). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 77.9 ± 30.9% and 77.8 ± 32.9%, respectively (p = .009 for non-inferiority). There were no cases of VTE or major bleeding events in any subgroup.
CONCLUSION: generic and branded enoxaparins exhibited similar in vivo responses as measured by the anti-factor Xa activity, as well as similar clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.