Why the study?
Does a direct thrombin inhibitor provide a more consistent anticoagulant response independent of antithrombin levels compared to low molecular weight heparin in plasma from children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and acquired antithrombin deficiency?
Does a direct thrombin inhibitor provide a more consistent anticoagulant response independent of antithrombin levels compared to low molecular weight heparin in plasma from children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and acquired antithrombin deficiency?
Direct thrombin inhibitors provide a consistent anticoagulant response independent of antithrombin levels in children with ALL and acquired AT deficiency, unlike LMWH.
Thrombosis occurs in 37% of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and is related to an L-asparaginase-induced acquired antithrombin (AT) deficiency. The incidence dictates the need for anticoagulant prophylaxis. Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI) are independent of AT for effect and may thus have advantages in this population. The objective of this study was to determine the interaction of an AT deficiency with the anticoagulant effects of a DTI and a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Plasma samples from children with ALL were pooled (mean AT 0.53 U/ml). LMWH 0.3 and 0.7 U/ml or melagatran 0.3 and 0.5 micromol/l were added to the pools, then divided and AT was added back to one aliquot. In additional experiments, AT was added to AT immuno-depleted plasma. Endogenous thrombin generation capacity (ETGC) was assessed by the continuous method. In plasma with LMWH, there was a 66-88% decrease in ETGC in AT-normalised samples compared with neat. Conversely, no significant difference in ETGC with or without AT added for melagatran was seen. Experiments with AT-depleted plasma showed no effect of AT level on anticoagulant activity of DTI, but a significant relationship for LMWH. By contrast to LMWH, DTI provides a consistent anticoagulant response independent of AT levels in children with AT deficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuhle et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: