Abstract
Purpose
Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are a group of heterogenous moieties, long used in the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. They derive from heparin and since they are prepared by different methods of depolymerization, they differ in pharmacokinetic properties and anticoagulant profiles, and thus are not clinically interchangeable.
Methods
In this review we provide an overview of tinzaparin's main characteristics and uses.
Results
Tinzaparin which is produced by the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be used for the treatment and prevention of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE); it has been also used in special populations such as elders, obese, pregnant women, and patients with renal impairment and/or cancer with favorable outcomes in both safety and efficacy, with a once daily dose regimen. Furthermore, LMWHs are extensively used in clinical practice for both thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis treatment of COVID-19 patients.
Conclusion
Tinzaparin features support the hypothesis for having a role in immunothrombosis treatment (i.e. in the context of cancer ,COVID-19), interfering not only with coagulation cascade but also exhibiting anti-inflammatory potency.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Tinzaparin sodium belongs to the family of heparinoids and more specifically to low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs). LMWHs are a group of heterogenous mixtures of oligosaccharides deriving from unfractionated heparin (UFH), produced by depolymerization. The method of depolymerization (chemical cleavage with different agents such as nitrous acid, isoamyl nitrate, alkaline treatment, or enzymatic treatment with heparinase) gives each agent specific chemical and pharmacological characteristics, resulting in differences in molecular weights (MWs), bioavailability, and indications for use [1].
Heparin is structurally like endogenous heparan sulfate (HS), which is involved in various biological procedures such as thrombosis, angiogenesis, inflammation, and tumor metastasis. That similarity concedes to UFH anti-inflammatory and anti-oncogenic properties [2].
Hemostasis, the process that leads to cessation of bleeding, involves a series of clotting factors’ activation (coagulation cascade) ultimately leading to the polymerization of fibrin and the formation of a clot with platelets and fibrin polymers. Extensive activation of this process leads to thrombosis, highlighting the importance of interim equipoise on the activation/inactivation of the cascade [3]. Very recently, close interactions between innate immunity, inflammation, and coagulation have also been described. The process, which is called immunothrombosis is an innate immune response in which the local activation of blood coagulation exerts a protective effect against microbes or trauma. Neutrophils recruitment and activation with subsequent NETosis (release of neutrophil extracellular traps), endothelial cell damage and activation, platelet activation and aggregation, and platelet direct interactions with innate immune cells (i.e., neutrophils) or secretion of cytokines/chemokines together with coagulation protease activation, all participate in the complex process of immunothrombosis. The key role of immunothrombosis in pathologic states including thrombosis, cancer, sepsis, and trauma has been also recognized [4].
LMWHs have been used in clinical practice for about half a century, since 1980s. Their main administration route is subcutaneously, and they are used both for prophylaxis and treatment of thrombosis [5]. The main indications of LMWHs are treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) with or without pulmonary embolism (PE) and prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery, coronary syndromes, and hemodialysis. Unlike UFH, their main elimination route is renal and as they convey a lower affinity for plasma proteins, demonstrating a more predictable bioavailability profile [6]. Tinzaparin sodium is a LMWH, produced by depolymerization via heparinase, an enzyme derived from Flavobacterium heparinum. It is available on the market in several forms of prefilled syringes and multi-dose vials for once daily administration according to product’s monograph, thus making the use more convenient. It is recommended for the treatment of DVT with or without PE, for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism and prevention of recurrences in adult patients with active cancer but also for VTE prophylaxis for both non-surgical immobilized patients (due to acute heart failure, acute respiratory failure, severe infections, active cancer, as well as exacerbation of rheumatic diseases) as well as in adult patients undergoing surgery, particularly orthopedic, general, or oncological surgery. It is also indicated for prevention of clotting in extracorporeal circuits during hemodialysis and hemofiltration in adults [6, 7] and in our knowledge, tinzaparin is widely used in various European countries, especially for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) [8,9,10].
The main characteristics of UFH and LMWHs, tinzaparin, enoxaparin, and dalteparin, are summarized in Table 1 and further analyzed in the main part of this review.
LMWHs interfere with the coagulation cascade (see Fig. 1) by enhancing the inhibitory effect of Antithrombin III (ATIII) mainly on activated factor X (FXa) and thrombin (FIIa), but also on activated FIX, and activated FXII by several orders of magnitude. LMWHs also influence the regulation of the tissue factor (TF) pathway by releasing the tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) from the endothelium, but also in part by inhibiting the generation and activity of FVIIa in an AT-dependent manner [19]. Differences in molecular weight result in differences in ATIII binding affinity affecting the subsequent half-life, anti-Xa, and anti-IIa activities of LMWHs. Furthermore, the release of endothelial tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) is directly dependent on the molecular weight and the degree of sulfation. Thus, different LMWHs demonstrate different capacity of releasing endothelial TFPI [20].
The aforementioned differences in PD profiles do not allow the interchangeable clinical use of LMWH [1, 21].
PK/PD
Enzymatic preparation of tinzaparin offers some advantages in its chemical composition. Being a “more natural” method, it is thought to cause less damage to the molecules while a high degree of sulfation of the chains is retained. This compound contains a range of short and long chains, with an average molecular weight (MW) of 6500 Da, greater than all other LMWHs available. The proportion of ultra-short chains of < 2000 Da does not exceed 10% [6, 22]. Barrett et al. conducted a study with tinzaparin and a tinzaparin-like agent with a higher proportion of short chains to estimate the pharmacodynamic changes and the importance of low molecular weight chains’ presence, without finding significant differences in anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities in vivo [21]. The longer chain lengths of tinzaparin seem to result in greater inhibition of factor IIa compared to LMWHs with shorter chains. Binding of LMWHs to AT depends on a unique, highly sulfated, five-residue sequence found in approximately 30% of heparin molecules. A longer average length of the chains in a LMWH preparation increases the probability that they will contain this pentasaccharide sequence, allowing them to exert the AT-dependent effects. The chains must consist of at least 18 saccharide units to have an anti-IIa activity. Molecules in a LMWH preparation that are less than 18 saccharide units in length are still able to inactivate factor Xa. However, they are too short to form the ternary complex that is required to inactivate thrombin. The combination of partial inactivation of thrombin (factor IIa, by the longer chains in the mixture) and the inactivation of factor Xa (an essential component in the formation of new thrombin) provide to tinzaparin an adequate anticoagulant effect [13].
In the past, the activity of LMWHs was sometimes expressed as an anti-Xa/anti-IIa ratio. Since tinzaparin has a higher anti-IIa activity, this is reflected in a lower anti-Xa/anti-IIa ratio. The anti-Xa/anti-IIa ratio of tinzaparin is 1.9, a ratio closer compared to other LMWHs to that of UFH (anti-Xa/anti-IIa ratio of UFH is 1.0) demonstrating a similar anti-Xa activity with other LMWHs but a higher anti-IIa activity [5, 7, 19].
TFPI represents an alternative natural anticoagulant mechanism (separate from the AT mechanism). The main function of TFPI is to eliminate from the clotting cascade the factor VIIa-tissue factor (FVIIa-TF) complex (a complex formed early in the coagulation cascade, after endothelium damage). It exerts its effect through a factor Xa-dependent mechanism: TFPI forms a complex with Xa, thereby inhibiting Xa activity. The TFPI-FXa complex then binds to the VIIa-TF complex on the endothelial cell membrane surface and blocks its activity. In addition to its anticoagulant role, TFPI, also has other non-anticoagulant roles; e.g., it may have beneficial effects in reducing sepsis, inflammation, and angiogenesis [23,24,25,26,27,28].
LMWHs stimulate release of TFPI from endothelium, a function depending on the chain length, with fractions with a molecular weight of > 6–8 kDa stimulating the highest release. Additionally, a high degree of sulfation of the chains also appears to contribute to the release of TFPI [20]. Tinzaparin has been shown to cause a greater TFPI release compared to bemiparin, a property which has been attributed to its larger mean molecular weight and the higher sulfatation level of its chains [29]. Also, patients treated with long-term (90 days) tinzaparin had 2–2.5-fold increased TFPI levels throughout their treatment period while TFPI levels of patients treated with UFH dropped significantly after 20 days of treatment [28].
Due to the higher proportion of long chains and high sulfate content, which correlates with high reversal of anticoagulation effect, an efficient neutralization via the protamine sulfate is achieved for tinzaparin, at about 85.7% for anti-Xa activity [7].
LMWHs’ clearance depends also on their chain length and molecular weight which affect the potency of binding to both ATIII and endothelial cells. In early studies LMWHs were thought to be eliminated by the kidneys in a so-called non-saturable way. However, new studies have demonstrated a relationship between MW and elimination route [30, 31]. The broader distribution of heparin chain lengths in tinzaparin leads to a higher affinity for plasma proteins and thus to an elimination which is less dependent on the kidneys and is performed via the reticuloendothelial system (RES), offering a more favorable profile for patients with renal impairment [31, 32].
Unlike UFH, whose activity and dosing need a continuous monitoring via aPTT measurements, LMWHs seem to lack such a need because of their more predictable bioavailability and safety. Although anti-Xa IU/ml concentration in plasma constitutes an acceptable marker for the indirect estimation of LMWHs’ activity, since LMWHs are mixtures of polysaccharides that cannot be assessed directly in plasma, anti-Xa plasma levels is not definitively related to the clinical anticoagulant effect of LMWH and thus, its measurement is not routinely advised in clinical practice except in specific populations [33].
The standardized dose of LMWHs is expressed in anti-Xa International Units (IU). Tinzaparin’s recommended treatment dose is 175 IU/kg subcutaneously (SC) once daily, according to agent’s summary of product characteristics (SmPC). The lack of need for monitoring, the administration route, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and the option for use in outpatient basis render LMWHs advantageous over UFH [34]. In addition, the risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is lower with these agents [35]. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune-mediated disorder caused by antibodies that recognize complexes of platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin. Thrombosis is a central and unpredictable feature of this syndrome; HIT occurs in 0.5 to 1% of patients exposed to unfractionated heparin for medical and surgical indications. The incidence is markedly lower (0.1–0.5%) in patients receiving LMWH.
Tinzaparin’s absolute bioavailability based on anti-Xa activity after subcutaneous administration is approximately 90% and the time to reach maximal activity is 4–6 h. The terminal elimination half-life is approximately 3.7 h. Due to the long half-life of the pharmacological effect for tinzaparin, once daily administration is sufficient.
The anti-Xa profile of tinzaparin supports the pharmacodynamic superiority of low molecular weight heparins over standard intravenous (IV) heparin administration. The latter demonstrates a bioavailability of about 30%, attributed to its binding to plasma proteins and intracellular degradation, with a great extent of inter-individual variability [6].
The elimination half-life of tinzaparin is estimated at about 1.5 h for anti-Xa and 1.25 h for anti-IIa after SC administration, with no residual anti-Xa activity occurring after 24 h, consequently allowing for once daily dose [6].
Once vs twice daily administration
Once daily administration of LMWHs is preferable for patients, especially those with cancer and elders, since it causes less discomfort [36, 37]. Nonetheless the equilibrium between safety and efficacy must always be balanced since concerns of inefficiency in one-dose schemes have arisen. In a Cochrane database systematic review by Bhutia et al., the safety and efficacy of the administration of different LMWHs once or twice daily were studied and it was found that there was no significant difference for either recurrence of thromboembolism or major bleedings [36].
There is a controversy in regard of enoxaparin, with studies showing no difference between once and twice daily dose [38], or even a better safety profile (with fewer major bleeds and deaths in patients with the once daily regimens while others demonstrated a lower efficacy for once daily scheme) [39]. In terms of tinzaparin, an early study of Siegbahn et al. demonstrated no significant difference between once and twice daily dose neither in efficacy nor safety [40], a finding that was confirmed by a retrospective analysis of Nelson-Piercy et al., in pregnant women [41].
Specific populations
It is worth mentioning that most PK studies are conducted in healthy volunteers and despite the predictable anticoagulant potential described above, a concern for special populations such as pregnant women, elders, and patients with renal impairment remains. Physiologic changes in these populations lead to differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Increased or decreased plasma volume, the fluctuation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and the presence of placental heparinase lead to re-estimation of dosing and pharmacologic profile of the drug in these populations [33].
Pregnancy
Pregnant women are at high risk for thrombosis, with VTE and PE being important causes of maternal morbidity and mortality and LMWHs are the preferred agent for treatment of thrombosis in pregnancy [42]. The majority of the studies demonstrate a favorable profile for tinzaparin [41,42,43,44], and monitoring Xa activity may be an attractive option especially for long-term treatment in this population [45, 46]. No neonatal adverse effects related to tinzaparin were described [45]. LMWH preparations contain benzyl alcohol, as a preservative, which may cause toxic and anaphylactoid reactions in infants, but prefilled syringes of tinzaparin do not contain benzyl alcohol and therefore can be used during pregnancy. Tinzaparin seems to be well tolerated in pregnancy; thus, larger studies are needed to confirm the aforementioned results.
Obesity
Obese patients are at higher risk for VTE. According to Barrett et al., tinzaparin dose adjusted to body weight is preferable for all individuals, thus anti-Xa activity is not related to body weight [21]. According to Hainer et al., tinzaparin dose should be adjusted to body weight even in overweight patients, since there is no maximum permissible daily dose [47]. Moreover, it has been speculated that tinzaparin may favor obese patients by lowering the cardiovascular risk through the reduction of the levels of common inflammatory markers such as von Willebrand factor (vWF) and TNF-a [48].
Chronic kidney disease (CKD)-renal impairment (RI)
Patients with end-stage renal disease are at risk of developing thrombosis due to increased levels of vWF, fibrinogen, and lipoprotein(a). Patients undergoing hemodialysis may have additional prothrombotic risk factors such as catheter placements and erythropoietin therapy. The equilibrium between thrombotic complications and bleeding is fragile, requiring an antithrombotic agent with both efficacy and safety, with tinzaparin offering several advantages [32]. As mentioned above, LMWHs are mainly eliminated by the kidneys, with a fluctuating elimination rate depending on their MW [30, 49]. Tinzaparin’s clearance is less dependent on renal elimination route [31, 32]. In a study of Hainer et al., tinzaparin at the fixed dose of 75 IU/kg SC as prophylaxis on the off-dialysis day and intravenous (IV) on the day of hemodialysis session was administered to patients with adequate tolerance [50]. Tinzaparin pharmacokinetics seems not to be affected by renal impairment (RI) since anti-Xa activity measurement has not demonstrated tinzaparin’s accumulation in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency and creatinine clearance (CrCl) down to 20–30 ml/min as an estimate of GFR for up to 30 days of treatment [51,52,53,54]. In patients with a CrCl < 20 ml/min, the dose can be adjusted based on anti-Xa level measurement [51, 52, 55, 56].
In terms of safety, tinzaparin has shown similar bleeding rates in patients with and without renal insufficiency while long-term therapy in cancer patients with RI did not increase clinically relevant bleedings.
When compared to enoxaparin in patients with RI, tinzaparin has shown no statistically significant accumulation [56] while enoxaparin was associated with increased bleeding risk and a dose adjustment was recommended especially when GFR < 30 ml/min [57].
Elders
Patients aged > 70 years old constitute a large proportion of patients in need for anticoagulants as the risk for VTE and atrial fibrillation increases with age [58]. The major concern for this group is renal impairment, analyzed above, as GFR decreases with age. Very old individuals (> 80 years old) are also prone to falls and bleeding disorders, due to their frailty.
According to Mahe et al., tinzaparin showed a more favorable pharmacodynamic profile in elders with renal impairment compared to enoxaparin [56]. Monitoring and dose-adjustment are not generally needed and advised [52] but may offer great advantages for the treatment of especially very elderly patients [55].
Tinzaparin in oncology
Malignancies are strongly related with VTE, and apart from the tumor itself, many cofactors such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy [59] erythropoietin use, and steroids augment the risk for thrombosis compared to general population. There is a well-characterized interplay between coagulation and cancer since tumor promotes procoagulant agents and thrombin generation and the latter may promote tumor growth and metastases [60]. TF produced by several tumor cell types seems to play an important role in both coagulation and primary tumor growth and metastasis [61,62,63,64,65] contributing to the pathophysiology of cancer with either thrombin-dependent or independent mechanisms [66]. TF is primarily responsible for both tumor-induced thrombin generation (by direct activation of the coagulation pathway) and the formation of tumor cell-platelet aggregates [67]. TF bearing procoagulant microparticles can also contribute to that process [65, 68]. Besides the pivotal role of thrombin in thrombosis, it is traditionally acknowledged that many effects of thrombin in cancer may be independent of its clotting activity. Thrombin might contribute to cancer biology by activating platelet-tumor aggregation and promoting cellular proliferation, tumor adhesion to subendothelial matrix, or act through direct protease-activated receptor (PAR)–mediated cell signaling, leading to production of soluble cytokines and angiogenic growth factors interfering with tumor growth, tumor-associated angiogenesis, and metastasis [65, 69]. Because of the pivotal role of TF and thrombin generation in cancer growth and spread [70], it is conceivable that their inhibition could play a role not only in reducing the prothrombotic properties of the tumor but also affecting its growth and metastatic potential [63, 71].
LMWHs are used for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in cancer patients [72, 73]. Patients with cancer may also have comorbidities such as obesity, renal failure and they are usually of older age. Therefore, it is important to use an antithrombotic agent that can reduce the thrombotic risk while maintaining a low bleeding risk [74]
Due to its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, there is evidence supporting the use of tinzaparin in patients with active malignancies [75].
In the largest trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130025) that has studied the efficacy and safety of full dose tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) daily compared to warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE in patients with active cancer, recurrent VTE occurred in 31 patients in the tinzaparin group and 45 patients in the warfarin group (cumulative risks, 7.2% for the tinzaparin group vs 10.5% for the warfarin group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41–1.03]; P = 0.07, while tinzaparin was associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant non major bleeding [76].
In a systematic review of Martinez et al., tinzaparin was found to be superior in the 12-monthsfollow-up in terms of VTE recurrence [77] suggesting that tinzaparin is also a safe option for extended long-term treatment [78]. Furthermore, tinzaparin seems to be superior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for preventing both post-thrombotic syndrome and venous ulcers [79, 80].
Despite the many and various mechanisms involved in the multifaceted relationship between cancer and thrombosis, anticoagulants might represent an attractive therapy, as current research supports the hypothesis that such drugs might also offer a better control of cancer progression. In vitro studies have demonstrated an anti-oncogenic and an anti-metastatic effect of tinzaparin which have been attributed to (a) the TFPI, and its property of inhibiting both procoagulant and non-coagulant effects of TF [81], (b) its interference in the angiogenesis process which was shown to be dose-related and dependent on the relatively higher molecular weight tinzaparin fragments, and (c) its ability to prevent chemo-resistance in certain cancer types [81,82,83,84].
Metastases’ development may be reduced because of chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) signaling inhibition by LMWH. According to a study on Chinese hamsters, tinzaparin can inhibit CXCR4-SDF1 interaction by binding stromal cell–derived factor-1 (SDF-1). In that study, tinzaparin reduced the frequency of metastases of breast cancer [85]. The anti-metastatic effect of LMWH may depend on the inhibition of endothelial cell adhesion. Tinzaparin was confirmed to inhibit selectins more effectively than other LMWHs [86].
In an experimental model of human colon cancer, tinzaparin administration 24 h after angiogenesis stimulation by VEGF led to a decrease of the angiogenic index to the control level [87]. The effect of tinzaparin on lung metastases of melanoma B16 was also studied in a mouse model. A single, subcutaneous drug dose before the cancer cell inoculation reduced metastatic tumor formation by 89% in comparison to the control. Repeated tinzaparin administration once a day for 14 days before the cancer cell infusion caused a 96% reduction of the frequency of lung tumors [83]. In a recently published study, based on combinatorial therapy approaches to treat highly malignant and refractory cancers such as pancreatic cancer (PC), the authors hypothesized that tinzaparin can augment the effectiveness of traditional chemotherapeutic drugs and induce efficient antitumor activity. PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2 cells were incubated alone or in combination with tinzaparin, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In vivo evaluation of these compounds was performed in a NOD/SCID mouse using a model injected with PANC-1. The triple regimen provided an extra 24.3% tumor reduction compared to the double combination (gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel) [88].
Whether such an in vitro effect is translated in progression free survival (PFS) was questioned in PaCT study [89] and the investigators demonstrated that the administration of tinzaparin in advanced pancreatic cancer (PaC) patients undergoing chemotherapy resulted in 39.5% higher PFS than in patients without such thromboprophylaxis.
COVID-19
During the COVID pandemic era, it was soon observed that COVID patients were at a high risk for developing both arterial and venous thrombosis [90]. SARS-CoV infection causes a proinflammatory environment and immunothrombosis seems to play an important role in COVID-19 pathogenesis.
Although all guidelines recommend starting anticoagulation for venous thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, preferably with LMWH, they currently represent living guidance in view of the results of randomized clinical trials. Open questions remain regarding the choice of agent, the optimal dosing of anticoagulation based on illness severity, as well as the utility of VTE prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Based on the latest evidence, in moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low flow oxygen, full dose anticoagulant prophylaxis with LMWH can be considered in patients with low bleeding risk, for 14 days or until discharge (whichever happens first), as this may improve patient survival until hospital discharge without the need for ICU-level organ support. Also, in critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients with no contra-indications to anticoagulation, prophylactic dose of anticoagulant is suggested over full treatment dose [91, 92].
Considering the key role of increased thrombin generation (factor IIa) and tissue factor (TF) pathway activation in COVID-19-associated thrombosis [93], the special features of tinzaparin (higher anti-IIa activity and TFPI release) support the hypothesis that tinzaparin may have an extended role, interfering not only with coagulation cascade but also exhibiting its anti-inflammatory potency when used for the thrombosis treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. In the hypothesis of Belen-Apak, inhibition of FXa could lead to lower SARS-CoV viral load, as FXa plays a role in the viral entrance mechanism. Hence, LMWHs and especially tinzaparin and dalteparin are suggested for COVID-19 treatment [94].
The trial of Jonmarker et al. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04412304) supported the use of high-dose tinzaparin or dalteparin for thromboprophylaxis for critically ill patients, showing a reduction of mortality without major bleeding events [95]. The study compared only different dosage schemes and not differences between agents.
Three case reports of middle-aged males with PE, as a complication of COVID-19, all treated with tinzaparin are also presented in the literature [96,97,98]. In the first two cases, tinzaparin was used as bridge-treatment in hospital and both patients received an oral anticoagulant to continue treatment after hospital discharge with good outcome [96, 97]. The third case is of great interest as he presented, with both arterial and venous thromboses, while being under thromboprophylaxis with nadroparin. After the first event (stroke) occurred the dose was increased but a couple of days later, he developed PE. A new regimen with tinzaparin led to a favorable outcome [98].
In the recently published INTERACT study, a higher than conventionally used prophylactic dose of anticoagulation with tinzaparin was administered for VTE prevention in 705 hospitalized, non-critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate disease severity. The median duration of treatment was 13 days, reflecting the hospitalization period. In total, 14 thrombotic (2.0%) and four bleeding events were observed (0.6%) during the observation period. In-hospital death occurred in 12 patients (1.7%) due to disease progression. For the total cohort, laboratory parameters (d-dimers, CRP, and PLTs), and the SpO2 measurements showed significant improvements over time. For most patients, the WHO progression scale score dropped over time indicating health improvement [99]. The authors concluded that prophylactic anticoagulation with an intermediate to full therapeutic dose of tinzaparin among non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was safe and effective; tinzaparin might be superior to other anticoagulants in treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients but further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Conclusion
Tinzaparin sodium is a LMWH, deriving from UFH via enzymatic depolymerization. Due to its specific way of preparation, it presents several unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics making its once daily administration both efficacious and safe. Because of its higher MW (an average of 6500 Da) compared to other LMWHs, it is eliminated in both saturable and non-saturable way, thus having a favorable profile for specific populations such as elders or patients with renal insufficiency. There is evidence supporting its use in obese patients and during pregnancy as well. It also presents anti-inflammatory and anti-oncogenic action mediated mainly via the TFPI pathway. Further studies will elucidate its clinical utility on immunothrombosis treatment in context of cancer and infections.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Cosmi B, Hirsh J (1994) Low molecular weight heparins. Curr Opin Cardiol 9(5):612–618. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001573-199409000-00017
Akhtar F, Wan X, Wu G, Kesse S, Wang S, He S (2018) Low-molecular-weight heparins: reduced size particulate systems for improved therapeutic outcomes. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 23(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071757
Smith SA, Travers RJ, Morrissey JH (2015) How it all starts: initiation of the clotting cascade. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 50(4):326–336. https://doi.org/10.3109/10409238.2015.1050550
Martinod K, Deppermann C (2021) Immunothrombosis and thromboinflammation in host defense and disease. Platelets 32(3):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537104.2020.1817360
Hao C, Sun M, Wang H, Zhang L, Wang W (2019) Low molecular weight heparins and their clinical applications. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 163:21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2019.02.003
Samama MM, Gerotziafas GT (2000) Comparative pharmacokinetics of LMWHs. Semin Thromb Hemost 26(Suppl 1):31–38. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-9497
Crowther MA, Berry LR, Monagle PT, Chan AK (2002) Mechanisms responsible for the failure of protamine to inactivate low-molecular-weight heparin. Br J Haematol 116(1):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.2002.03233.x
Bouget J, Balusson F, Kerbrat S, Roy PM, Viglino D, Lacut K et al (2022) Clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation, incidence of major bleeding and mortality: a multi-centre cohort study using the French national health data system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-022-03318-x
Papakotoulas P, Tsoukalas N, Christopoulou A, Ardavanis A, Koumakis G, Papandreou C et al (2020) Management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT): symptomatic or incidental. Anticancer Res 40(1):305–313. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13954
Tsoukalas N, Papakotoulas P, Christopoulou A, Ardavanis A, Koumakis G, Papandreou C et al (2020) Real-world data on thromboprophylaxis in active cancer patients: where are we? Are we getting there? Cancers (Basel) 12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071907
Schroeder M, Hogwood J, Gray E, Mulloy B, Hackett A-M, Johansen KB (2011) Protamine neutralisation of low molecular weight heparins and their oligosaccharide components. Anal Bioanal Chem 399(2):763–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-010-4220-8
Johansen KB, Balchen T (2013) Tinzaparin and other low-molecular-weight heparins: what is the evidence for differential dependence on renal clearance? Exp Hematol Oncol 2(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/2162-3619-2-21
Council of Europe (2004a) Tinzaparin sodium, monograph 1271. European Pharmacopoeia. 5th ed. Strasbourg: p. 2586
Council of Europe (2004b) Dalteparin sodium, monograph 1195. European Pharmacopoeia. 5th Suppl. 5.4 ed. Strasbourg: p. 3925–6
Council of Europe (2004c) Enoxaparin sodium, monograph 1097. European Pharmacopoeia. 5th Suppl. 5.3 ed. Strasbourg: p. 3493–4
Council of Europe (2004d) Nadroparin calcium, monograph 1134. European Pharmacopoeia. 5th ed. Strasbourg: p. 2075–7
Nader HB, Walenga JM, Berkowitz SD, Ofosu F, Hoppensteadt DA, Cella G (1999) Preclinical differentiation of low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost 25(Suppl 3):63–72
Linhardt RJ, Gunay NS (1999) Production and chemical processing of low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost 25(Suppl 3):5–16
Gerotziafas GT, Petropoulou AD, Verdy E, Samama MM, Elalamy I (2007) Effect of the anti-factor Xa and anti-factor IIa activities of low-molecular-weight heparins upon the phases of thrombin generation. J Thromb Haemost 5(5):955–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02477.x
Mousa SA (2004) Are low molecular weight heparins the same? Methods Mol Med 93:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-658-4:49
Barrett JS, Hainer JW, Kornhauser DM, Gaskill JL, Hua TA, Sprogel P et al (2001) Anticoagulant pharmacodynamics of tinzaparin following 175 iu/kg subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers. Thromb Res 101(4):243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0049-3848(00)00412-6
Bisio A, Vecchietti D, Citterio L, Guerrini M, Raman R, Bertini S et al (2009) Structural features of low-molecular-weight heparins affecting their affinity to antithrombin. Thromb Haemost 102(5):865–873. https://doi.org/10.1160/TH09-02-0081
Price GC, Thompson SA, Kam PC (2004) Tissue factor and tissue factor pathway inhibitor. Anaesthesia 59(5):483–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03679.x
Weitz JI (1997) Low-molecular-weight heparins. N Engl J Med 337(10):688–698. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199709043371007
Sandset PM, Bendz B, Hansen JB (2000) Physiological function of tissue factor pathway inhibitor and interaction with heparins. Haemostasis 30(Suppl 2):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1159/000054163
Bendz B, Hansen JB, Andersen TO, Ostergaard P, Sandset PM (1999) Partial depletion of tissue factor pathway inhibitor during subcutaneous administration of unfractionated heparin, but not with two low molecular weight heparins. Br J Haematol 107(4):756–762. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01791.x
Gouin-Thibault I, Pautas E, Depasse F, Andreux JP, Siguret V (2003) Heparin-releasable TFPI is not depleted after repeated injections of tinzaparin at therapeutic dose for up to 30 days. J Thromb Haemost 1(12):2694–2695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2003.0543k.x
Hoppensteadt DA, Willows L, Leitz H, Nicolaides A, Fareed J (2004) Laboratory analysis of blood samples from patients treated with tinzaparin. Semin Thromb Hemost 30(Suppl 1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-823003
Depasse F, Gonzalez de Suso MJ, Lagoutte I, Fontcuberta J, Borrell M, Samama MM (2003) Comparative study of the pharmacokinetic profiles of two LMWHs--bemiparin (3500 IU, anti-Xa) and tinzaparin (4500 IU, anti-Xa)--administered subcutaneously to healthy male volunteers. Thrombosis Res 109(2–3):109–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0049-3848(03)00141-5
Caranobe C, Petitou M, Dupouy D, Gabaig AM, Sie P, Buchanan MR et al (1986) Heparin fractions with high and low affinities to antithrombin III are cleared at different rates. Thromb Res 43(6):635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-3848(86)90100-3
Johansen KB, Balchen T (2013) Tinzaparin and other low-molecular-weight heparins: what is the evidence for differential dependence on renal clearance? Exp Hematol Oncol 2:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/2162-3619-2-21
Helfer H, Siguret V, Mahe I (2020) Tinzaparin sodium pharmacokinetics in patients with chronic kidney disease: practical implications. American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions 20(3):223–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-019-00382-0
Barrett JS, Gibiansky E, Hull RD, Planes A, Pentikis H, Hainer JW et al (2001) Population pharmacodynamics in patients receiving tinzaparin for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 39(10):431–446
Fossler MJ, Barrett JS, Hainer JW, Riddle JG, Ostergaard P, van der Elst E et al (2001) Pharmacodynamics of intravenous and subcutaneous tinzaparin and heparin in healthy volunteers. Am J Health-syst Pharma : AJHP : Official J Am S Health-Syst Pharma 58(17):1614–1621. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/58.17.1614
Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, Horsewood P, Roberts RS, Gent M et al (1995) Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med 332(20):1330–1335. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199505183322003
Bhutia S, Wong PF (2013) Once versus twice daily low molecular weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. Cochrane Database System Rev (7):CD003074. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003074.pub3
Fuller K, Malecki S, Anselmo L, Borrego ME, Jakeman B, Burnett A (2018) Once-daily versus twice-daily enoxaparin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Ann Pharmacother 52(3):257–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028017737094
Niu J, Song Y, Li C, Ren H, Zhang W (2020) Once-daily vs. twice-daily dosing of enoxaparin for the management of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 20(4):3084–95. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9036
Trujillo-Santos J, Bergmann JF, Bortoluzzi C, Lopez-Reyes R, Giorgi-Pierfranceschi M, Lopez-Saez JB et al (2017) Once versus twice daily enoxaparin for the initial treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 15(3):429–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13616
Siegbahn A, S YH, Boberg J, Bylund H, Neerstrand HS, Ostergaard P et al (1989) Subcutaneous treatment of deep venous thrombosis with low molecular weight heparin. A dose finding study with LMWH-Novo. Thromb Res 55(6):767–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-3848(89)90307-1
Nelson-Piercy C, Powrie R, Borg JY, Rodger M, Talbot DJ, Stinson J et al (2011) Tinzaparin use in pregnancy: an international, retrospective study of the safety and efficacy profile. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 159(2):293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.08.005
McLintock C, Brighton T, Chunilal S, Dekker G, McDonnell N, McRae S et al (2012) Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 52(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01361.x
Nelson-Piercy C, Greer IA (2013) Anticoagulation with tinzaparin for women with mechanical valves in pregnancy: a retrospective case series. Thromb Res 131(2):185–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2012.11.022
Khalifeh A, Grantham J, Byrne J, Murphy K, McAuliffe F, Byrne B (2014) Tinzaparin safety and efficacy in pregnancy. Ir J Med Sci 183(2):249–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0998-7
Smith MP, Norris LA, Steer PJ, Savidge GF, Bonnar J (2004) Tinzaparin sodium for thrombosis treatment and prevention during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(2):495–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(03)00953-0
McColl MD, Greer IA (2004) Low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Curr Opin Pulm Med 10(5):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mcp.0000136405.17204.5e
Hainer JW, Barrett JS, Assaid CA, Fossler MJ, Cox DS, Leathers T et al (2002) Dosing in heavy-weight/obese patients with the LMWH, tinzaparin: a pharmacodynamic study. Thromb Haemost 87(5):817–823
Mousa SA (2005) Elevation of plasma von Willebrand factor and tumor necrosis factor-a in obese subjects and their reduction by the low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin. Int Angiol : J Int Union Angiol 24(3):278–281
Schmid P, Fischer AG, Wuillemin WA (2009) Low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with renal insufficiency. Swiss Med Wkly 139(31–32):438–452. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2009.11284
Hainer JW, Sherrard DJ, Swan SK, Barrett JS, Assaid CA, Fossler MJ et al (2002) 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 40(3):531–538. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2002.34911
Siguret V, Pautas E, Fevrier M, Wipff C, Durand-Gasselin B, Laurent M et al (2000) 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 84(5):800–804
Siguret V, Gouin-Thibault I, Pautas E, Leizorovicz A (2011) No accumulation of the peak anti-factor Xa activity of tinzaparin in elderly patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment: the IRIS substudy. J Thromb Haemost 9(10):1966–1972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04458.x
Nagge J, Crowther M, Hirsh J (2002) Is impaired renal function a contraindication to the use of low-molecular-weight heparin? Arch Intern Med 162(22):2605–2609. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.22.2605
Tincani E, Crowther MA, Turrini F, Prisco D (2007) Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in the elderly patient. Clin Interv Aging 2(2):237–246
Pautas E, Gouin I, Bellot O, Andreux JP, Siguret V (2002) Safety profile of tinzaparin administered once daily at a standard curative dose in two hundred very elderly patients. Drug Saf 25(10):725–733. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200225100-00005
Mahé I, Aghassarian M, Drouet L, Bal Dit-Sollier C, Lacut K, Heilmann JJ et al (2007) Tinzaparin and enoxaparin given at prophylactic dose for eight days in medical elderly patients with impaired renal function: a comparative pharmacokinetic study. Thromb Haemost 97(4):581–586
Hoffmann P, Keller F (2012) Increased major bleeding risk in patients with kidney dysfunction receiving enoxaparin: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 68(5):757–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-011-1149-6
Stein PD, Hull RD, Kayali F, Ghali WA, Alshab AK, Olson RE (2004) Venous thromboembolism according to age: the impact of an aging population. Arch Intern Med 164(20):2260–2265. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.20.2260
Roopkumar J, Kim AS, Bicky T, Hobbs BP, Khorana AA (2018) Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. Blood 132(Supplement 1):2510-. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-116439
Franchini M, Montagnana M, Favaloro EJ, Lippi G (2009) The bidirectional relationship of cancer and hemostasis and the potential role of anticoagulant therapy in moderating thrombosis and cancer spread. Semin Thromb Hemost 35(7):644–653. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1242718
Rak J, Milsom C, May L, Klement P, Yu J (2006) Tissue factor in cancer and angiogenesis: the molecular link between genetic tumor progression, tumor neovascularization, and cancer coagulopathy. Semin Thromb Hemost 32(1):54–70. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-933341
Zhang Y, Deng Y, Luther T, Muller M, Ziegler R, Waldherr R et al (1994) Tissue factor controls the balance of angiogenic and antiangiogenic properties of tumor cells in mice. J Clin Investig 94(3):1320–1327. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI117451
Rickles FR, Patierno S, Fernandez PM (2003) Tissue factor, thrombin, and cancer. Chest 124(3 Suppl):58S-68S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.124.3_suppl.58s
Ruf W, Mueller BM (1996) Tissue factor in cancer angiogenesis and metastasis. Curr Opin Hematol 3(5):379–384. https://doi.org/10.1097/00062752-199603050-00008
Franchini M, Montagnana M, Targher G, Manzato F, Lippi G (2007) Pathogenesis, clinical and laboratory aspects of thrombosis in cancer. J Thromb Thrombolysis 24(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-007-0028-6
Yu J, May L, Milsom C, Anderson GM, Weitz JI, Luyendyk JP et al (2008) Contribution of host-derived tissue factor to tumor neovascularization. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 28(11):1975–1981. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.175083
Amirkhosravi A, Amaya M, Desai H, Francis JL (2002) Platelet-CD40 ligand interaction with melanoma cell and monocyte CD40 enhances cellular procoagulant activity. Blood Coagulat Fibrinol : Int J Haemost Thromb 13(6):505–512. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001721-200209000-00005
Schaffner F, Ruf W (2008) Tissue factor and protease-activated receptor signaling in cancer. Semin Thromb Hemost 34(2):147–153. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1079254
Ruf W, Mueller BM (2006) Thrombin generation and the pathogenesis of cancer. Semin Thromb Hemost 32(Suppl 1):61–68. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-939555
Snyder KM, Kessler CM (2008) The pivotal role of thrombin in cancer biology and tumorigenesis. Semin Thromb Hemost 34(8):734–741. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1145255
Falanga A, Marchetti M (2007) Heparin in tumor progression and metastatic dissemination. Semin Thromb Hemost 33(7):688–694. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-991536
Mandala M, Falanga A, Roila F, Group EGW (2011) Management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Annals of oncology : official journal of the Euro Soc Med Oncol / ESMO 22 Suppl 6:vi85–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr392
Kuderer NM, Lyman GH (2014) Guidelines for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer. Thromb Res 133(Suppl 2):S122–S127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-3848(14)50021-7
Dimakakos EP, Vathiotis I, Syrigos K (2018) The role of tinzaparin in oncology. Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost : Official J Int Acad Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost 24(5):697–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029617729215
Ageno W, Barni S, Di Nisio M, Falanga A, Imberti D, Labianca RF et al (2019) Treatment of venous thromboembolism with tinzaparin in oncological patients. Minerva Med 110(3):251–258. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.19.06026-9
Lee AYY, Kamphuisen PW, Meyer G, Bauersachs R, Janas MS, Jarner MF et al (2015) Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 314(7):677–686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.9243
Martinez-Zapata MJ, Mathioudakis AG, Mousa SA, Bauersachs R (2018) Tinzaparin for long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost : Official J Int Acad Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost 24(2):226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029617696581
Jara-Palomares L, Solier-Lopez A, Elias-Hernandez T, Asensio-Cruz M, Blasco-Esquivias I, Marin-Barrera L et al (2017) Tinzaparin in cancer associated thrombosis beyond 6months: TiCAT study. Thromb Res 157:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2017.07.004
Daskalopoulos ME, Daskalopoulou SS, Tzortzis E, Sfiridis P, Nikolaou A, Dimitroulis D et al (2005) Long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis with a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin): a prospective randomized trial. Euro J Vas Endovas Surg : Official J Euro Soc Vas Surg 29(6):638–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2004.02.029
Hull RD, Liang J, Merali T (2013) Effect of long-term LMWH on post-thrombotic syndrome in patients with iliac/noniliac venous thrombosis: a subanalysis from the home-LITE study. Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost : Official J Int Acad Clin Appl Thromb/Hemost 19(5):476–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029613481845
Mousa SA, Mohamed S (2004) Anti-angiogenic mechanisms and efficacy of the low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin: anti-cancer efficacy. Oncol Rep 12(4):683–688
Bauer AT, Suckau J, Frank K, Desch A, Goertz L, Wagner AH et al (2015) von Willebrand factor fibers promote cancer-associated platelet aggregation in malignant melanoma of mice and humans. Blood 125(20):3153–3163. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-08-595686
Amirkhosravi A, Mousa SA, Amaya M, Francis JL (2003) Antimetastatic effect of tinzaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin. J Thromb Haemost 1(9):1972–1976. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00341.x
Pfankuchen DB, Stolting DP, Schlesinger M, Royer HD, Bendas G (2015) Low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin antagonizes cisplatin resistance of ovarian cancer cells. Biochem Pharmacol 97(2):147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2015.07.013
Harvey JR, Mellor P, Eldaly H, Lennard TW, Kirby JA, Ali S (2007) Inhibition of CXCR4-mediated breast cancer metastasis: a potential role for heparinoids? Clin Cancer Research : Official J Am Assoc Cancer Res 13(5):1562–1570. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1987
Stevenson JL, Choi SH, Varki A (2005) Differential metastasis inhibition by clinically relevant levels of heparins–correlation with selectin inhibition, not antithrombotic activity. Clin Cancer Research : Official J Am Assoc Cancer Res 11(19 Pt 1):7003–7011. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1131
Mousa SA (2002) Anticoagulants in thrombosis and cancer: the missing link. Semin Thromb Hemost 28(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-20559
Sarantis P, Bokas A, Papadimitropoulou A, Koustas E, Theocharis S, Papakotoulas P et al (2021) Combinatorial treatment of tinzaparin and chemotherapy can induce a significant antitumor effect in pancreatic cancer. Int J Mole Sci 22(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22137053
Karamouzis MV, Athanasiadis I, Samelis G, Vallilas C, Bokas A, Nikolaidi A et al (2021) The impact of thromboprophylaxis on the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The Pancreatic Cancer and Tinzaparin (PaCT) Study. Cancers (Basel) 13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13122884
Joly BS, Siguret V, Veyradier A (2020) Understanding pathophysiology of hemostasis disorders in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Intensive Care Med 46(8):1603–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06088-1
Moores LK, Tritschler T, Brosnahan S, Carrier M, Collen JF, Doerschug K et al (2020) Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest 158(3):1143–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.559
Goldin M, Giannis D, Diab W, Wang J, Khanijo S, Sharifova G et al (2021) Treatment-dose LMWH versus prophylactic/intermediate dose heparins in high-risk COVID-19 inpatients: rationale and design of the HEP-COVID Trial. Thromb Haemost 121(12):1684–1695. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1475-2351
McFadyen JD, Stevens H, Peter K (2020) The emerging threat of (micro)thrombosis in COVID-19 and its therapeutic implications. Circ Res 127(4):571–587. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317447
Belen-Apak FB, Sarialioglu F (2020) The old but new: can unfractioned heparin and low molecular weight heparins inhibit proteolytic activation and cellular internalization of SARS-CoV2 by inhibition of host cell proteases? Med Hypotheses 142:109743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109743
Jonmarker S, Hollenberg J, Dahlberg M, Stackelberg O, Litorell J, Everhov AH et al (2020) Dosing of thromboprophylaxis and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Crit Care 24(1):653. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03375-7
Khurram R, Johnson FTF, Naran R, Hare S (2020) Spontaneous tension pneumothorax and acute pulmonary emboli in a patient with COVID-19 infection. BMJ Case Rep 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2020-237475
Beckman M, Nyren S, Kistner A (2020) A case-report of widespread pulmonary embolism in a middle-aged male seven weeks after asymptomatic suspected COVID 19 infection. Thromb J 18:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-020-00235-w
Bruggemann R, Gietema H, Jallah B, Ten Cate H, Stehouwer C, Spaetgens B (2020) Arterial and venous thromboembolic disease in a patient with COVID-19: a case report. Thromb Res 191:153–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.046
Akinosoglou K, Savopoulos C, Pouliakis A, Triantafyllidis C, Markatis E, Golemi F et al (2022) Intensive-dose tinzaparin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: the INTERACT study. Viruses 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/v14040767
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.P. designed the study. M.A. did literature research. M.P and M.A. wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
This study does not require ethics approval.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Amerali, M., Politou, M. Tinzaparin—a review of its molecular profile, pharmacology, special properties, and clinical uses. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 78, 1555–1565 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-022-03365-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-022-03365-4