MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the Anticoagulant Effect of Melagatran and Lmwh in an Acquired Antithrombin Deficiency in Children with All Treated with L-Asparaginase.

2004· article· en· W2594164534 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Mitchell, Stefan Kuhle, Patrica Vegh, Alice Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXimelagatranDirect thrombin inhibitorAsparaginaseAnticoagulantMedicineAntithrombinThrombosisPopulationLow molecular weight heparinWarfarinDiscovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitorsPharmacologyHeparinInternal medicineSurgeryImmunologyThrombinLeukemiaLymphoblastic LeukemiaPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with L-asparaginase (ASP) have a prevalence of thrombosis of 37% (95%CI 24–48%). The increased risk for thrombosis in these children dictates the need for primary prophylaxis clinical studies. However, the question of the optimum anticoagulant to be tested is an issue. The mechanism for increased risk of thrombosis in this population is related to the acquired antithrombin (AT) deficiency associated with ASP. Owing to the acquired AT deficiency, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are unlikely to be a good option. Ximelagatran is a new anticoagulant that has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in primary prophylaxis in adults. The active metabolite of ximelagatran, melagatran, is a direct thrombin inhibitor and does not rely on AT for interaction and subsequent effect. Therefore, ximelagatran may become the drug of choice for this population. Before initiation of large clinical studies, the effect of acquired AT deficiency on the anticoagulant effect of melagatran needs to be determined ex vivo. OBJECTIVES: To determine the interaction of an ASP-induced acquired AT deficiency on the anticoagulant effects of melagatran and LMWH. STUDY POPULATION: Newly diagnosed children with ALL being treated with ASP during induction chemotherapy. Plasma was drawn pre-therapy and during the 4 weeks of induction chemotherapy. Five sets of pooled samples from a minimum of 5 children per pool were used for the study. AT levels were decreased (0.53 U/mL) in the pooled samples. METHODS: Prophylactic and therapeutic levels of melagatran (0.3/05 μM) (Exanta ®, AstraZeneca AB, Sweden) or LMWH (0.3/0.7 U/ml) (Fragmin, Pfizer, USA) were added to plasma pools. Pools with added-back anticoagulant were divided, and in one portion purified human AT was added back to nomalize plasma AT levels to 1.0 u/mL. Samples with melagatran and LMWH were run neat and with added- back AT. Endogenous thrombin generation capacity was assessed using a continuous optical density recording of cleaving chromogenic substrate. The endogenous thrombin generation capacity was derived by calculation of area under the curve. Results are reported as a percentage of the neat sample. Statistical comparison was performed by a one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: In the LMWH 0.3u/mL group, there was a statistically significant difference in thrombin generated between the neat and AT-added-back groups (Figure 1); there was a trend, but no significant difference, in the 0.7 u/mL LMWH group. In contrast, there was no difference in thrombin generation with ximelagatran 0.3 μ M and 0.5 μM without and with AT added. Figure Figure CONCLUSION: In children with acquired AT deficiency related to ASP, the anticoagulant effects of LMWH are profoundly affected by endogenous AT levels. In contrast, the anticoagulant effects of melagatran are completely independent of endogenous AT levels. Therefore, the anticoagulant response of melagatran will be far more predictable in these children. Ximelagatran is a suitable candidate for further assessment in prevention of thrombosis in children with ALL.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207