Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database Feedback    Home


Related trials

Lopaciuk, 3000 - subcutaneous heparin vs intravenous heparin

RE-COVER, 2009 - dabigatran vs vitamin K antagonists

Romera, 2009 - Tinzaparin vs acenocoumarol

Gonz�lez-Fajardo, 2008 - Enoxaparin vs coumarin

Botticelli DVT, 2008 - apixaban vs heparin/VKA

Einstein-DVT Dose-Ranging Study, 2008 - rivaroxaban vs heparin/VKA

VanGogh DVT, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA

VanGogh PE, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA

Daskalopoulos, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

Fiessinger , 2005 - ximelagatran vs vitamin K antagonists

Chong, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

Kearon, 2004 - 4 months vs 3 months

Ramacciotti, 2004 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

MATISSE, 2004 - fondaparinux vs enoxaparin

Lee, 2003 - Dalteparin vs warfarin

Agnelli, 2003 - 6-12 months vs 3 months

Kakkar, 2003 - Bemiparin vs warfarin

Deitcher, 2003 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin

MATISSE PE, 2003 - fondaparinux vs heparin/VKA

Hull, 2002 - Tinzaparin vs warfarin

Meyer, 2002 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin

Agnelli, 2001 - 12 months vs 3 months

Merli (once daily vs UFH), 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs UFH

Lopez-Beret, 2001 - Nadroparin vs acenocoumarol

Merli, 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs twice daily enoxaparin



See also:

  • All venous thrombosis clinical trials
    		•  

    Hull study, 2002

    Treatments

    Studied treatment LMWH, 175 IU/kg qd followed by Tinzaparin 175 IU/kg qd
    Control treatment UFH 5 d, followed by UFH therapeutic APTT followed by Warfarin target INR 2-3

    Patients

    Patients patients with objective diagnosis of DVT by Venography/compression ultrasonography
    Baseline characteristics
    objective DVT diagnosis Venography/CUS 
    objective PR diagnosis not applicable 
    cancer (%) 28%  
    Outcome assessment blinded NA 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 369 / 368 (studied vs. control)
    Blinding open
    Follow-up duration 9 mo
    Number of centre multicenter


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N     Control treat.
    n/N     Graph RR [95% CI]

    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment

    16 / 369
         21 / 368
         0,76 [0,40;1,43]

    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment

    15 / 344
         15 / 344
         classic 1,00 [0,50;2,01]     0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment 16 / 369 (4,3%) 21 / 368 (5,7%) 0,76 [0,40;1,43]  
    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment 15 / 344 (4,4%) 15 / 344 (4,4%) 1,00 [0,50;2,01]  
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters

    Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment 4,34% 5,71% -13,7‰
    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment 4,36% 4,36% 0,0‰


    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NA
    • Hull RD, Pineo GF, Mah AF, et al, for the LITE Study. A randomized trial evaluating long-term lowmolecular- weight heparin therapy for three months versus intravenous heparin followed by warfarin sodium [abstract].582258. Blood 2002; 100:148a
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2010 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  notify a friend