Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin treatment in patients with cancer with established venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this article was to study the pharmacological properties and effectiveness of tinzaparin in patients with cancer as well as its potential anticancer properties. A search of PubMed and ScienceDirect databases up to March 2016 was carried out to identify published studies that detect the properties and use of tinzaparin in oncology. Protamine sulfate partially (60% to 65%) neutralized tinzaparin’s anti-Xa activity. No dose adjustment of tinzaparin is needed even in patients with severe renal impairment and Creatinine Clearance ≥20 mL/min. Tinzaparin demonstrated a statistically significant decline in VTE recurrence at 1 year post the index thromboembolic event. A statistically significant reduction in minor bleeding rates was also described, whereas major bleeding events did not decrease in patients with cancer treated with tinzaparin versus those who received vitamin K antagonists. Tinzaparin treatment in patients suffering from deep vein thrombosis reduced the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome and venous ulcers. Tinzaparin’s ability to prevent both metastatic dissemination of cancer cells and tumor angiogenesis has been delineated in preclinical research. Current data show that tinzaparin is safe and efficacious either for short-term or for long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Clinical trials are needed in order to examine the utility of tinzaparin in primary prevention of VTE and validate its potential anticancer advantages exhibited in preclinical research.

Keywords

tinzaparin venous thromboembolism cancer oncology

Introduction

Cancer is not only a major health issue but also a growing economic burden for the whole world to deal with. Suggestive of its impact is the American Cancer Society’s estimate for a total of 1 688 780 new cancer cases and 600 920 cancer deaths in the United States in 2017.¹

In 1865, Trousseau was the first to observe what many studies have since proven: Patients with cancer, both hospitalized and those receiving outpatient chemotherapy, are at significantly increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to non-cancer patients.^2

–6 As a matter of fact, VTE occurs in up to 20% of patients with cancer. Likewise, the development of VTE in cancer betokens higher rates of recurrent VTE, bleeding complications due to anticoagulation therapy, morbidity, and mortality in comparison with the general population.^7

–11

A variety of risk factors are considered to be responsible for the higher prevalence of VTE in patients with cancer. These factors can be classified as patient, disease, and treatment related. Patient-related risk factors include advanced age, poor performance status, prothrombotic mutations, prior VTE, elevated platelet count before anticancer treatment, obesity, and comorbidities consisting of infections, renal disease, or heart failure.^12
–14 As far as disease-related factors are concerned, the presence of a tumor itself appears to cause a state of hypercoagulation involving procoagulant factors, tumor-derived cytokines, and direct interaction with a variety of cells. Primary cancer site is also deemed a risk factor for VTE development, with pancreatic and gastric cancers exhibiting the highest VTE rates, followed by primary malignant brain tumors, ovarian carcinomas, lung carcinomas, kidney carcinomas, and hematological malignancies. Patients with advanced stage and those with newly diagnosed malignancies are also at significantly higher risk of suffering from VTE.^14

–17 Accordingly, major surgery, prolonged immobilization, hospitalization, chemotherapy, adjuvant hormone therapy, antiangiogenic agents, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and the placement of central venous catheters comprise treatment-related risk factors.^14,17

Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) treatment for the initial 5 to 10 days in patients with cancer with established VTE, as well as for secondary prevention of recurrence for at least 6 months.^18
–20 The use of LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) is also recommended in patients undergoing major cancer surgery as a measure of primary prevention for up to 4 weeks after the procedure.^21

–26 Low-molecular-weight heparin, UFH, or fondaparinux should be administered for the prophylaxis of hospitalized patients with cancer with major medical illness or reduced mobility.^27
–29 In contrast, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer is not recommended, but prophylactic LMWH administration may be considered in ambulatory patients with high-risk cancer on a case-by-case basis.³⁰ In exception, patients with multiple myeloma receiving thalidomide or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and/or chemotherapy are considered to have a VTE risk high enough to justify routine thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, warfarin (international normalized ratio [INR]: ∼1.5), or aspirin.^{18
–20,31,32}

As pivotal as their role in VTE therapeutics may be, not all LMWHs are the same. The purpose of this review is to study the pharmacological properties of tinzaparin, resulting in distinct clinical outcomes, and subsequently to examine the effectiveness of tinzaparin in the prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-related VTE, as well as its potential to alter the course of cancer disease.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed and ScienceDirect databases was performed up to December 2016 using the keywords “tinzaparin AND (cancer OR oncology).” Specifically, eligible articles were those presenting original data from cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in adults or animals providing evidence on the pharmacological profile of tinzaparin, its use in patients with cancer, as well as its potential anticancer effects. The abstracts were screened to determine which studies and review articles were relevant to our objectives. Once duplicates were recognized and removed, the retrieved articles were then reviewed by 2 separate authors for inclusion or exclusion. Once all articles to be included were selected, the references of all included articles were reviewed to identify any additional applicable publications that may have been missed by the digital search. References from these articles were also obtained, and review articles are cited to provide readers with more details than this review has room for.

Results

The overall search identified 88 potentially relevant publications. Thirty-four articles reported data from original studies and were included in this review.

Overview of Pharmacological Profile

The enzymatic depolymerization of UFH from porcine intestinal mucosa via the utilization of Flavobacterium heparinum heparinase produces tinzaparin sodium (Innohep), a LMWH with an average molecular mass of 6500 Da (varying from 5500 to 7500 Da).^33
–35

Tinzaparin sodium demonstrates a dose-dependent, and greater compared to its anti-IIa activity, Xa inhibitory effect.^36,37 Tinzaparin also disposes the highest anti-IIa activity among all LMWHs. Thus, it has the lowest (2:1) anti-Xa/anti-IIa activity ratio, compared to bemiparin’s ratio of 8:1 and enoxaparin’s ratio of 3.9:1.^38,39

Data from in vitro as well as in vivo studies conclude that tinzaparin’s anti-Xa activity can be partially neutralized after protamine sulfate addition. Besides, among all LMWHs, tinzaparin demonstrates the highest rates of anti-Xa reversal in response to protamine sulfate.^40,41

Tinzaparin sodium results in a swift (in less than 1 hour) and sustained (lasting up to 5 hours) 2- to 5-fold elevation in plasma tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) levels.^42,43 Tinzaparin stimulates an increased release of free and total TFPI compared to bemiparin⁴⁴; conversely, no differences have been spotted in TFPI release versus enoxaparin.⁴⁵

It also produces a slight, but existent prolongation of the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) within normal range.^36,37 However, it appears to cause a significantly higher prolongation compared to bemiparin³⁹ and enoxaparin.⁴⁶ Neither hemoglobin levels nor platelet counts seem to be affected after tinzaparin administration.^37,47

Assuming its anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities as biomarkers, the pharmacokinetic parameters of tinzaparin sodium have been determined, using data from several studies.^36,48 Fossler et al conducted a randomized crossover study, involving 30 healthy volunteers. They measured an absolute bioavailability (F) of 86.7% (90% confidence interval [CI], 78.7%-95.5%) by comparing the mean anti-Xa AUC_0→∞ of the subcutaneous formulation without preservative with that for intravenous (IV) administration of the same dosage (4500 anti-Xa IU).³⁶ The absolute F values of bemiparin (96%)³⁹ and enoxaparin (91%)⁴⁹ indicate a significant increase only in the latter case. The volume of distribution (V), computed again on the basis of anti-Xa activity after IV injection, ranged from 3.08 to 4.96 lt, connoting tinzaparin’s distribution to the vascular compartment,³⁶ in accordance with bemiparin and enoxaparin.^39,49

Finally, in contrast to other LMWHs, tinzaparin employs first-order pharmacokinetics with the consecutive involvement of cellular and renal route of elimination, exhibiting no bioaccumulation even in patients with severe renal impairment. Consequently, tinzaparin displays a clearance (Cl) of 1.14 to 2.66 lt/h,^{36,41,48,50,51} whereas bemiparin and enoxaparin trail with 0.9 lt/h⁵² and 0.64 to 1.33 lt/h,^53,54 respectively. It also demonstrates an elimination half-life (t_1/2) of 3.41 to 4.13 hours after subcutaneous administration, which, compared to its t_1/2 of 1.60 hours after IV administration, implies that the absorption of tinzaparin is slower than its elimination. Bemiparin has a t_1/2 of 5.3 hours (the longest among all LMWHs),³⁹ while enoxaparin’s t_1/2 is estimated at approximately 4 to 5 hours.⁴⁹

Evidence in Patients With Cancer

Venous thromboembolism treatment

The first study assessing the role of tinzaparin in patients with cancer was conducted by Hull et al in 2006.⁵⁵ In this multicenter, open-label, randomized study, 200 patients with cancer and proximal vein thrombosis were assigned to receive either tinzaparin in a therapeutic dose (175 IU/kg, subcutaneously [SC], once daily) for 12 weeks or UFH (5000 IU or 80 IU/kg bolus IV, followed by continuous IV infusion modified according to the APTT, terminated on day 6) superseded by warfarin (initiated on day 1 at 5 to 10 mg, dose adjusted in order to maintain an INR of 2 to 3, finally as a single therapy on day 6) for the same period of time. The primary efficacy end point of VTE recurrence did not demonstrate significant difference at 3 months between the 2 arms of the study; at 12 months, patients treated with tinzaparin displayed a statistically significant decline in VTE recurrence (7% versus 16%; P = .044; risk ratio: 0.44; absolute difference −9.0%; 95% CI, −21.7% to −0.7%). All bleeding events during therapy, representing the primary safety end point, appeared in 27% of patients (7% major bleeding) treated with tinzaparin and 24% of patients (7% major bleeding) of those receiving UFH in combination with warfarin (P > .05; absolute difference −3.0%; 95% CI −9.1% to 15.1%). Neither 3-month nor 12-month mortality showed any survival benefit between the 2 groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia at 3 months or bone fractures at 12 months did not vary significantly in the 2 groups of patients.

In 2012, Laporte et al⁵⁶ published a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, intending to investigate matters of efficacy and safety of long-term curative doses of tinzaparin compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; warfarin or acenocoumarol) both in the general population (n = 1662) and in patients with cancer only (n = 283). Patients with cancer exhibited a statistically nonsignificant (38%) relative risk (RR) reduction (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.34-1.13; P = .12) at the end of the 3- to 6-month treatment period, which raised to 59%, becoming statistically significant at 1 year (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79; P = .008). Major bleeding (overt and associated with a decrease in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL or more; leading to a transfusion of 2 or more units of blood; retroperitoneal; intracranial; occurring in a major joint) rates as well as all-cause mortality at 3 to 6 months and at 1 year did not present significant differences among patients with cancer.

Lee et al⁵⁷ performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial enrolling 900 adult patients with active cancer (histological diagnosis of cancer and receiving anticancer therapy or diagnosed with or received anticancer therapy within the previous 6 months), with objectively documented deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, with a life expectancy of greater than 6 months, and without contraindications for anticoagulation. The patients were treated either with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg, SC, once daily) for 6 months or with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg, SC, once daily) for the first 5 to 10 days of treatment period, followed by warfarin (in an adjusted dose, so as to maintain the INR between 2 and 3) for an overall of 6 months. The study’s duration was 180 days, with follow-up of 30 days after the last medical dose. The VTE recurrence at 6 months occurred in 7.2% of patients (31 of 449) receiving tinzaparin versus 10.5% (45 of 451) of those receiving warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41-1.03; P = .07). No significant variation was marked between the 2 arms of the study, in regard to major bleeding rates, occurring in 12 patients treated with tinzaparin versus 11 patients treated with warfarin (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.40-1.99; P = .77). However, a statistically significant decrease in clinically overt nonmajor bleeding rates was indicated; these complications appeared in 49 of 449 patients in the tinzaparin arm, compared to 69 of 451 patients in the warfarin arm (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; P = .04). Finally, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed (150 patients for tinzaparin versus 138 for warfarin; HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.36; P = .54).

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

In a recent single-arm, open-label, pilot trial, Perry et al^52,58 evaluated the safety of prophylactic doses of tinzaparin (4500 IU administered SC, once daily, initiated between 48 hours to 4 weeks after the most recent surgical procedure) for a planned duration of 12 months. Forty patients with newly diagnosed, grade III to IV malignant glioma were enrolled. About 2 (5%) patients developed central nervous system hemorrhage, 1 grade I and 1 grade II. Only 1 patient suffered from DVT while receiving tinzaparin. Therefore, tinzaparin is considered to be safe for VTE prophylaxis in patients with brain tumor.

Anticancer Properties

Apart from its anticoagulant abilities, tinzaparin sodium possesses multiple de novo anticancer effects, as demonstrated in various preclinical models. Table 1 summarizes tinzaparin’s anticancer properties.

Table 1.

Anticancer Properties of Tinzaparin Sodium.

Study	Model	Target	Effect	Process
Stevenson et al⁵⁹	Mice	P- and L-selectin	Inhibition	Metastasis
Schlesinger et al⁶⁰	Mice	VLA-4–VCAM-1	Inhibition	Metastasis
Harvey et al⁶¹	Hamster ovarian cells and human breast cancer cells	CXCR4–CXCL12	Inhibition	Metastasis
Alyahya et al⁶²	Mice	E-cadherin	Upregulation	Metastasis
Bauer et al⁶³	Mice	von Willebrand factor	Downregulation	Metastasis
Amirkhosravi et al⁶⁴	Mice	TFPI	Upregulation	Metastasis
Mousa and Mohamed⁶⁵	Chick chorioallantoic membrane model	TFPI	Upregulation	Angiogenesis
Mousa and Mohamed⁶⁶	Human umbilical vein endothelial cells	TFPI	Upregulation	Angiogenesis
Pfankuchen et al⁶⁷	Human ovarian cancer cells	Cell surface proteoglycans	Transcriptional reprogramming	Chemoresistance

Abbreviations: CXCL12, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12; CXCR4, C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4; TFPI, tissue factor pathway inhibitor; VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; VLA-4, very late antigen-4.

Local Tumor Growth

The activation of Extracellular signal-Regulated Kinase (ERK) pathway is an established mechanism that prompts cell division, enhancing tumor cell proliferation.^68,69 As a result, several anticancer drugs have been developed targeting the inhibition of this specific pathway.^68,70
–72 Tinzaparin, along with other LMWHs, has been shown to limit downstream phosphorylation of ERK kinase pathway.⁷³ However, tinzaparin failed to impede cellular proliferation in a model of in vitro human breast cancer cells.⁷⁴ Likewise, tinzaparin did not demonstrate any effect on primary tumor growth in an experimental B16F10 metastasis model.⁷⁵

Metastasis

As reviewed elsewhere, the most detrimental aspect of cancer disease, metastatic spreading, occurs in a series of subsequent steps, also known as the metastatic cascade. First of all, epithelial–mesenchymal transition ensues, causing loss of cell polarity, downregulation of E-cadherin paired with upregulation of N-cadherin expression, as well as acquisition of spindle cell morphology. This local and ephemeral cell transformation is capable but not always essential for the promotion of tumor cell migration (by the development of cell membrane bulges) and invasion (by derangement of the extracellular matrix [ECM]) surpassing the basal membrane barrier. Tumor cells should then overcome apoptosis induced due to inadequate cell adhesion to its surrounding cells or the ECM called anoikis. Anoikis regularly represents a homeostatic tissue mechanism. Angiogenesis is another critical step further aiding metastatic spread of malignant cells. In order to metastasize, tumor cells should then enter the circulation (intravasation), avoid once again their destruction by anoikis, the immune cells, or sheer stress from the blood flow, and manage to exit the circulation (extravasation) in a distant site. Disseminated cancer cells then form micrometastases. These last events require not only a favorable microenvironment at the target site but also the prevention of tumor cell dormancy or anoikis for 1 last time.⁷⁶ Regression to their former epithelial state by mesenchymal–epithelial transition is also fundamental for disseminated cancer cells to result in micrometastases and finally grow into macrometastases.⁷⁷

Platelet-assisted tumor cell adhesion to the vascular endothelial cell lining is a crucial incident in the intravasation as well as the extravasation process.⁷⁸ A variety of cellular interactions have been involved in this event. Stevenson et al concluded that clinically relevant doses of both UFH and tinzaparin diminished metastatic rates, via P- and L- selectin inhibition, in a mice metastasis model.⁵⁹ Furthermore, the antimetastatic effect of heparin is abolished in double P- and L-selectin-deficient mice.⁷⁹ In addition, Schlesinger et al^60,80 used very late antigen-4 knockdown (VLA-4kd) B16F10 murine melanoma cells to assess the role of VLA-4/vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) interaction in the metastatic process. The VLA-4kd cells’ loss of the ability to interact with VCAM-1 resulted in a reduced metastatic rate in mice, compared with control. However, VLA-4/VCAM-1 bridging blockade has a nonsignificant cumulative contribution to the establishment of metastatic foci in a P-selectin-deficient background, both in vitro and in vivo, indicating that selectin-mediated interactions prevail over integrin-mediated ones. Tinzaparin administration in both B16F10- and B16F10-VLA-4kd-injected mice significantly reduced metastatic rates. Thus, tinzaparin displays a role in disturbing not only P- and L-selectin but also VLA-4/VCAM-1 interconnections in vivo. Tinzaparin also inhibited C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4-expressing malignant cells binding to C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 on normal tissue, resulting in a significant decline in metastatic dissemination of human breast cancer cells to the lung in a murine model.⁶¹

A pancreatic cancer mouse model has demonstrated tinzaparin’s role in upregulating the expression of E-cadherin in malignant cells. Besides, depressed E-cadherin expression increases local invasion and migration, further promoting metastasis.⁶²

Extracellular matrix degradation represents another step toward metastatic dispersion of malignant cells. Heparanase is a proteolytic enzyme-mediating ECM degeneration.^81,82 Although there are no studies hitherto examining the potential of tinzaparin in suppressing heparanase, tinzaparin represents the most powerful aggrecanase inhibitor.⁸³ Aggrecanase-1 or ADAMTS4 and aggrecanase-2 or ADAMTS5 are proteolytic enzymes also accounted for ECM disruption. A number of studies link both aggrecanases to the formation of several types of solid tumors.^84,85

Tumor cells activate nearby endothelial cells by tumor-derived vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A). Endothelial cell stimulation causes von Willebrand factor (vWF) release, which coupled with local suppression of both the expression and the proteolytic activity of ADAMTS13 establishes a procoagulatory microenvironment inside the tumor vasculature. Additionally, vWF clusters attract and bind platelets, which in turn protect tumor cells from immune cells or directly promote their extravasation, an essential step in the metastatic cascade. Bauer et al demonstrated that tinzaparin injection impeded tumor progression and improved survival in Ret transgenic mice.⁶³

The antimetastatic effect of tinzaparin has also been projected in a B16 melanoma cell lung metastasis model in mice. Subcutaneous administration of tinzaparin 4 hours prior to the IV infusion of melanoma cells induced lung tumor formation by 89% compared with controls (P < .001). Additional daily administration of tinzaparin for 14 days after the initial dose achieved a further reduction in lung tumor formation, reaching a rate of 96%.⁶⁴

Angiogenesis

Angiogenesis, as mentioned before, is a cardinal step in local tumor growth and metastatic progression. Solid tumors generate themselves a propitious proangiogenic background. Tumor-induced angiogenesis can be triggered in a hypoxia-induced factor-1 (HIF-1)-dependent or -independent manner. Rapid malignant cell proliferation to form a solid tumor impairs the local balance between oxygen supply and demand, causing intratumoral hypoxia, which in turn stimulates HIF-1 production. In addition, carcinogenic genetic alterations in oncogenes as well as in tumor suppressor genes provide the essential stimulus for the increased output of HIF-1 or its decreased proteasomal degradation. Thus, HIF-1 accumulation upregulates VEGF-a expression, resulting in angiogenesis. Other mechanisms, such as the Warburg effect (a shift to anaerobic glucose metabolism, causing an increase in lactate and pyruvate concentrations), implicated in the induction of HIF-1-dependent angiogenesis.⁸⁶ On the other hand, HIF-1-independent mechanisms of angiogenesis in patients with cancer involve multiple RAS signal transduction pathways. These pathways stimulate not only VEGF production but also the release of other proangiogenic mediators such as interleukin-8, CXCL1, and Prostaglandin E2.⁸⁷ Apart from VEGF-a, other factors known to trigger the “angiogenic switch” include fibroblast growth factors, platelet-derived growth factor, and epidermal growth factor. Conversely, thrombospondin 1, angiostatin, endostatin, and tumstatin rather impede the angiogenic process.

Malignant cells can also incite the spontaneous or hypoxia-driven synthesis and assembly of tissue factor (TF) factor VII complexes. Cleavage of Protease Activated Receptor 2 by the above complex promotes downstream VEGF-a and other proangiogenic factors production, further assisting in tumor-derived angiogenesis.⁸⁸ Tinzaparin possesses an antiangiogenic potential mediated via TFPI release. Mousa and Mohamed⁶⁵ indicated that this potential is dose dependent, but stimulus independent both in vitro and in vivo in a chick chorioallantoic membrane tumor implant model. Tinzaparin and recombinant TFPI reduced the growth of colon carcinoma, human fibrosarcoma, and human lung carcinoma tumors in the above model. This ability could be reversed by a specific anti-TFPI monoclonal antibody. A human umbilical vein endothelial cell angiogenesis⁶⁶ model came to confirm the previously stated antiangiogenic ability of tinzaparin. Furthermore, this model added that this ability is correlated with TFPI release but not with tinzaparin’s anti-Xa activity.

Reversal of Chemoresistance

In 2015, Pfankuchen et al⁶⁷ revealed a pioneering aspect of tinzaparin’s anticancer properties; using tinzaparin in a dose corresponding to its therapeutic antithrombotic dosage in adults, they managed to reverse cisplatin resistance of A2780 human ovarian cancer cell lines. Experimental data ruled out increased intracellular uptake of tinzaparin among chemoresistant cells. Nevertheless, tinzaparin’s interaction with heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) on the cell surface and downstream HSPG signaling resulted in alteration of the expression of 3776 genes in A2780 cisplatin-resistant cells. Hence, tinzaparin seems to bear an impact on various cell systems, explaining its newly found properties.

Discussion

The use of LMWH is currently considered as mainstay for the treatment and secondary prevention of cancer-associated VTE. Among all LMWHs, tinzaparin possesses the lowest anti-IIa/anti-Xa activity ratio (2:1). The first step for the LMWHs in order to exert their action is to form a complex with antithrombin (ATIII), binding it to their unique pentasaccharide sequence. After bonding, a structural change in ATIII occurs, resulting in a 1000-fold increase in its ability to interact with factor Xa.^89
–91 In contrast, ATIII-mediated factor IIa (thrombin) inhibition requires the formation of a ternary heparin–antithrombin–thrombin cluster. This cluster can be assembled only in 18-saccharide long LMWH chains, considerably limiting LMWHs’ anti-IIa potential, since only 25% to 50% of their chains meet this prerequisite.^89,92,93

Tinzaparin sodium’s Xa inhibitory effect can be partly neutralized by the use of protamine sulfate. Data from an in vitro study conclude that 85.7% of tinzaparin’s anti-Xa activity is neutralized after protamine sulfate addition, compared to a lesser extent of neutralization among the other LMWHs.⁴⁰ These data are in correspondence with another study in 50 healthy volunteers, a nonrandomized this time, in which Holst et al came to the conclusion that protamine sulfate reversed 80% and 60% to 65% of tinzaparin’s anti-Xa activity following IV or SC injection, respectively. The 65% to 75% return of anti-Xa activity seen in the SC groups 3 hours after the reversal marks the continuous absorption of the LMWH from the SC depot, rather than the insufficient dosage of the antidote.⁴¹ The main reason for the varying degree of anti-Xa reversal exhibited by different LMWHs seems to be a combination of both the molecular size of the LMWH chains and their sulfate charge density.

In addition, tinzaparin sodium administration promotes TFPI release. The TFPI inhibits the factor VII–TF complex, modulating the initiation of coagulation induced by TF. It also directly inhibits factor Xa.^94,95 As a result, part of the LMWH anticoagulant potential is believed to be mediated via endothelial TFPI release.^96

–99 Besides, low total and free TFPI plasma levels constitute a risk factor for DVT.¹⁰⁰

Both animal¹⁰¹ and human¹⁰² studies have demonstrated the dose-dependent pharmacokinetics of UFH. Its elimination is best described as a combination of 2 systems. Cellular uptake (reticuloendothelial system, endothelial cells), mediated via hyaluronic acid receptor for endocytosis receptors,¹⁰³ is saturable and more efficient at low-dose range, whereas renal excretion, representing an active tubular process, is nonsaturable and becomes prevalent as doses increase. The above concept is typically less conspicuous in LMWHs, due to its molecular weight (MW) dependency.^104

–107 Hence, LMWHs with a MW below approximately 5000 Da (such as bemiparin, enoxaparin, nadroparin, and so on) are predominantly excreted by the kidney, in a dose-independent manner. On the contrary, tinzaparin (6500 Da) and to a lesser extent dalteparin (5700 Da) employ first-order pharmacokinetics, with the involvement of cellular and renal routes of elimination successively.¹⁰⁸ Accordingly, in patients with mild-to-severe renal impairment, defined as Creatinine Clearance - CrCl ≥20 mL/min, prophylactic dosage (4500 anti-Xa IU) of tinzaparin does not accumulate; thus, tinzaparin administration requires no dose adjustment in this setting. On the other hand, bemiparin, enoxaparin, and certoparin do accumulate demanding dose reduction; no data were available for nadroparin.^109,110 In the same subgroup of patients, as far as therapeutic dosage (175 anti-Xa IU/kg) is concerned, tinzaparin continues to show no accumulation, so no dose adjustment is currently recommended.^{111

–119} Enoxaparin continues to display bioaccumulation, requiring dose reduction.¹¹³ Sufficient data are lacking in the case of dalteparin.^111,120 This conclusion appears paramount for the subpopulation of patients with cancer, as they combine multiple factors that aggravate their renal function, such as older age, dehydration, and use of nephrotoxic agents for anticancer treatment, and other comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and so on.

Hull et al⁵⁵ were the first to report the statistically significant benefit in VTE recurrence at 12 months post the index thromboembolic event for patients treated with tinzaparin for 12 weeks, in comparison with those who received VKAs for the same period of time. In this study, outcomes were evaluated both at the end of treatment period and 12 months, since there is clinical evidence implicating that heparin and its low MW fragments maintain their beneficial effect even after cessation of therapy.^121,122 Neither bleeding events nor mortality exhibited statistically significant difference between the 2 arms of the study.

Laporte et al’s meta-analysis⁵⁶ came to confirm the aforementioned outcomes concerning patients with cancer. In contrast, no difference was marked when tinzaparin was administered for the treatment of VTE in the general population neither at the end of treatment period nor at 1 year, as compared to VKAs.

The above results come in accordance with the CLOT study,¹²³ which investigated the role of dalteparin in cancer-related VTE. Conflicting data^124

–127 exist in the case of enoxaparin as VTE anticoagulation treatment.

As far as matters of safety are concerned, the CATCH trial outlined tinzaparin’s better tolerated profile, in terms of a statistically significant reduction in overt nonmajor bleeding rates, in comparison with VKAs for the treatment of acute VTE in patients with cancer; tinzaparin use did not result in decreased major bleeding events.⁵⁷

However, Noel-Savina et al¹²⁸ failed to confirm any correlation between the choice of anticoagulant and the risk of recurrent VTE. Instead, this retrospective cohort study involving 250 patients with cancer concluded that early (before 6 months) cessation of anticoagulation therapy either in patients at low risk⁵⁸ of recurrence or for a reason other than bleeding or death represented the only factor related to a statistically significant elevated risk of VTE recurrence (OR = 7.2; 95% CI, 2.0 to 25.7; P = .002). Indeed, the risk was 8-fold higher when anticoagulation stopped before 6 months.

Although many clinical trials have highlighted the role of tinzaparin in the acute treatment as well as the secondary prevention of cancer-related VTE, its role in primary prevention has not been as much documented.⁵²

Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) represents a frequent, wearing, and costly long-term complication of VTE. Daskalopoulos et al¹²⁹ were the first to report tinzaparin’s superiority over VKAs in reducing the incidence of PTS and venous ulcers. The Home-LITE trial confirmed a statistically significant decline of the previously stated events in the tinzaparin group, compared to those treated with oral VKAs.¹³⁰ In addition, tinzaparin exhibited greater rates of recanalization of leg thrombi as compared to VKAs. Although the above results were registered in the general population, the pathophysiology of PTS remains unchanged in cancer-induced VTE. Prolonged overall survival due to advances in cancer therapeutics also increases the prevalence of PTS in patients with cancer.

Furthermore, sufficient preclinical data, including known pathophysiologic mechanisms and both in vitro and in vivo animal studies, have revealed tinzaparin’s anticancer properties. As reviewed elsewhere, tinzaparin has displayed both antimetastatic and anti-angiogenic abilities. Another question that remains to be answered is whether preclinical evidence can be translated in clinical outcomes, in terms of increased overall survival by adding tinzaparin to standard chemotherapy regimens?

In this setting, Auer et al¹³¹ conducted a randomized, controlled, pilot study, involving 18 patients with localized and resectable colon cancer. These patients received standard (4500 IU, SC, once daily, initiated 8 hours after surgery and terminated on the day of discharge) or extended (4500 IU, SC, once daily, initiated 8 hours and terminated 4 weeks after surgery) perioperative thromboprophylaxis. The primary goal was recruitment rate. The secondary goals consisted of compliance with therapy, major and minor bleeding rates, and finally disease recurrence. Excellent compliance with tinzaparin injections, a total of 2 (11%) major bleeding events and only 2 (11%) patients with recurrent disease, concluded that a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial exploring disease-free survival in patients with resectable colon cancer is both safe and feasible.

Overall survival is the primary end point of the TILT study,¹³² a randomized controlled clinical trial, enrolling patients with completely resected stage I, II, or III (T3N1) lung cancer.Patients are divided into 2 groups: control group and experimental; those in control group will receive usual postoperative care, while patients in the experimental 1 will receive the usual postoperative care, plus tinzaparin (100 IU/kg, SC, once daily, for 90 days). Follow-up period will last for 3 to 8 years. Finally, the avant-garde ability of tinzaparin to reverse chemoresistance of ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin in vitro remains to be confirmed in vivo. Another interesting prospect is whether tinzaparin can reproduce this ability in human cancer cells with acquired resistance to anticancer agents other than cisplatin.

Conclusion

Tinzaparin sodium possesses important pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, maintaining an exceptional stand among other LMWHs. The LMWH prescription constitutes standard of care for the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE in oncology. Tinzaparin administration has demonstrated substantial benefits over VKAs in matters of efficacy supplementary to safety for the treatment of venous thromboembolic events in patients with cancer. Its innate anticancer effects have also been delineated in preclinical research. Head-to-head studies are needed in order to investigate whether tinzaparin’s unique pharmacological properties can be translated in lower rates of VTE recurrence, along with fewer bleeding events in patients with cancer. Randomized controlled clinical trials are eventually required to investigate its role in primary cancer-associated VTE prevention and validate its ability to alter the course of cancer disease.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.

Trousseau

. Phlegmasia alba dolens. Clin Med I Hotel Dieu Paris. 1868;3:43:1848.

Khorana

Francis

Culakova

. Frequency, risk factors, and trends for venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients. Cancer. 2007;110(10):2339–2346.

Khorana

Francis

Culakova

. Thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(3):632–634.

Heit

Silverstein

Mohr

. Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):809–815.

Prandoni

Falanga

Piccioli

. Cancer and venous thromboembolism. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(6):401–410.

Hansson

Sörbo

Eriksson

. Recurrent venous thromboembolism after deep vein thrombosis: incidence and risk factors. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):769–774.

Levitan

Dowlati

Remick

. Rates of initial and recurrent thromboembolic disease among patients with malignancy versus those without malignancy. Risk analysis using Medicare claims data. Medicine (Baltimore). 1999;78(5):285–291.

Trujillo-Santos

Ruiz-Gamietea

Luque

; RIETE Investigators. Predicting recurrences or major bleeding in women with cancer and venous thromboembolism. Findings from the RIETE Registry. Thromb Res. 2009;123(suppl 2):S10–S15.

10.

Prandoni

Lensing

Piccioli

. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding complications during anticoagulant treatment in patients with cancer and venous thrombosis. Blood. 2002;100(10):3484–3488.

11.

Chew

Wun

Harvey

. Incidence of venous thromboembolism and its effect on survival among patients with common cancers. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(4):458–464.

12.

Wun

White

. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer: epidemiology and risk factors. Cancer Invest. 2009;27(suppl 1):63–74.

13.

Alikhan

Cohen

Combe

; MEDENOX Study. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with acute medical illness: analysis of the MEDENOX Study. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(9):963–968.

14.

Khorana

Rao

. Approaches to risk-stratifying cancer patients for venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res. 2007;120(suppl 2):S41–S50.

15.

Rickles

Falanga

. Molecular basis for the relationship between thrombosis and cancer. Thromb Res. 2001;102(6): V215–V224.

16.

Zwicker

Furie

. Cancer-associated thrombosis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007;62(2):126–136.

17.

Blom

Vanderschoot

Oostindiër

. Incidence of venous thrombosis in a large cohort of 66,329 cancer patients: results of a record linkage study. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(3):529–535.

18.

Mandalà

Falanga

Roila

; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(suppl 6):vi85–vi92.

19.

Kuderer

Lyman

. Guidelines for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer. Thromb Res. 2014;133(suppl 2):S122–S127.

20.

Lyman

Bohlke

Khorana

; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update 2014. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):654–656.

21.

Bergqvist

Burmark

Frisell

. Low molecular weight heparin once daily compared with conventional low-dose heparin twice daily. A prospective double-blind multicentre trial on prevention of postoperative thrombosis. Br J Surg. 1986;73(3):204–208.

22.

Bergqvist

Mätzsch

Burmark

. Low molecular weight heparin given the evening before surgery compared with conventional low-dose heparin in prevention of thrombosis. Br J Surg. 1988;75(9):888–891.

23.

Samama

Bernard

Bonnardot

. Low molecular weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin in prevention of postoperative thrombosis. Br J Surg. 1988;75(2):128–131.

24.

Liezorovicz

Picolet

Peyrieux

. Prevention of perioperative deep vein thrombosis in general surgery: a multicentre double blind study comparing two doses of Logiparin and standard heparin. H.B.P.M. Research Group. Br J Surg. 1991;78(4):412–416.

25.

Bergqvist

Agnelli

Cohen

; ENOXACAN II Investigators. Duration of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism with enoxaparin after surgery for cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(13):975–980.

26.

Rasmussen

Jorgensen

Wille-Jørgensen

; FAME Investigators. Prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin to prevent late thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a multicenter randomized open-label study. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(11):2384–2390.

27.

Samama

Cohen

Darmon

. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(11):793–800.

28.

Leizorovicz

Cohen

Turpie

; PREVENT Medical Thromboprophylaxis Study Group. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation. 2004;110(7):874–879.

29.

Cohen

Davidson

Gallus

; ARTEMIS Investigators. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332(7537):325–329.

30.

Agnelli

Gussoni

Bianchini

; PROTECHT Investigators. Nadroparin for the prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer receiving chemotherapy: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(10):943–949.

31.

Palumbo

Cavo

Bringhen

. Aspirin, warfarin, or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide: a phase III, open-label, randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):986–993.

32.

Zangari

Barlogie

Thertulien

. Thalidomide and deep vein thrombosis in multiple myeloma: risk factors and effect on survival. Clin Lymphoma. 2003;4(1):32–35.

33.

Hoy

Scott

Plosker

. Tinzaparin sodium: a review of its use in the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and in the prevention of clotting in the extracorporeal circuit during haemodialysis. Drugs. 2010;70(10):1319–1347.

34.

Nader

Walenga

Berkowitz

. Preclinical differentiation of low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25(suppl 3):63–72.

35.

Linhardt

Gunay

. Production and chemical processing of low molecular weight heparins. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25(suppl 3):5–16.

36.

Fossler

Barrett

Hainer

. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous and subcutaneous tinzaparin and heparin in healthy volunteers. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58(17):1614–1621.

37.

Mätzsch

Bergqvist

Hedner

. Effects of an enzymatically depolymerized heparin as compared with conventional heparin in healthy volunteers. Thromb Haemost. 1987;57(1):97–101.

38.

Gerotziafas

Petropoulou

Verdy

. 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. 2007;5(5):955–962.

39.

Sánchez-Ferrer

. Bemiparin: pharmacological profile. Drugs. 2010;70(suppl 2):19–23.

40.

Crowther

Berry

Monagle

. Mechanisms responsible for the failure of protamine to inactivate low-molecular-weight heparin. Br J Haematol. 2002;116(1):178–186.

41.

Holst

Lindblad

Bergqvist

. Protamine neutralization of intravenous and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin, Logiparin). An experimental investigation in healthy volunteers. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 1994;5(5):795–803.

42.

Mousa

Bozarth

Barrett

. Pharmacodynamic properties of the low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin: effect of molecular weight distribution on plasma tissue factor pathway inhibitor in healthy human subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;43(7):727–734.

43.

Hoppensteadt

Willows

Leitz

. Laboratory analysis of blood samples from patients treated with tinzaparin. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2004;30(suppl 1):49–55.

44.

Depasse

González de Suso

Lagoutte

. 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. Thromb Res. 2003;109(2-3):109–117.

45.

Kuczka

Baum

Picard-Willems

. Long term administration of LMWH—pharmacodynamic parameters under therapeutic or prophylactic regimen of enoxaparin or tinzaparin in neurological rehabilitation patients. Thromb Res. 2009;124(5):625–630.

46.

Thomas

Lybeck

Strandberg

. Monitoring low molecular weight heparins at therapeutic levels: dose-responses of, and correlations and differences between aPTT, anti-factor Xa and thrombin generation assays. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e01168 35.

47.

Sabry

Taha

Nada

. Anticoagulation therapy during haemodialysis: a comparative study between two heparin regimens. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2009;20(1):57–62.

48.

Cambus

Saivin

Heilmann

. The pharmacodynamics of tinzaparin in healthy volunteers. Br J Haematol. 2002;116(3):649–652.

49.

Frydman

. Low-molecular-weight heparins: an overview of their pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and metabolism in humans. Haemostasis. 1996;26(suppl 2):24–38.

50.

Eriksson

Söderberg

Widlund

. A comparative study of three low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UH) in healthy volunteers. Thromb Haemost. 1995;73(3):398–401.

51.

Barrett

Hainer

Kornhauser

. Anticoagulant pharmacodynamics of tinzaparin following 175 IU/kg subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers. Thromb Res. 2001;101(4):243–254.

52.

Perry

Bohlin

Reardon

. Tinzaparin prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic complications in brain tumor patients. J Neurooncol. 2009;95(1):129–134.

53.

Frydman

Bara

Le Roux

. The antithrombotic activity and pharmacokinetics of enoxaparin, a low molecular weight heparin, in humans given single subcutaneous doses of 20 to 80 mg. J Clin Pharmacol. 1988;28(7):609–618.

54.

Collignon

Frydman

Caplain

. Comparison of the pharmacokinetic profiles of three low molecular mass heparins—dalteparin, enoxaparin and nadroparin—administered subcutaneously in healthy volunteers (doses for prevention of thromboembolism). Thromb Haemost. 1995;73(4):630–640.

55.

Hull

Pineo

Brant

; LITE Trial Investigators. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patients with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;119(12):1062–1072.

56.

Laporte

Bertoletti

Romera

. Long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism with tinzaparin compared to vitamin K antagonists: a meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials in non-cancer and cancer patients. Thromb Res. 2012;130(6):853–858.

57.

Lee

Kamphuisen

; CATCH Investigators. Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314(7):677–686.

58.

Agnelli

Becattini

. Treatment of DVT: how long is enough and how do you predict recurrence. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2008;25(1):37–44.

59.

Stevenson

Choi

Varki

. Differential metastasis inhibition by clinically relevant levels of heparins–correlation with selectin inhibition, not antithrombotic activity. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(19 pt 1):7003–7011.

60.

Schlesinger

Roblek

Ortmann

. The role of VLA-4 binding for experimental melanoma metastasis and its inhibition by heparin. Thromb Res. 2014;133(5):855–862.

61.

Harvey

Mellor

Eldaly

. Inhibition of CXCR4-mediated breast cancer metastasis: a potential role for heparinoids?. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(5):1562–1570.

62.

Alyahya

Sudha

Racz

. Anti-metastasis efficacy and safety of non-anticoagulant heparin derivative versus low molecular weight heparin in surgical pancreatic cancer models. Int J Oncol. 2015;46(3):1225–1231.

63.

Bauer

Suckau

Frank

. von Willebrand factor fibers promote cancer-associated platelet aggregation in malignant melanoma of mice and humans. Blood. 2015;125(20):3153–3163.

64.

Amirkhosravi

Mousa

Amaya

Francis

. Antimetastatic effect of tinzaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin. J Thromb Haemost. 2003;1(9):1972–1976.

65.

Mousa

Mohamed

. Anti-angiogenic mechanisms and efficacy of the low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin: anti-cancer efficacy. Oncol Rep. 2004;12(4):683–688.

66.

Mousa

Mohamed

. Inhibition of endothelial cell tube formation by the low molecular weight heparin, tinzaparin, is mediated by tissue factor pathway inhibitor. Thromb Haemost. 2004;92(3):627–633.

67.

Pfankuchen

Stölting

Schlesinger

. Low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin antagonizes cisplatin resistance of ovarian cancer cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 2015;97(2):147–157.

68.

Campbell

. Oncogenic Ras pushes (and pulls) cell cycle progression through ERK activation. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1170:155–163.

69.

Deschênes-Simard

Kottakis

Meloche

. ERKs in cancer: friends or foes?. Cancer Res. 2014;74(2):412–429.

70.

Downward

. Targeting RAS signalling pathways in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(1):11–22.

71.

Medina

Amaria

Jimeno

. Dabrafenib in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Drugs Today (Barc). 2013;49(6):377–385

72.

Davoudi

bin-Noordin

Javar

. Sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2014;27(1):203–208.

73.

Mousa

Petersen

. Anti-cancer properties of low-molecular-weight heparin: preclinical evidence. Thromb Haemost. 2009;102(2):258–267.

74.

Harvey

Mellor

Eldaly

. Inhibition of CXCR4-mediated breast cancer metastasis: a potential role for heparinoids?. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(5):1562–1570.

75.

Kragh

Binderup

Vig Hjarnaa

. Non-anti-coagulant heparin inhibits metastasis but not primary tumor growth. Oncol Rep. 2005;14(1):99–104.

76.

Geiger

Peeper

. Metastasis mechanisms. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1796(2):293–308.

77.

Tsai

Yang

. Epithelial–mesenchymal plasticity in carcinoma metastasis. Genes Dev. 2013;27(20):2192–2206.

78.

Sudha

Phillips

Kanaan

. Inhibitory effect of non-anticoagulant heparin (S-NACH) on pancreatic cancer cell adhesion and metastasis in human umbilical cord vessel segment and in mouse model. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2012;29(5):431–439.

79.

Borsig

Wong

Hynes

. A Synergistic effects of L- and P-selectin in facilitating tumor metastasis can involve non-mucin ligands and implicate leukocytes as enhancers of metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(4):2193–2198.

80.

Schlesinger

Simonis

Schmitz

. Binding between heparin and the integrin VLA-4. Thromb Haemost. 2009;102(5):816–822.

81.

Zhang

Chen

Zhao

. Silencing of heparanase by siRNA inhibits tumor metastasis and angiogenesis of human breast cancer in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Biol Ther. 2007;6(4):587–595.

82.

Okada

. Tumor cell-matrix interaction: pericellular matrix degradation and metastasis. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2000;84:33–42.

83.

Mousa

. Effect of low molecular weight heparin and different heparin molecular weight fractions on the activity of the matrix-degrading enzyme aggrecanase: structure-function relationship. J Cell Biochem. 2005;95(1):95–98.

84.

Filou

Stylianou

Triantaphyllidou

. Expression and distribution of aggrecanases in human larynx: ADAMTS-5/aggrecanase-2 is the main aggrecanase in laryngeal carcinoma. Biochimie. 2013;95(4):725–734.

85.

Turner

Mangnall

Bird

. Expression of ADAMTS-1, ADAMTS-4, ADAMTS-5 and TIMP3 by hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines. Int J Oncol. 2012;41(3):1043–1049.

86.

Zimna

Kurpisz

. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 in physiological and pathophysiological angiogenesis: applications and therapies. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:549412.

87.

Mizukami

Kohgo

Chung

. Hypoxia inducible factor-1 independent pathways in tumor angiogenesis. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(19):5670–5674.

88.

Schaffner

Yokota

Ruf

. Tissue factor proangiogenic signaling in cancer progression. Thromb Res. 2012;129(suppl 1):S127–S131.

89.

Weitz

. Low-molecular-weight heparins. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(10):688–698.

90.

Hirsh

Warkentin

Raschke

. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing considerations, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest. 1998;114(suppl 5):489S–510S.

91.

Choay

Petitou

Lormeau

. Structure-activity relationship in heparin: a synthetic pentasaccharide with high affinity for antithrombin III and eliciting high anti-factor Xa activity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1983;116(2):492–499.

92.

Hirsh

Warkentin

Shaughnessy

. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest. 2001;119(suppl 1):64S–94S.

93.

Danielsson

Raub

Lindahl

. Role of ternary complexes, in which heparin binds both antithrombin and proteinase, in the acceleration of the reactions between antithrombin and thrombin or factor Xa. J Biol Chem. 1986;261(33):15467–15473.

94.

Broze

Jr . Tissue factor pathway inhibitor and the revised theory of coagulation. Annu Rev Med. 1995;46:103–112.

95.

Sandset

. Tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI)—an update. Haemostasis. 1996;26(suppl 4):154–165.

96.

Samama

Bara

Gerotziafas

. Mechanisms for the antithrombotic activity in man of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs). Haemostasis. 1994;24(2):105–117.

97.

Altman

Scazziota

Rouvier

. Efficacy of unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin and both combined for releasing total and free tissue factor pathway inhibitor. Haemostasis. 1998;28(5):229–235.

98.

Lupu

Poulsen

Roquefeuil

. Cellular effects of heparin on the production and release of tissue factor pathway inhibitor in human endothelial cells in culture. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999;19(9):2251–2262.

99.

Gori

Pepe

Attanasio

. Tissue factor reduction and tissue factor pathway inhibitor release after heparin administration. Thromb Haemost. 1999;81(4):589–593.

100.

Dahm

Van Hylckama Vlieg

Bendz

. Low levels of tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) increase the risk of venous thrombosis. Blood. 2003;101(11):4387–4392.

101.

Boneu

Caranobe

Gabaig

. Evidence for a saturable mechanism of disappearance of standard heparin in rabbits. Thromb Res. 1987;46(6):835–844.

102.

de Swart

Nijmeyer

Roelofs

. Kinetics of intravenously administered heparin in normal humans. Blood. 1982;60(6):1251–1258.

103.

Harris

Baggenstoss

Weigel

. Rat and human HARE/stabilin-2 are clearance receptors for high- and low-molecular-weight heparins. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009;296(6):G1191–G1199.

104.

Young

Douros

Podor

. Localization of heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin in the rat kidney. Thromb Haemost. 2004;91(5):927–934.

105.

Palm

Mattsson

. Pharmacokinetics of heparin and low molecular weight heparin fragment (Fragmin) in rabbits with impaired renal or metabolic clearance. Thromb Haemost. 1987;58(3):932–935.

106.

Boneu

Caranobe

Cadroy

. Pharmacokinetic studies of standard unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins in the rabbit. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1988;14(1):18–27.

107.

Weitz

. Update on heparin: what do we need to know? J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2010;29(2):199–207.

108.

Johansen

Balchen

. Tinzaparin and other low-molecular-weight heparins: what is the evidence for differential dependence on renal clearance? Exp Hematol Oncol. 2013;2:21.

109.

Atiq

van den Bemt

Leebeek

. A systematic review on the accumulation of prophylactic dosages of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with renal insufficiency. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(8):921–929.

110.

Mahé

Aghassarian

Drouet

. Tinzaparin and enoxaparin given at prophylactic dose for eight days in medical elderly patients with impaired renal function: a comparative pharmacokinetic study. Thromb Haemost. 2007;97(4):581–586.

111.

Samama

. Use of low-molecular-weight heparins and new anticoagulants in elderly patients with renal impairment. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(3):177–193.

112.

Siguret

Pautas

Février

. 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. 2000;84(5):800–804.

113.

Crowther

Lim

. Low molecular weight heparin and bleeding in patients with chronic renal failure. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2007;13(5):409–413.

114.

Lim

Dentali

Eikelboom

. Meta-analysis: low-molecular-weight heparin and bleeding in patients with severe renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(9):673–684.

115.

Siguret

Gouin-Thibault

Pautas

. 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. 2011;9(10):1966–1972.

116.

Pautas

Siguret

d’Urso

. Monitoring of tinzaparin in a ten day treatment dose in elderly patients [in French]. Rev Med Interne. 2001;22(2):120–126.

117.

Nutescu

Spinler

Wittkowsky

Dager

. Low-molecular-weight heparins in renal impairment and obesity: available evidence and clinical practice recommendations across medical and surgical settings. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(6):1064–1083.

118.

Nagge

Crowther

Hirsh

. Is impaired renal function a contraindication to the use of low-molecular-weight heparin? Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(22):2605–1209.

119.

Clark

. Low-molecular-weight heparin use in the obese, elderly, and in renal insufficiency. Thromb Res. 2008;123(suppl 1):S58–S61.

120.

Park

Southern

Calvo

. Treatment with dalteparin is associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared to treatment with unfractionated heparin in patients with renal insufficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(2):182–187.

121.

Klerk

Smorenburg

Otten

. The effect of low molecular weight heparin on survival in patients with advanced malignancy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(10):2130–2135.

122.

Hull

Raskob

Brant

. The importance of initial heparin treatment on long-term clinical outcomes of antithrombotic therapy. The emerging theme of delayed recurrence. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(20):2317–2321.

123.

Lee

Levine

Baker

. Randomized comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin versus oral anticoagulant therapy for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer (CLOT) investigators. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146–153.

124.

Marshall

Campigotto

. Recurrence of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer treated with warfarin. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2015;21(7):632–638.

125.

Deitcher

Kessler

Merli

; ONCENOX Investigators. Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with active cancer: enoxaparin alone versus initial enoxaparin followed by warfarin for a 180-day period. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2006;12(4):389–396.

126.

Meyer

Marjanovic

Valcke

. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(15):1729–1735.

127.

Iorio

Guercini

Pini

. Low-molecular-weight heparin for the long-term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism: meta-analysis of the randomized comparisons with oral anticoagulants. J Thromb Haemost. 2003;1(9):1906–1913.

128.

Noel-Savina

Sanchez

Descourt

. Tinzaparin and VKA use in patients with cancer associated venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort study. Thromb Res. 2015;135(1):78–83.

129.

Daskalopoulos

Daskalopoulou

Tzortzis

. Long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis with a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin): a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29(6):638–650.

130.

Hull

Liang

Merali

. 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. 2013;19(5):476–481.

131.

Auer

Scheer

Wells

. The use of extended perioperative low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) to improve disease-free survival following surgical resection of colon cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2011;22(8):760–762.

132.

Meyer

Besse

Friard

. Effect of tinzaparin on survival in non-small-cell lung cancer after surgery. TILT: tinzaparin in lung tumours [in French]. Rev Mal Respir. 2011;28(5):654–659.

The Role of Tinzaparin in Oncology

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Overview of Pharmacological Profile

Evidence in Patients With Cancer

Venous thromboembolism treatment

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Anticancer Properties

Local Tumor Growth

Metastasis

Angiogenesis

Reversal of Chemoresistance

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References