Task: Question Generation
Input (English): The ability to administer low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) subcutaneously without laboratory monitoring contributes to their popularity for the treatment of thrombotic disorders. Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, although less expensive, is deemed to require routine laboratory monitoring on the basis of more variability in drug effect compared to LMWH. However, the more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles of low molecular weight heparins are largely based on anti-Xa activity, while antithrombin activity may be at least as important to their mechanisms of action.', 'We performed a clinical pharmacokinetic trial to compare the variability in peak antithrombin effect between subcutaneous unfractionated heparin and various LMWHs, all given in recommended weight-adjusted treatment doses. Sixty-one patients enrolled in a warfarin clinic were randomized to receive one of four different weight-adjusted subcutaneous heparin doses: unfractionated heparin, 250 units/kg (n=15); tinzaparin, 175 units/kg (n=15); dalteparin, 200 units/kg (n=15); or enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg (n=16). The areas under the curves of antithrombin levels during the first 3 h after administration were determined for each patient, and the coefficients of variation (CV) and 95% confidence intervals of the AUCs were compared among the treatment groups.', 'There was no statistically significant difference in the coefficients of variation of antithrombin effect between unfractionated heparin (52.8, 95% CI: 32.6-72.9) and enoxaparin (56.5, 95% CI: 35.7-77.4) or dalteparin (43.5, 95% CI 25.4-61.6). Tinzaparin had statistically significant decrease in coefficients of variation (21.6, 95% CI: 12.2-30.9) relative to unfractionated heparin, dalteparin and enoxaparin.
Output (English): Are pharmacokinetics of UH and LMWH similar with respect to antithrombin activity?