List Of Non Gamstop Casinos UK
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

González-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
    		•  

    Lee study, 2003

    Treatments

    Studied treatment LMWH, 200 IU/kg qd followed by Dalteparin 150 IU/kg qd
    Control treatment LMWH, 200 IU/kg qd followed by Warfarin target INR 2-3

    Patients

    Patients patients with cancer and objective diagnosis of DVT by Venography/compression ultrasonography
    Baseline characteristics
    objective DVT diagnosis Venography/CUS 
    objective PR diagnosis HCT/PA/VPLS 
    cancer (%) 100% 
    Outcome assessment blinded Yes 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 336 / 336 (studied vs. control)
    Blinding open
    Follow-up duration 6 mo
    Number of centre multicenter
    Primary endpoint recurrent thrombosis


    Results

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

    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment

    27 / 336
         53 / 336
         0,51 [0,33;0,79]     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 27 / 336 (8,0%) 53 / 336 (15,8%) 0,51 [0,33;0,79]  
    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 8,04% 15,77% -77,4‰


    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NA
    • Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, Bowden C, Kakkar AK, Prins M, Rickles FR, Julian JA, Haley S, Kovacs MJ, Gent M. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.. N Engl J Med 2003;349:146-53
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext
    • Lee AY, Rickles FR, Julian JA, Gent M, Baker RI, Bowden C, Kakkar AK, Prins M, Levine MN. Randomized comparison of low molecular weight heparin and coumarin derivatives on the survival of patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism.. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2123-9
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

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

    Tweet this  |  notify a friend