BACKGROUND: Comparative data for efficacy and safety between various low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with unstable angina is not available. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and effects on plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels of three LMWHs--enoxaparin, nadroparin and dalteparin. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, comparative, open with blinded endpoints (PROBE design) assessment with a 30-day follow-up. The primary endpoint of efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and need for intervention. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Plasma PAI-1 levels were estimated by ELISA. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were available for intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference at 30 days in the primary endpoint or in any of the individual components in the three groups. The secondary endpoint of silent ischemia was also not significantly different. Adverse events were similar in the three groups. The PAI-1 levels were not significantly different in the three groups. The total cost of treatment in the three groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Any of the three LMWHs evaluated in this study were similar with respect to efficacy, safety, PAI-1 levels and cost-effectiveness.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Comparative data for efficacy and safety between various low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with unstable angina is not available. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and effects on plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels of three LMWHs--enoxaparin, nadroparin and dalteparin. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, comparative, open with blinded endpoints (PROBE design) assessment with a 30-day follow-up. The primary endpoint of efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and need for intervention. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Plasma PAI-1 levels were estimated by ELISA. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were available for intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference at 30 days in the primary endpoint or in any of the individual components in the three groups. The secondary endpoint of silent ischemia was also not significantly different. Adverse events were similar in the three groups. The PAI-1 levels were not significantly different in the three groups. The total cost of treatment in the three groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Any of the three LMWHs evaluated in this study were similar with respect to efficacy, safety, PAI-1 levels and cost-effectiveness.