Tinzaparin, an alternative to subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, in patients with severe and end-stage renal impairment: a retrospective observational single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Tinzaparin could be easier to manage than unfractionated heparin in patients with severe renal impairment. However, clinical and pharmacologic data regarding its use in such patients are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine, in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL.min⁻1, tinzaparin pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters using a population PK approach and bleeding and thrombotic complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational single-center study, including in-patients with eGFR of <30 mL.min⁻1 receiving prophylactic (4500 IU.d⁻1) or therapeutic (175 IU.kg⁻1.d⁻1) tinzaparin. Measured anti-Xa levels were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach. Individual predicted tinzaparin exposure markers at steady state were calculated for each patient and dosing regimen. The PK was also evaluated through Monte Carlo simulations based on the final covariate model parameter estimates. RESULTS: Over a 22-month period, 802 tinzaparin treatment periods in 623 patients were analyzed: two-thirds received a prophylactic dose, 66% had an eGFR of <20 mL.min⁻1, and 25% were on renal replacement therapy. In patients for whom anti-Xa measurements were performed (n = 199; 746 values), PK parameters, profiles, and maximum plasma concentrations were comparable with those in patients without renal impairment or in healthy volunteers. In the whole population, major bleeding occurred in 2.4% and 3.5% of patients receiving prophylactic and therapeutic doses over a median 9- and 7-day treatment period, respectively. No patients had thrombotic complications. CONCLUSION: Tinzaparin PK parameters and profiles were not affected by renal impairment. This suggests that tinzaparin, at therapeutic or prophylactic dose, could be an alternative to unfractionated heparin in hospitalized patients with severe renal impairment.

Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy-Related Inflammation and Biopsy-Positive Primary Angiitis of the CNS: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-RI) and biopsy-positive primary angiitis of the CNS (BP-PACNS) have overlapping clinicoradiologic presentations. It is unknown whether clinical and radiologic features can differentiate CAA-RI from BP-PACNS and whether both diseases have different relapse rates. The objectives of this study were to compare clinicoradiologic presentations and relapse rates in patients with CAA-RI vs BP-PACNS. METHODS: Patients with CAA-RI and BP-PACNS were enrolled from 2 retrospective multicenter cohorts. Patients with CAA-RI were biopsy-positive or met probable clinicoradiologic criteria. Patients with BP-PACNS had histopathologic confirmation of CNS angiitis, with no secondary etiology. A neuroradiologist read brain MRIs, blinded to the diagnosis of CAA-RI or BP-PACNS. Clinicoradiologic features were compared using univariable logistic regression models. Relapse rates were compared using a univariable Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: This study enrolled 104 patients with CAA-RI (mean age 73 years, 48% female sex) and 52 patients with BP-PACNS (mean age 45 years, 48% female sex). Patients with CAA-RI more often had white matter hyperintense lesions meeting the probable CAA-RI criteria (93% vs 51%, p < 0.001), acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (15% vs 2%, p = 0.02), cortical superficial siderosis (27% vs 4%, p < 0.001), ≥1 lobar microbleed (94% vs 26%, p < 0.001), past intracerebral hemorrhage (17% vs 4%, p = 0.04), ≥21 visible centrum semiovale perivascular spaces (34% vs 4%, p < 0.01), and leptomeningeal enhancement (70% vs 27%, p < 0.001). Patients with BP-PACNS more often had headaches (56% vs 31%, p < 0.01), motor deficits (56% vs 36%, p = 0.02), and nonischemic parenchymal gadolinium enhancement (82% vs 16%, p < 0.001). The prevalence of acute ischemic lesions was 18% in CAA-RI and 22% in BP-PACNS (p = 0.57). The features with the highest specificity for CAA-RI were acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (98%), cortical superficial siderosis (96%), past intracerebral hemorrhage (96%), and ≥21 visible centrum semiovale perivascular spaces (96%). The probable CAA-RI criteria had a 71% sensitivity (95% CI 44%-90%) and 91% specificity (95% CI 79%-98%) in differentiating biopsy-positive CAA-RI from BP-PACNS. The rate of relapse in the first 2 years after remission was lower in CAA-RI than in BP-PACNS (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Clinicoradiologic features differed between patients with CAA-RI and those with BP-PACNS. Specific markers for CAA-RI were hemorrhagic signs of subarachnoid involvement, past intracerebral hemorrhage, ≥21 visible centrum semiovale perivascular spaces, and the probable CAA-RI criteria. A biopsy remains necessary for diagnosis in some cases of CAA-RI. The rate of relapse in the first 2 years after disease remission was lower in CAA-RI than in BP-PACNS.