Search

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) represent depolymerized heparin prepared by various methods that exhibit differential, biochemical and pharmacological profiles. Enoxaparin is prepared by benzylation followed by alkaline depolymerization of porcine heparin. Upon the expiration of its patent, several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin have become available. Heparinox (Sodic enoxaparine; Cristália Produtos Químicos Farmacêuticos LTDA, Sao Paulo, Brazil) is a new biosimilar form of enoxaparin. We assessed the molecular weight and the biochemical profile of Heparinox and compared its properties to the original branded enoxaparin (Lovenox; Sanofi, Paris, France). Clotting profiles compared included activated clotting time, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and thrombin time (TT). Anti-protease assays included anti-factor Xa and anti-factor IIa activities. Thrombin generation was measured using a calibrated automated thrombogram and thrombokinetic profile included peak thrombin, lag time and area under the curve. USP potency was determined using commercially available assay kits. Molecular weight profiling was determined using high performance liquid chromatography. We determined that Heparinox and Lovenox were comparable in their molecular weight profile. Th anticoagulant profile of the branded and biosimilar version were also similar in the clot based aPTT and TT. Similarly, the anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities were comparable in the products. No differences were noted in the thrombin generation inhibitory profile of the branded and biosimilar versions of enoxaparin. Our studies suggest that Heparinox is bioequivalent to the original branded enoxaparin based upon in vitro tests however will require further in vivo studies in animal models and humans to determine their clinical bioequivalence.

Data on drug–drug interactions (DDI) of antineoplastic drugs with anticoagulants is scarce. We aim to evaluate factors associated with DDI of antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with anticoagulants resulting in modification of pharmacokinetics of these last mentioned. A literature review on DDI databases and summaries of products characteristics (SmPC) was done. Drug–drug interactions of 257 antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), warfarin, enoxaparin, or fondaparinux were categorized as no clinically significant expected DDI, potentially weak DDI, potentially clinically significant DDI, and recommendation against coadministration. Logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association between the dependent variable potentially clinically significant interaction/recommendation against coadministration and the mechanisms of DDI. Of the 1799 associations, 84.4% were absence of DDI, 3.6% potentially weak DDI, 10.2% potentially clinically relevant DDI, and 2.0% recommendation against coadministration. Warfarin has higher DDI potential than other anticoagulants. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux have fewer DDI than others. There was no difference between DOACs. Drug–drug interactions with apixaban and rivaroxaban was independently associated with the absence of CYP3A4 competition, P-glycoprotein inhibition, CYP3A4 induction, and drug class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Drug–drug interactions with dabigatran and edoxaban was associated with inhibition of P-glycoprotein and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Warfarin, induction of CYP3A4, and inhibition of CYP2C9. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux, only tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants did not differ regarding DDI with antineoplastic agents. Warfarin presented more DDI than other anticoagulants. P-glycoprotein inhibition and CYP3A4 induction were independently associated with DDI of antineoplastic agents with DOACs.