Acute deep-vein thrombosis is usually treated with intravenous heparin for a number of days, then with oral anticoagulants for weeks to months. We have compared adjusted-dose warfarin sodium with fixed low-dose subcutaneous heparin in the prevention of recurrent deep-vein thrombosis. Sixty-eight patients with acute deep-vein thrombosis confirmed by venography were treated with intravenous heparin and then randomized to secondary prophylaxis. Nine of 35 patients receiving subcutaneous heparin, but none of 33 receiving warfarin sodium, had new episodes of objectively documented venous thromboembolism (P = 0.001). Seven patients on warfarin sodium experienced bleeding complications (of which four were major), as compared with no patients receiving subcutaneous heparin (P less than 0.005). Thus, adjusted-dose warfarin sodium is more effective than low-dose subcutaneous heparin in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism, but its use is accompanied by a significant risk of bleeding.
Previously, we compared fixed low doses of heparin with adjusted doses of warfarin for the long-term treatment of venous thrombosis; in that study low-dose heparin was ineffective in preventing recurrence in patients with proximal-vein thrombosis. We have now completed a randomized trial comparing adjusted doses of heparin and of warfarin for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with proximal-vein thrombosis. One hundred six consecutive patients with acute proximal-vein thrombosis confirmed by venography were treated with intravenous heparin and then randomized to secondary prophylaxis. Two of 53 patients receiving heparin, as compared with one of 53 receiving warfarin, had new episodes of objectively documented venous thromboembolism. Nine patients taking warfarin had bleeding complications (which were major in three patients), as compared with one patient taking heparin (P = 0.008). Our data indicate that adjusted-dose subcutaneous heparin therapy provides an effective alternative to warfarin sodium and is associated with a lower risk of bleeding.
We conducted a prospective randomized study in which patients with biopsy-confirmed idiopathic membranous nephropathy were assigned to receive either a six-month course of prednisone given on alternate days (45 mg per square meter of body-surface area; n = 81) or no specific treatment (n = 77). The mean duration of follow-up was 48 months. Patients in the prednisone group (median age, 46 years) entered with a mean disease duration of 15 months, a median creatinine clearance of 1.2 ml per second per 1.73 m2 (range, 0.25 to 2.6), and a median rate of urinary protein excretion of 6.8 g per day (0.3 to 26). The annual change in the corrected creatinine clearance at six months did not differ between the prednisone group and the control group (0.10 vs. 0.06 ml per second; P = 0.8), or at the last follow-up evaluation (-0.07 vs. -0.02 ml per second; P = 0.2; 95 percent confidence interval on the difference, -0.03 to 0.13). The proportion of patients with complete remission of proteinuria was also similar in the groups at 6 and 12 months and after a mean of 48 months. Outcomes were similar in the two groups with respect to progression to renal failure (3 vs. 4 patients), death (3 vs. 1 patient), complete remission of proteinuria at 36 months (16 vs. 19 patients), and a decline of 25 percent or more in the creatinine clearance at 60 months (32 vs. 25 percent of patients). A multivariate analysis, which adjusted for differences at entry in sex distribution, urinary protein excretion, and creatinine concentration, as well as other prognostic variables, failed to provide an explanation for the lack of effect of prednisone. We conclude that a six-month course of therapy in which prednisone is given on alternate days is of no benefit to patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.