American Society of Hirudotherapy

A comparison of danaparoid and lepirudin in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Research article published in Thrombosis and haemostasis (2001)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Clinical trialDrug DevelopmentFarner et al. · Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2001

Abstract

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a hypercoagulable syndrome strongly associated with thrombosis that is usually treated with drugs that inhibit factor Xa (danaparoid) or thrombin (lepirudin). In the present study the outcome of HIT-patients treated with danaparoid or lepirudin was compared using the single or combined endpoints of new thromboembolic complications (new TECs), amputations and/or death, and major bleeding. HIT-patients treated with lepirudin were enrolled in two prospective trials and patients, who were identified in the same two laboratories during the same time period, who were not enrolled into these studies but treated with danaparoid, were assessed retrospectively according to a standardized questionnaire. 126 danaparoid (60.3% female) and 175 lepirudin treated patients (58.3% female) fulfilled the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. In a time-to-event-analysis the cumulative risk of combined endpoint was higher in HIT-patients without thromboembolic complication at baseline treated with danaparoid (usually in prophylactic dose 750 anti-factor Xa units b.i.d. or t.i.d.s.c.) as compared to lepirudin (aPTT adjusted) (P = 0.020). Whereas HIT-patients with TEC at baseline who were usually treated with therapeutic dose had a similar outcome in both treatment groups (P = 0.913). Major bleeding occurred in 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-7.0%) of danaparoid treated patients as compared to 10.4% (95% CI 6.3-15.9%) of lepirudin treated patients until day 42 (P = 0.009). This indicates that the efficacies of therapeutic doses of danaparoid or lepirudin in preventing death, amputation or new TEC in HIT-patients do not differ largely, but the risk of bleeding seems to be higher in lepirudin treated patients. The prophylactic dose of danaparoid approved in the European Union for HIT without TEC at baseline seems suboptimal. A prospective comparative trial is required to verify these preliminary conclusions.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAge FactorsAgedAmputation, SurgicalAnticoagulantsChondroitin SulfatesDermatan SulfateDrug CombinationsDrug EvaluationFemaleHemorrhageHeparinHeparan Sulfate

Summary

A comparison of danaparoid and lepirudin in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This study compared outcomes in HIT patients treated with danaparoid (n=126, assessed retrospectively) or lepirudin (n=175, from prospective trials), finding that therapeutic doses of both drugs yielded similar efficacy for preventing death, amputation, or new thromboembolic complications in patients with baseline TEC, while lepirudin-treated patients had higher major bleeding rates (10.4% vs 2.5%, P=0.009). Relevant to ASH as comparative effectiveness data for recombinant hirudin. Caveat: The comparison was non-randomized with retrospective danaparoid data, the authors note that prophylactic danaparoid dosing appeared suboptimal, and they explicitly call for a prospective comparative trial to verify these preliminary conclusions.

Citation

A comparison of danaparoid and lepirudin in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Farner et al. · Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2001

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.