OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
European journal of clinical pharmacology
Apr, 2025;81 (4): 465-477.

Safety profiles of fondaparinux in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dan Shan, Jinbiao Han, Yurou Ji, Yuexiao Wu, Ke Yi
Author Information
  1. Dan Shan: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Renmin South Road, Section 3, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
  2. Jinbiao Han: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Renmin South Road, Section 3, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
  3. Yurou Ji: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Renmin South Road, Section 3, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
  4. Yuexiao Wu: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Renmin South Road, Section 3, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
  5. Ke Yi: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Renmin South Road, Section 3, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. sometreasure@sina.cn.
PMID: 39836237 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-025-03804-y

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of conditions necessitating anticoagulation therapy among pregnant women has been steadily increasing. Although low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly used, several studies have investigated the use of fondaparinux in pregnant women. However, the safety profile of fondaparinux in this population remains to be fully elucidated.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search across ten databases was conducted in September 2024. This meta-analysis was conducted following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies. Dichotomous data from eligible studies were combined using the Mantel���Haenszel model. Standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were assessed. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I statistics and the Cochran Q test, and the quality of evidence was appraised using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on the GRADE approach, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. Fondaparinux did not increase the incidence of bleeding-related adverse events (vaginal bleeding: OR���=���0.99, 95% CI 0.43-2.30, P���=���0.98; postpartum haemorrhage: OR���=���0.35, 95% CI 0.07-1.73, P���=���0.20). Fondaparinux was associated with reduced risks of hepatic transaminase elevation (OR���=���0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.49, P���<���0.01), gastrointestinal reactions, allergies, and injection site skin reactions (OR���=���0.19, 95% CI 0.09-0.41, P���<���0.01).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the use of fondaparinux among pregnant women has certain advantages. However, these conclusions warrant further validation through high-quality, large-scale studies conducted in multiple countries. (PROSPERO-CRD42024591579).

Keywords

Adverse events Anticoagulation Fondaparinux Pregnancy

References

  1. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Gomersall JC (2021) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for women at risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3 (3): CD001689.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001689.pub4
  2. Chaudhary RK, Nepal C, Khanal N, Pathak R, Giri S, Bhatt VR (2015) Management and Outcome of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem 13(2):92���97. https://doi.org/10.2174/187152571302151217124957 [DOI: 10.2174/187152571302151217124957]
  3. Hosaka K, Saito S, Ishii T, Sumino T, Ryu K, Suzuki G, Suzuki T, Tokuhashi Y (2013) Safety of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin after TKA in Japanese patients. Orthopedics 36(4):e428-433. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130327-17 [DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20130327-17]
  4. Hahn KJ, Morales SJ, Lewis JH (2015) Enoxaparin-Induced Liver Injury: Case Report and Review of the Literature and FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Drug Saf Case Rep 2(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40800-015-0018-0 [DOI: 10.1007/s40800-015-0018-0]
  5. Mehershahi S, Mantri N, Kumar A, Danial S, Harish P (2020) Enoxaparin-Induced Liver Injury. Case Rep Gastroenterol 14(2):315���319. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508471 [DOI: 10.1159/000508471]
  6. Zaera De La Fuente C, Arribas Anta J, L��pez-San Rom��n A, Ca��ete Ruiz ��, L��pez Dur��n S (2015) Enoxaparin-induced hepatotoxicity. Gastroenterol Hepatol 38(7):438���439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2014.06.010 [DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2014.06.010]
  7. De Carolis S, di Pasquo E, Rossi E, Del Sordo G, Buonomo A, Schiavino D, Lanzone A, De Stefano V (2015) Fondaparinux in pregnancy: Could it be a safe option? A review of the literature. Thromb Res 135(6):1049���1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2015.04.001 [DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.04.001]
  8. Nagler M, Haslauer M, Wuillemin WA (2012) Fondaparinux - data on efficacy and safety in special situations. Thromb Res 129(4):407���417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2011.10.037 [DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.10.037]
  9. Tang AW, Greer I (2013) A systematic review on the use of new anticoagulants in pregnancy. Obstet Med 6(2):64���71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753495x12472642 [DOI: 10.1177/1753495x12472642]
  10. American College of O, Gynecologists' Committee on Practice B-O (2018) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 196: Thromboembolism in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 132 (1): e1-e17.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002706
  11. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2015) Green-top Guideline No. 37a. Reducing the risk of thrombosis and embolism during pregnancy and the puerperium. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg37a/ . Accessed October 10 2023.
  12. Food and Drug Administration (2001) Accessed October 11, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2001/21-345_Arixtra_Approv.pdf .
  13. European Medicines Agency (2010) Accessed October 11, 2023. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/overview/arixtra-epar-summary-public_en.pdf .
  14. Bauersachs RM (2023) Fondaparinux Sodium: Recent Advances in the Management of Thrombosis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 28:10742484221145010. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742484221145010 [DOI: 10.1177/10742484221145010]
  15. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283 (15): 2008���2012.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (London, England) 8(5):336���341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007]
  17. Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, Goldstone AE, Ross P, Guyatt G, Schunemann HJ (2018) Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the ���target experiment��� concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development. Environ Int 120:382���387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.018 [DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.018]
  18. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C (2015) Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13(3):147���153. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000054 [DOI: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000054]
  19. Higgins JP, Savovi�� J, Page MJ (2019) Assessing risk of bias in a andomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration: 205���228
  20. Wolfgang V (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36(3):1���48
  21. Balduzzi S, R��cker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22:153���160 [DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117]
  22. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T (2013) Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 67 (11): 974���978.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203104
  23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 327(7414):557���560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557]
  24. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 336(7650):924���926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD]
  25. Dempfle CE, Koscielny J, Lindhoff-Last E, Linnemann B, Bux-Gewehr I, Kappert G, Scholz U, Kropff S, Eberle S, Bramlage P, Heinken A (2021) Fondaparinux Pre-, Peri-, and/or Postpartum for the Prophylaxis/Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism (FondaPPP). Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 27:10760296211014576. https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296211014575 [DOI: 10.1177/10760296211014575]
  26. Guo Z, Liu C, Guo X, Zhang Y, X. L, (2020) Comparison between enoxaparin and fondaparinux sodium on anticoagulant therapy in pregnant patient with recurrent miscarriage. Contemporary Med (Chin) 26:5���8
  27. Liu C, Ma C, Hao Y (2024) Fondaparinux Results in Similar Pregnancy Outcomes with Lower Adverse Reaction Rates Compared to Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Chinese Recurrent Miscarriage Women. Tohoku J Exp Med 262(2):125���131. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.2023.J098 [DOI: 10.1620/tjem.2023.J098]
  28. Liu H, Wang A, X. S (2021) Effect of enoxaparin and fondaparinux in anticoagulant therapy for re-pregnant women with recurrent miscarriage. Chin J Pract Med (Chin) 48:106���9
  29. Muhamad N, Abu MA, Kalok AH, Shafiee MN, Shah SA, Ismail NAM (2022) Safety and effectiveness of fondaparinux as a postpartum thromboprophylaxis during puerperium among muslim women: A single centre prospective study. Front Pharmacol 13:887020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.887020 [DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.887020]
  30. Winger EE, Reed JL (2009) A retrospective analysis of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin treatment in women with infertility or pregnancy loss. Am J Reprod Immunol 62(4):253���260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2009.00733.x [DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2009.00733.x]
  31. Yang N, Lin J, Chen ZY, Li WW, Huang JF, Liu JH, Shen SJ (2022) Comparison of curative effect of fondaparinux sodium and low molecularweight heparin on recurrent spontaneous abortion. China Mordern Doctor (Chin) 60(10):55���58
  32. Zhao L, Bi S, Fu J, Qi L, Li L, Fu Y (2021) Retrospective Analysis of Fondaparinux and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Treatment of Women With Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 12:717630. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.717630 [DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.717630]
  33. Li L, Tan Y (2022) To Compare the Pregnancy Outcome and Incidence of Adverse Events in Patients with Recurrent Abortion Treated with Enoxaparin and Sulfondaigan Sodium. Smart Healthcare (Chin) 8(23):139���142. https://doi.org/10.19335/j.cnki.2096-1219.2022.23.033 [DOI: 10.19335/j.cnki.2096-1219.2022.23.033]
  34. Mu F, Wang M, Huang J, Wang F (2023) Pregnancy outcomes and adverse events in patients with recurrent miscarriage receiving fondaparinux versus low molecular-weight heparin: A meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 287:29���35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.031 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.031]
  35. Bundhun PK, Shaik M, Yuan J (2017) Choosing between Enoxaparin and Fondaparinux for the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 17(1):116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0552-z [DOI: 10.1186/s12872-017-0552-z]
  36. Nilius H, Kaufmann J, Cuker A, Nagler M (2021) Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Am J Hematol 96(7):805���815. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26194 [DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26194]
  37. Elsaigh E, Thachil J, Nash MJ, Tower C, Hay CR, Bullough S, Byrd L (2015) The use of fondaparinux in pregnancy. Br J Haematol 168(5):762���764. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.13147 [DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13147]

Grants

  1. 82301924/National Natural Science Foundation of China

MeSH Term

Humans
Fondaparinux
Pregnancy
Female
Anticoagulants

Chemicals

Fondaparinux
Anticoagulants
Systematic Review Journal Article Meta-Analysis Review
Article has an altmetric score of 1

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studies95%pregnantfondaparinuxOR���=���0CI0womenconductedmeta-analysissystematicusingFondaparinuxamonguseHoweverqualityevidenceGRADEapproachloweventsP���=���020P���<���001reactionsreviewBACKGROUND:prevalenceconditionsnecessitatinganticoagulationtherapysteadilyincreasingAlthoughlow-molecular-weightheparinLMWHcommonlyusedseveralinvestigatedsafetyprofilepopulationremainsfullyelucidatedMETHODS:comprehensiveliteraturesearchacrosstendatabasesSeptember2024followingMeta-analysisObservationalStudiesEpidemiologyMOOSEguidelinesreviewsobservationalDichotomousdataeligiblecombinedMantel���HaenszelmodelStandardmeandifferencesconfidenceintervalsassessedHeterogeneityevaluatedstatisticsCochranQtestappraisedGradingRecommendationsAssessmentDevelopmentEvaluationsRESULTS:NinemetinclusioncriteriaBasedrangedincreaseincidencebleeding-relatedadversevaginalbleeding:9943-23098postpartumhaemorrhage:3507-173associatedreducedriskshepatictransaminaseelevation08-049gastrointestinalallergiesinjectionsiteskin1909-041CONCLUSION:findingssuggestcertainadvantagesconclusionswarrantvalidationhigh-qualitylarge-scalemultiplecountriesPROSPERO-CRD42024591579Safetyprofileswomen:AdverseAnticoagulationPregnancy

Similar Articles

Cited By