PREVENTIHS 2020.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods |
Design: parallel group RCT Setting: multicentre at hospitals in Italy Dates: 1 May 2016 to 30 March 2020 |
|
Participants |
Sample size: 73 participants Diagnosis: ICH Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Age (years, mean (SD)): 70 +/‐14 (intervention) versus 72 +/‐ 12 (comparator) Sex: 22/38 (intervention) versus 18/35 (comparator) were male |
|
Interventions |
Intervention: enoxaparin 0.4mL (4000 units) once daily for 10 days ± 1 day plus standard therapy (38 participants) Comparator: standard therapy alone (35 participants) |
|
Outcomes |
Primary outcome
Secondary outcomes
Duration: CT brain and venous eco‐color‐Doppler examination with a compression test performed bilaterally on the lower limbs 10 +/‐ 1 day following the start of treatment. Clinical follow‐up was done 90 days after randomisation |
|
Notes |
Declarations of interest: Maurizio Paciaroni ‐ member of the speaker bureau of Sanofi‐Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Giancarlo Agnelli ‐ member of the speaker bureau of Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. Cecilia Becattini ‐ member of the speaker bureau of Bristol Meyer Squibb and Bayer. Valeria Caso ‐ received honoraria as a member of the speaker bureau and as consultant or advisory board of Boehringer Ingelheim. Walter Ageno ‐ received speaker’s honoraria from, and participated in scientific advisory boards for, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol‐Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has received research support from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim Sources of funding: Ministero della Salute (Health Minister) of the Italian Government (n. FARM12L9JE) Other: this trial was stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Patients were centrally randomised over the phone using a random list of numbers (even numbers – treatment A; odd numbers – treatment B) closed in an envelope." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "Patients were centrally randomised over the phone using a random list of numbers (even numbers – treatment A; odd numbers – treatment B) closed in an envelope." It is not clear if the envelopes were opaque |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Open label (participants and personnel were aware of allocated treatment) |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All outcome assessment was described as being blinded to treatment allocation |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All data for randomised participants were reported |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All planned outcomes were reported |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Premature termination due to slow recruitment |