Last Updated: April 30, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR INNOHEP


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for Innohep

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00203658 ↗ Assessment of Long-Term Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Using Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) Versus LMWH Followed by Warfarin Completed Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Phase 4 1997-04-01 The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term out-of-hospital treatment of patients with proximal venous thrombosis through the administration of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) versus low-molecular-weight heparin followed by warfarin sodium.
NCT00203658 ↗ Assessment of Long-Term Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Using Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) Versus LMWH Followed by Warfarin Completed Dupont Applied Biosciences Phase 4 1997-04-01 The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term out-of-hospital treatment of patients with proximal venous thrombosis through the administration of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) versus low-molecular-weight heparin followed by warfarin sodium.
NCT00203658 ↗ Assessment of Long-Term Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Using Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) Versus LMWH Followed by Warfarin Completed LEO Pharma Phase 4 1997-04-01 The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term out-of-hospital treatment of patients with proximal venous thrombosis through the administration of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) versus low-molecular-weight heparin followed by warfarin sodium.
NCT00203658 ↗ Assessment of Long-Term Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Using Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) Versus LMWH Followed by Warfarin Completed University of Calgary Phase 4 1997-04-01 The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term out-of-hospital treatment of patients with proximal venous thrombosis through the administration of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) versus low-molecular-weight heparin followed by warfarin sodium.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for Innohep

Condition Name

Condition Name for Innohep
Intervention Trials
Venous Thromboembolism 4
Deep Vein Thrombosis 3
Thromboembolism 3
Pulmonary Embolism 2
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for Innohep
Intervention Trials
Thromboembolism 8
Venous Thrombosis 7
Thrombosis 7
Venous Thromboembolism 6
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for Innohep

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for Innohep
Location Trials
Spain 17
Canada 10
France 5
United States 5
Sweden 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for Innohep
Location Trials
New York 1
North Carolina 1
Vermont 1
New Hampshire 1
Illinois 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for Innohep

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for Innohep
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 8
Phase 3 4
Phase 2/Phase 3 1
[disabled in preview] 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for Innohep
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 13
Not yet recruiting 4
Unknown status 3
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for Innohep

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for Innohep
Sponsor Trials
LEO Pharma 11
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 3
University of Calgary 2
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for Innohep
Sponsor Trials
Other 30
Industry 13
NIH 1
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Innohep Market Analysis and Financial Projection

Last updated: April 24, 2026

Innohep (tinzaparin): Clinical-trials update, market analysis, and projection

Innohep is a branded formulation of tinzaparin (LMWH) used for prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease. Its market is driven by guideline-backed anticoagulation use, hospital and outpatient prescribing patterns, and payer policies on LMWH interchangeability and formulary placement. Public clinical-trials activity for the brand is limited; the product is largely supported by established class evidence for LMWHs and ongoing registry and post-marketing use rather than new phase-3 pivot trials.

What is Innohep and where is it used?

Innohep (tinzaparin) is an anticoagulant from the low-molecular-weight heparin class. In routine care, it is used across indications including:

  • VTE prophylaxis (e.g., in medical and surgical patients at risk)
  • VTE treatment
  • Cancer-associated thrombosis workflows in some jurisdictions (often within guideline frameworks that prefer LMWHs for historically long periods, with more recent shifts toward DOACs in many regions)

Competitive set (class substitute logic)

  • Other LMWHs (e.g., enoxaparin, dalteparin) and UFH in specific settings
  • DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban) where payer coverage and guideline choices favor oral therapy

What does the clinical-trials landscape look like for Innohep?

For branded legacy LMWHs like Innohep, the dominant signal in public registries is not new phase-3 “brand-defining” trials but:

  • Post-marketing studies
  • Real-world evidence registries
  • Bioequivalence/clinical pharmacology work tied to manufacturing or formulation changes
  • Comparative effectiveness evidence at the LMWH class level, often without a new Innohep-specific mechanism

Clinical development reality

  • Tinzaparin’s therapeutic effect is class-established and depends on dosing strategies and monitoring conventions typical for LMWHs.
  • New trials in thrombosis increasingly test DOACs vs LMWHs rather than re-litigating LMWH efficacy for the same endpoints.

Implication for investors and R&D planners

  • Near-term clinical “update” value for Innohep sits in label maintenance, safety database maturation, and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction payer uptake, not in a credible pipeline of new phase-3 outcomes for the brand.

What is the market position for Innohep today?

Market structure

  • LMWH demand is concentrated in hospitals, oncology, and post-surgical care, with dosing length varying by indication.
  • Brand survival depends on:
    • Formulary access (tender wins, hospital group contracts)
    • Payer reimbursement rules (switch policies, reference pricing)
    • Clinical comfort (clinician preference for specific dosing regimens)
    • Safety and handling profiles (renal impairment considerations are a class theme)

Competitive pressure

  • DOAC penetration reduces addressable volume for long-course anticoagulation in many outpatient pathways.
  • LMWH interchangeability and generic availability in several markets cap pricing power for brands.

How should the competitive landscape be mapped?

Use a two-axis market lens: (1) route of administration and (2) line-of-therapy/patient setting.

1) Route

  • Oral DOACs compete in outpatient and stable indications
  • Parenteral LMWH retains share in:
    • Inpatient settings
    • Peri-procedural anticoagulation
    • Cancer patient workflows in jurisdictions that still favor LMWH
    • Specific patient factors where oral therapy is not preferred

2) Setting

  • Hospital prophylaxis: tends to sustain LMWH baseline demand
  • Cancer thrombosis: can remain LMWH-heavy where guideline and payer frameworks continue to favor LMWH
  • Outpatient VTE treatment: increasingly DOAC-led in many markets

What is the practical impact of label and usage on volume?

For branded LMWHs, volume is less about new clinical wins and more about:

  • Preferred regimen inclusion in local protocols
  • Continuity of supply and tender execution
  • Switch stability (how often hospitals re-tender or change formularies)
  • Safety signals that can affect prescribing, especially in renal impairment and bleeding-risk cohorts

How does the regulatory and post-marketing safety profile influence use?

For established anticoagulants, the safety narrative is dominated by:

  • Bleeding risk management
  • Renal function dosing considerations
  • Monitoring practices (anti-Xa strategies in select high-risk groups)
  • Hypersensitivity and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia awareness (class-level)

Market consequence

  • Any safety update that causes a contraindication or a more conservative dosing stance typically reduces share in borderline patient groups.
  • Conversely, stability in risk management supports continued formulary placement.

What market projection is defensible for Innohep?

A defensible projection for Innohep must be built on class demand retention plus share movement within thrombosis care.

Projection framework (directional, valuation-relevant)

  • Base demand: stable hospital prophylaxis and residual LMWH share in settings where DOACs are less preferred
  • Share headwinds:
    • DOAC substitution in outpatient VTE treatment
    • Generic LMWH pricing pressure
  • Share supports:
    • Cancer-associated thrombosis pathways in jurisdictions that sustain LMWH
    • Tender-based continuity in hospitals that standardize on a specific LMWH

Resulting expectation

  • Overall market volume growth for Innohep is likely tied to population-level VTE incidence and hospital throughput, but brand share and pricing face persistent downward pressure in many geographies.
  • Net revenue growth is more sensitive to reimbursement and tender economics than to clinical innovation.

What are the key “what moves the needle” variables for revenue?

Revenue sensitivity for legacy LMWH brands typically concentrates in:

  • Formulary access (hospital and outpatient)
  • Tender and contract renewals (often 1 to 3 years)
  • Payer reference pricing and substitution policies
  • DOAC penetration rate in VTE indications
  • Generic intensity for LMWH comparators in each market
  • Inventory and supply reliability (loss of continuity can trigger switching)

Where are opportunities or threats for Innohep within the next 3 to 5 years?

Opportunities

  • Maintain LMWH share in cancer thrombosis workflows in markets where oral therapy uptake is slower
  • Target protocols emphasizing LMWH where clinicians value parenteral control and dosing predictability

Threats

  • Continued shift of eligible VTE patients to DOACs
  • Ongoing pressure toward lowest-cost LMWH options through reference pricing and tender consolidation

What would an investment or R&D diligence checklist emphasize?

For a legacy brand like Innohep:

  • Contract and tender visibility: current and next renewal windows, switching risk, and pricing bands
  • Geography-specific formulary status: where Innohep is preferred vs second-line
  • Competitor mapping: which LMWHs are substitutes in each hospital network
  • Utilization data: dosing days per treated patient by indication, and outpatient vs inpatient mix
  • Safety signal tracking: bleeding and HIT-related discontinuation patterns (real-world)

Key Takeaways

  • Innohep (tinzaparin) is a legacy LMWH brand whose clinical development momentum is modest; its value rests on label maintenance and real-world utilization rather than new phase-3 brand-defining trials.
  • The market outlook is shaped by DOAC substitution, LMWH price pressure, and formulary/tender outcomes, with demand supported by persistent hospital prophylaxis and residual LMWH use in some cancer thrombosis pathways.
  • Short- to mid-term revenue trajectories for Innohep are most sensitive to geography-specific reimbursement and contracting rather than innovation-led uptake.

FAQs

1) Is Innohep still used as first-line therapy?
In many hospital and higher-risk settings, LMWHs remain used for prophylaxis and treatment, but in outpatient and eligible VTE populations many regions have shifted toward DOACs where reimbursement and guideline adoption support that change.

2) What competes most directly with Innohep?
The closest substitution set is other LMWHs through formulary choice and generic reference pricing, and DOACs for broader VTE treatment pathways where oral therapy is preferred.

3) Do new clinical trials drive Innohep growth?
For legacy LMWH brands, growth is usually driven more by utilization, contracting, and payer rules than by new clinical trial breakthroughs.

4) What determines Innohep revenue more: volume or pricing?
Pricing and access terms often dominate because DOAC substitution and generic LMWH pressure can cap volume share; revenue is therefore highly sensitive to tender and reimbursement economics.

5) What are the biggest near-term risks to market share?
The largest risks are accelerating DOAC uptake in eligible indications and switching at tender renewals toward lower-cost LMWH options.


References (APA)

[1] Innohep product information / Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). (n.d.). European Medicines Agency (EMA) and national regulatory repositories.
[2] Tinazparin (tinzaparin) class and clinical use references. (n.d.). Major guideline bodies and anticoagulation references (regional).

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.