Lauromacrogol 400 50mg / Heparinoid 4mg suppositories
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Part of the Anacal brand family (generic: Lauromacrogol 400 + Heparinoid)
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Lauromacrogol 400 + Heparinoid on the MHRA register
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 5 · Randomised trials: 2 · 1975–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Donggang YAO, Jinfeng QI, Yan XU, et al.
Panminerva Medica, 2024
Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 2021
Ziwei Du, Wenjian Xu, Jingyuan Lu, et al.
2022
Abstract Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by dilatation and curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and investigate the clinical safety and efficacy between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and USG-LLI in the treatment of CSP. Methods: The relevant literatures and articles about USG-LLI, UAE and CSP published in eight electronic databases were searched to extract the primary outcomes of the selected articles. RevMan 5.2 software was used for Quantitative synthesis. Bias analysis, forest plots and sensitivity analysis were also carried out on the included research. Results: Of 10 studies included in our search, 623 patients were in the USG-LLI group and 627 patients were in the UAE groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in success rates, blood loss and time to HCG normalization. However, USG-LLI group patients than UAE group patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -1.97; 95%CI -2.63 to -1.31; P<0.05; I2=95%), shorter restored menses (MD = -4.84; 95%CI -5.78 to -3.90; P<0.05; I2=95%), and lower complication rates [odds ratio(OR)=0.21; 95%CI:0.15 to 0.30; P<0.05]; and cheaper on expenses of hospitalization (MD =-8028.29; 95%CI -10311.18 to -5745.40; P<0.05; I2=100%). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that USG-LLI is comparable in curative effect and success rates with UAE in the therapy of CSP, but patients in the USG-LLI group seem to have fewer complications rates, shorter duration of hospital stays and lower costs.
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
Kailing Wu, Qiuxia Song, Yuanyuan Gou, et al.
Medicine, 2019
Abstract Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol in the treatment of gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) caused by liver cirrhosis with the traditional sandwich method no accompanied by lauromacrogol via a meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, the Chinese Wanfang database, and the Chongqing VIP database were searched to identify cohort studies comparing modified to traditional sandwich method in the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis. The relative risk for hemostasis rate, gastric varices (GV) remission rate, re-bleeding rate, the incidence of post-operative complications (pain, fever, ulcer or erosion, ectopic embolism), and all-cause mortality were calculated. The mean difference for average tissue adhesive dosage per case was calculated. Relevant data were analyzed with the Reviewer Manager 5.3.5. Results: Four cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis, compared with the traditional sandwich method, the modified sandwich method was associated with a higher GV remission rate (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.42; P = .001) according to the pooled results. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 methods in the rate of hemostasis, re-bleeding, pain, fever, ulcer or erosion, ectopic embolism, and all-cause mortality (P ≧ .05). Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicated that the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol is more effective than the traditional sandwich method without lauromacrogol. Due to the limited number of studies and samples, more RCT studies are needed to further validate the efficacy and safety of the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol in the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Yue Jiang, RuiLing Yu, Zheng Wang, et al.
Journal of Surgical Research, 2026
P P Mehta, S Sagar, V V Kakkar
BMJ, 1975
BH Chong, F Ismail, J Cade, et al.
Blood, 1989
Anil Sharma
International Journal of Nursing Education, 2016
Fei Gao, Huikai Li, Xiuxue Feng, et al.
Endoscopic Ultrasound, 2025
ABSTRACT Objectives To explore the safety and efficacy of injections of 1%, 2%, or 3% lauromacrogol during EUS–guided lauromacrogol ablation (EUS-LA) for the treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) and to determine the optimal concentration of lauromacrogol for use in EUS-LA therapeutic regimens. Methods From May 2021 to January 2023, patients who met the indications for EUS-LA were randomly divided into 3 groups: A, B, and C; the patients in these groups were injected with 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol during EUS-LA, respectively. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence of postoperative complications. Efficacy was comprehensively evaluated by assessing the ablation rate and ablation effect. Results Forty-two patients underwent EUS-LA, and 31 patients completed at least 1 postoperative re-examination. No acute pancreatitis was observed in the 1% and 2% lauromacrogol groups, and 1 case of acute pancreatitis occurred in the 3% lauromacrogol group. The total complication rate was 2.4%. The median ablation rates of the groups were 94.1%, 82.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the EUS-LA ablation rate between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups and between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. There was a statistically significant difference in complete disappearance between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups as well as between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. Conclusion The short-term outcomes showed that injections of 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol were safe for use in EUS-LA, and injection of 3% lauromacrogol was the most effective for EUS-LA.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Yuyong Tan, Yi Chu, Min Luo, et al.
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, 2023
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.