Molecular weight determines the frequency of delayed type hypersensitivity reactions to heparin and synthetic oligosaccharides

Heparin Specifically Inhibits CRISPR/Cas12 Activation, Enabling Ultrasensitive Heparin Detection and Gene Editing Regulation

Heparin is a highly sulfated linear glycosaminoglycan that is used as an anticoagulant to prevent and treat thrombotic diseases. Herein, we find that heparin specifically inhibits the activation of the Cas12 protein through the competitive binding of heparin and crRNA to Cas12. Studies illustrate that heparin's high molecular weight and strong negative charge are critical parameters for its inhibitory effect. This unexpected finding was engineered for the detection of heparin, affording a low detection limit of 0.36 ng/mL for fluorometric quantification. We further developed a rapid lateral flow-based system named HepaStrip (heparin strip), allowing heparin monitoring in clinical samples within 20 min. Finally, in vivo investigations revealed that heparin can regulate gene editing with the clusters of the regularly spaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas12 system in Escherichia coli. Heparin blocks the formation of Cas12-crRNA ribonucleoprotein, allowing the application of CRISPR for rapid and field-deployable detection of heparin and unleashing the potential use of heparin in future anti-CRISPR applications.

Bullous Hemorrhagic Dermatosis Induced by Enoxaparin: About a Case in Madagascar

Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is an adverse reaction occurring within 5 to 21 days after anticoagulation; the diagnosis is to be evoked in the presence of hemorrhagic bullous lesions at a distance from the injection site in the days following the introduction of anticoagulant; this is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is a rare pathology that mainly affects the elderly. A 54-year-old man presented with bullous hemorrhagic lesions on the left upper limb starting at the 4th day after enoxaparin injection, diagnosed as a bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis induced by enoxaparin. We report the first case of bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis induced by enoxaparin in Madagascar.

Delayed-Type Heparin Allergy: Intravenous Tolerance Despite Inflammatory Skin Reaction After Subcutaneous Injection

BACKGROUND

Heparin allergy most frequently manifests as delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) causing an itchy inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneous injection. An important differential diagnosis is circumscribed skin necrosis due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

OBJECTIVES

An inflammatory skin reaction to subcutaneously injected heparin generally entails the quest for alternative anticoagulation; concerns may particularly arise in an emergency situation requiring intravenous heparin administration.

METHODS

All heparin DTH cases seen in our department over the last 17 years underwent standardized allergy diagnostics including challenge testing, that is, subcutaneous injection of fondaparinux and intravenous administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH).

RESULTS

Of a total of 50 patients with confirmed heparin allergy, DTH was found in 48 (96.0%), and immediate-type, presumably IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was diagnosed in only 2 (4.0%). In the 48 DTH cases, intradermal testing revealed broad cross-reactivity between UFH and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) including nadroparin, dalteparin, and enoxaparin. Cross-reactivity with (or concomitant sensitization to) fondaparinux was seen in only 3 (6.3%) cases. Intravenous administration of UFH was tolerated by all 45 patients challenged, despite DTH to UFH and LMWH as demonstrated by intradermal testing.

CONCLUSIONS

If an inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneously injected heparin is observed or reported without any evidence of skin necrosis or thrombocytopenia, intravenous administration of UFH seems to be sufficiently safe and may be considered without allergy testing if urgently indicated in an emergency situation. Fondaparinux is the most suitable alternative for subcutaneous application.

Adverse Drug Reactions and Cutaneous Manifestations Associated With Anticoagulation

Anticoagulants are amongst the most commonly prescribed medications worldwide. Although rare, localised and systemic drug reactions have been reported with anticoagulants that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Some of the first signs of drug reactions to anticoagulants are cutaneous changes that, when recognised early, can prevent significant complications. Dermatologists should be aware of these changes to make an early and accurate diagnosis. This is particularly important in instances of skin-induced necrosis caused by systemic toxicity to anticoagulants. This review discusses adverse drug reactions to the traditional anticoagulants, warfarin and heparin, and the newer direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) such as the thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran, and the factor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. In particular, this review provides dermatologists with a framework for early diagnosis and management of patients with drug reactions to anticoagulants and alerts them to potential bleeding complications associated with minor procedures.

Pharmacology of Heparin and Related Drugs

Heparin has been recognized as a valuable anticoagulant and antithrombotic for several decades and is still widely used in clinical practice for a variety of indications. The anticoagulant activity of heparin is mainly attributable to the action of a specific pentasaccharide sequence that acts in concert with antithrombin, a plasma coagulation factor inhibitor. This observation has led to the development of synthetic heparin mimetics for clinical use. However, it is increasingly recognized that heparin has many other pharmacological properties, including but not limited to antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antimetastatic actions. Many of these activities are independent of its anticoagulant activity, although the mechanisms of these other activities are currently less well defined. Nonetheless, heparin is being exploited for clinical uses beyond anticoagulation and developed for a wide range of clinical disorders. This article provides a "state of the art" review of our current understanding of the pharmacology of heparin and related drugs and an overview of the status of development of such drugs.

Delayed-type heparin allergy: diagnostic procedures and treatment alternatives-a case series including 15 patients

Delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTHRs) after subcutaneous application of unfractionated heparins or low-molecular-weight heparins are not uncommon. Standard allergological testing usually includes intracutaneous skin tests and patch testing of different heparins, heparinoids, and thrombin inhibitors followed by subcutaneous and/or intravenous challenge with skin test-negative drugs. We present data from a single-center case series of 15 patients with DTHR after low-molecular-weight heparin administration. Intracutaneous testing that can be considered as gold standard identified the suspicious elicitor in 11 (73.4%) of 15 of the patients. Patch testing was positive in 5 (33.4%) of 15 of the patients and was only positive in patients who were also reacting in the intradermal testing. Intravenous challenge with heparin sodium was performed in 10 of 15 patients and was well tolerated in all cases, despite prior positive intracutaneous tests with the same substance. Intracutaneous documentation of DTHR was not an adequate predictor of intravenous challenge.

Heparin-induced skin lesions

Heparins are widely used for prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. Besides bleeding complications, heparin-induced skin lesions are the most frequent unwanted adverse effects of subcutaneous heparin treatment. Evidence suggests that these lesions are more common than previously thought. Lesions are most frequently due to either allergic reactions or to possibly life-threatening heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Early recognition and adequate treatment are highly important, because although both complications initially show a similar clinical picture, their treatment should be fundamentally different. Furthermore, risk factors associated with the patient, drug, and treatment regimen have been identified. We review the clinical range of heparin-induced skin lesions, emphasise evidence and controversies in epidemiology, diagnosis, and differential diagnosis, and discuss the management of patients with these skin lesions.

A multi-center, prospective, open-label, 8-week study of certoparin for anticoagulation during maintenance hemodialysis--the membrane study

Background

Adequate anticoagulation is prerequisite for effective hemodialysis to prevent clotting in the extracorporeal circuit. We aimed providing first data on the efficacy and safety of the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin in this setting.

Methods

Multicenter, open-label, 8-week trial. Patients received a single dose of 3,000 IU certoparin i.v. with additional titration steps of 600 IU and/or continuous infusion if necessary.

Results

120 patients were screened, 109 enrolled (median age 71; range 26–90 years) and 106 available for efficacy analyses. The percentage of unsatisfactory dialysis results at 8 weeks due to clotting or bleeding, was 1.9% (n = 2/106; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–6.65%); no major bleeding. 1.9% had moderate/severe clotting in the lines/bubble catcher and 2.8% in the dialyser at week 8. 15.7 ± 14.3% of the dialysis filters’ visual surface area was showing redness. In subgroups of patients receiving median doses of 3000 ± 0, 3000 (2400–6000) and 4200 (3000–6600) IU, plasma aXa levels at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks were 0.24 [95%CI 0.21–0.27], 0.33 [0.27–0.40] and 0.38 [0.33–0.45] aXa IU/ml at 2 h. C_48h was 0.01 [0.01–0.02] aXa IU at all visits. At baseline and 4 weeks AUC_0-48h was 2.66 [2.19–3.24] and 3.66 [3.00–4.45] aXa IU*h/ml. In 3.0% of dialyses (n = 83/2724) prolonged fistula compression times were documented. Eight patients (7.34%) had at least one episode of minor bleeding. 4) 85.3% of patients had any adverse event, 9.2% were serious without suspected drug relation; and in 32 patients a drug-relation was suspected.

Conclusions

Certoparin appears effective and safe for anticoagulation in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.

Adverse effects of heparin

All the adverse effects of heparins are related to their wide variety of biological activities, with bleeding being the most important safety issue, resulting directly from the potency of heparin as an anticoagulant. However, it is hard to define the bleeding risk, since it depends on numerous parameters including the indication, dosage, method, and duration of heparin application, the clinical study design and definition of bleeding as well as patient characteristics and determinants of bleeding such as type of surgery and co-medication. Nonbleeding complications of heparins are caused by binding of heparin molecules to proteins other than antithrombin and to cells, which is generally more pronounced with unfractionated heparin than with low-molecular-weight heparins. Accordingly, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the most severe nonbleeding adverse reaction, occurs about 10 times less with low-molecular-weight heparins than with unfractionated heparin. Frequent and therefore important adverse reactions of heparins are skin lesions resulting from delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. All the other undesirable effects are discussed as well, but they are mostly clinically irrelevant.

Application, tolerance and safety of fondaparinux therapy in a German hospital: a prospective single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

The pentasaccharide fondaparinux is widely approved for prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic diseases and therapy of acute coronary syndrome. It is also used off-label in patients with acute, suspected or antecedent heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). The aim of this prospective observational cohort study was to document fondaparinux' prescription practice, tolerance and therapy safety in a representative mixed German single-centre patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 09/2008 - 04/2009, 231 consecutive patients treated with fondaparinux were enrolled. Medical data were obtained from patient's records. The patients were clinically screened for thrombosis (Wells score), sequelae of HIT (4T's score), and bleeding complications (ISTH-criteria) and subjected to further assessment (i.e. sonography, HIT-diagnostics), if necessary. The mortality rate was assessed 30 days after therapy start.

RESULTS

Overall, 153/231 patients had a prophylactic, 74/231 patients a therapeutic, and 4/231 patients a successive prophylactic/therapeutic indication. In 11/231 patients fondaparinux was used due to suspected/antecedent HIT, in 5/231 patients due to a previous cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity to heparins. Other indications were rare. Three new/progressive thromboses were detected. No cases of HIT, major bleedings, or fatalities occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fondaparinux was well tolerated and was safe in prophylaxis and therapy; prescriptions mostly followed the current approval guidelines and were rarely related to HIT-associated indications (<5% of prescriptions), which is in contrast to previous study results in the U.S. (>94% of prescriptions were HIT-associated). A trend towards an individualised fondaparinux use based on the compound's inherent properties and the patients' risk profiles, i.e., antecedent HIT, bone fractures, heparin allergy, was observed.

Low allergenic potential with fondaparinux: results of a prospective investigation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and causes of skin reactions to the synthetic pentasaccharide fondaparinux.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who received prophylactic/therapeutic subcutaneous fondaparinux treatment for more than 7 days were prospectively examined for cutaneous adverse effects between September 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009. When indicated, other procedures, such as skin biopsy, allergy testing, and clinical/laboratory assessment for thrombosis and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 231 patients were enrolled. No patient developed typical delayed type IV hypersensitivity (DTH) erythematous skin lesions. However, one female patient experienced abdominal pruritus at sites of injection. Histology revealed a mild lymphohistiocytic infiltrate, confirming a DTH reaction. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, as another possible underlying pathomechanism for cutaneous lesions, was ruled out clinically and serologically. Hence, the overall incidence of fondaparinux-induced allergic skin lesions was 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.01%-2.4%). No cross-allergies were observed in patients with DTH reaction to heparins.

CONCLUSION

Fondaparinux has a low allergenic potential. The incidence of allergic cutaneous DTH reactions is almost 20 times lower compared to that with commonly used heparins. These results, together with the known low prevalence of secondary thrombotic events or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during fondaparinux therapy, suggest that in selected patients fondaparinux might substantially improve patient care, therapeutic safety, and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulant therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00510432.

Analysis of cytokine secretion from lymphocytes of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to contaminated heparins

BACKGROUND

Beginning in 2007, anaphylactoid reactions associated with unfractionated heparin (UFH) occurred and resulted in some fatalities. These reactions were reported to be linked to the complement and contact system activation induced by certain batches of UFH containing the adulterant oversulphated chondroitin sulphate (OSCS).

OBJECTIVES

Drug-specific secretion of selected cytokines from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to contaminated heparin was compared with the respective in vitro cytokine pattern of individuals with or without hypersensitivity to heparin, different glycosaminoglycans or other drugs.

METHODS

Study individuals (n = 13) were classified as follows: patients with hypersensitivity reactions to contaminated (OSCS) heparin (n = 3), noncontaminated heparin (n = 1) or other compounds (n = 3) and patients with ongoing heparin therapy without symptoms of intolerance (n = 2). Four healthy individuals served as controls. PBMC were incubated with six different glycosaminoglycan structures. Drug-specific intracellular interleukin (IL)-5, interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-10 production was investigated by flow cytometry, while secretion of IL-5, IL-2 and IFN-γ was analysed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

PBMC from individuals with hypersensitivity reactions to contaminated heparin secreted considerable amounts of IL-2 in vitro. There was a suggestion that ongoing heparin therapy and the Li-heparin in the vials may have an impact on the lymphocyte reactivity of PBMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The in vitro lymphocyte reactivity pattern of PBMC from individuals with hypersensitivity reactions to contaminated heparins was neither typical for an immune-mediated nor for a nonimmune-mediated reaction. Possible effects of heparins in the test system itself may require consideration.

Heparin-induced non-necrotizing skin lesions: rarely associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increasing number of reports regarding adverse skin reactions to subcutaneous heparin administration. Case series have implied that heparin-induced skin lesions are predominantly associated with life-threatening heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in at least 22% of patients. Skin lesions, therefore, have been included in clinical scores for HIT.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of heparin-induced skin lesions with HIT. This would have a pivotal impact on further anticoagulatory management in patients with heparin-induced skin lesions.

PATIENTS/METHODS

In our observational cohort study, 87 consecutive patients with heparin-induced skin lesions (85 occurring during low-molecular-weight heparin administration) were evaluated using a standardized internal protocol, including HIT diagnostics (heparin-platelet factor 4-ELISA, heparin-induced platelet activation assay), platelet count monitoring, clinical/sonographical screening for thrombosis, skin allergy testing and, if necessary, histology.

RESULTS

None of the observed heparin-induced skin lesions was due to HIT; all lesions were caused by delayed-type IV-hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) instead. Even the cutaneous reaction in one patient with concomitant HIT could be classified histologically as DTH reaction, amounting to an association of heparin-induced skin lesions and HIT in 1.2% (1/87; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.06).

CONCLUSION

Heparin-induced skin lesions associated with use of low-molecular-weight heparins do not seem to be strongly associated with a systemic immunologic reaction in terms of HIT and might rather be due to DTH reactions than due to microvascular thrombosis. Hence, we propose refining existing pretest probability scores for HIT, unless underlying causes have been clarified.

The complex clinical picture of side effects to anticoagulation

Inflammatory plaques at injection sites are frequent side effects of heparin treatment and a clinical symptom of delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) to heparin. In most cases, changing the subcutaneous therapy from unfractionated to low-molecular-weight heparin or treatment with heparinoids does not provide improvement because of extensive cross-reactivity. Because of their completely different chemical structure, hirudins are a safe alternative for anticoagulation. Despite DTH to subcutaneously injected heparins, patients tolerate heparin intravenously. Therefore, in case of therapeutic necessity and DTH to heparins, the simple shift from subcutaneous to intravenous heparin administration is justified. Skin necrosis is a rare complication of anticoagulation. Heparin-induced skin necrosis is 1 of the symptoms of immune-mediated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and should result in the immediate cessation of heparin therapy to prevent potentially fatal thrombotic events. This is in contrast to coumarin-induced skin necrosis, where therapy may be continued or restarted at a lower dose.

Incidence and causes of heparin-induced skin lesions

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the incidence and causes of heparin-induced skin lesions. The 2 most commonly reported causes of heparin-induced skin lesions are immune-mediated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

We prospectively examined consecutive patients who received subcutaneous heparin (most often enoxaparin or nadroparin) for the presence of heparin-induced skin lesions. If such lesions were identified, we performed a skin biopsy, platelet count measurements, and antiplatelet-factor 4 antibody and allergy testing.

RESULTS

We enrolled 320 patients. In total, 24 patients (7.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7%-10.6%) had heparin-induced skin lesions. Delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions were identified as the cause in all 24 patients. One patient with histopathologic evidence of delayed-type hypersensitivity tested positive for antiplatelet-factor 4 antibodies. We identified the following risk factors for heparin-induced skin lesions: a body mass index greater than 25 (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% CI 1.7-15.3), duration of heparin therapy longer than 9 days (OR 5.9, 95% CI 1.9-26.3) and female sex (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.1-8.8).

INTERPRETATION

Heparin-induced skin lesions are relatively common, have identifiable risk factors and are commonly caused by a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (type IV allergic response).

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis from dalteparin

Heparins are widely used for the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Several types of immunologically mediated reactions to heparins are reported, among them delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions with erythematous, infiltrated itchy plaques at injection sites. We describe a female patient, whose localized reaction from dalteparin was followed by a generalized rash presenting as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Subcutaneous provocation testing showed cross-reactions to enoxaparin, certoparin, reviparin, nadroparin, danaparoid, fondaparinux, but not to pentosan polysulfate. The danaparoid and in a lesser extent the nadroparin patch showed pustules. Within the next day, a generalized rash developed. The upper aspect of her trunk was highly affected and showed discrete pustules. Despite the fact that low molecular-weight heparins are widely prescribed, this is, to our knowledge, the first observation of a pustular drug eruption attributable to this class of substances.

Retiform purpura in plaques: a morphological approach to diagnosis

Retiform purpura (RPP) is a livedoid pattern of cutaneous haemorrhage that may result from vasculitis, occlusion or altered coagulation. When this pattern presents as palpable plaques, vascular inflammation is present, and the differential diagnosis includes calciphylaxis, warfarin-induced skin necrosis, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and heparin-induced skin necrosis. These diseases are clinically aggressive and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Early recognition is essential to make the necessary medication changes and to begin intervention. Our morphological approach to diagnosis differs from traditional methods and can expedite management. Biopsy results and laboratory findings are then used to verify the diagnosis and determine the specific cause. This approach may allow the development of a treatment plan prior to availability of all ancillary data. Clinical and histological cases are presented for these four syndromes presenting as RPP.

Delayed-type hypersensitivity to low molecular weight heparins and heparinoids: cross-reactivity does not depend on molecular weight

BACKGROUND

Cross-reactivity is a widespread phenomenon in patients who develop cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions to low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs). As molecular weight is believed to be a key determinant of sensitization to heparins, the recently developed LMWH bemiparin, with the lowest molecular weight of all LMWHs, appeared to be a significant improvement.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cross-reactivity between bemiparin and several other LMWHs and heparinoids by means of subcutaneous testing. Methods Test doses of bemiparin and several other LMWHs/heparinoids were given to eight patients with a history of local eczematous reactions after subcutaneous injection of enoxaparin.

RESULTS

Seven of eight patients showed cross-reactivity following subcutaneous injection of bemiparin. In addition, nearly all tested substances caused local eczematous reactions in at least some patients, with the exception of fondaparinux, which was well tolerated by all patients. Of all substances tested, bemiparin had the highest cross-reactivity with enoxaparin. Substances with a lower molecular weight did not cross-react less frequently than the others.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant correlation was found between the molecular weight of the tested substances and the frequency of DTH reactions. In patients with DTH to enoxaparin, the LMWH bemiparin is not a suitable alternative.

Hypersensitivity reactions to anticoagulant drugs: diagnosis and management options

Anticoagulants, including heparins, coumarins, hirudins, and some of the previously used plasma volume expanders, belong to the most widely used drugs. Hypersensitivity reactions from these agents are uncommon. However, they may have a considerable impact on patient safety and treatment decisions. Therefore, early diagnosis of potentially life-threatening adverse events and identification of alternatives is clinically important. This review contains an update on current knowledge about hypersensitivity reactions caused by the different anticoagulants. In addition, it discusses pathophysiologic mechanisms, diagnostic possibilities, and management options. The most common hypersensitivity reactions are erythematous plaques, occurring with a delay after subcutaneous application of heparins. Seldom they turn into maculopapular exanthema. Other hypersensitivity reactions are rare but may be life-threatening, e.g. skin necrosis because of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Skin and provocation tests with immediate and late readings are the most reliable diagnostic tools for heparin- or hirudin-induced urticaria/anaphylaxis or heparin-induced delayed plaques. If necrosis from heparins or coumarins is suspected, skin tests are contraindicated. In anaphylactic reactions caused by dextrans or hydroxyethyl starch skin tests are useless. Most in vitro tests have a low sensitivity and are not generally available. Therefore, in some anticoagulant-associated hypersensitivity reactions detailed allergologic investigation may help to identify safe treatment alternatives. However, several tests may be needed, and the procedures are usually time-consuming.