Protamine Sulfate Neutralization Profile of Various Dosages of Bovine, Ovine and Porcine UFHs and Their Depolymerized Derivatives in Non-Human Primates

Quality control, safety assessment and preparation approaches of low molecular weight heparin

Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWHs) are well-established for use in the prevention and treatment of thrombotic diseases, and as a substitute for unfractionated heparin (UFH) due to their predictable pharmacokinetics and subcutaneous bioavailability. LMWHs are produced by various depolymerization methods from UFH, resulting in heterogeneous compounds with similar biochemical and pharmacological properties. However, the delicate supply chain of UFH and potential contamination from animal sources require new manufacturing approaches for LMWHs. Various LMWH preparation methods are emerging, such as chemical synthesis, enzymatic or chemical depolymerization and chemoenzymatic synthesis. To establish the sameness of active ingredients in both innovator and generic LMWH products, the Food and Drug Administration has implemented a stringent scientific method of equivalence based on physicochemical properties, heparin source material and depolymerization techniques, disaccharide composition and oligosaccharide mapping, biological and biochemical properties, and in vivo pharmacodynamic profiles. In this review, we discuss currently available LMWHs, potential manufacturing methods, and recent progress for manufacturing quality control of these LMWHs.

Pharmacology of Heparin and Related Drugs: An Update

Heparin has been used extensively as an antithrombotic and anticoagulant for close to 100 years. This anticoagulant activity is attributed mainly to the pentasaccharide sequence, which potentiates the inhibitory action of antithrombin, a major inhibitor of the coagulation cascade. More recently it has been elucidated that heparin exhibits anti-inflammatory effect via interference of the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps and this may also contribute to heparin's antithrombotic activity. This illustrates that heparin interacts with a broad range of biomolecules, exerting both anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant actions. Since our previous review, there has been an increased interest in these nonanticoagulant effects of heparin, with the beneficial role in patients infected with SARS2-coronavirus a highly topical example. This article provides an update on our previous review with more recent developments and observations made for these novel uses of heparin and an overview of the development status of heparin-based drugs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This state-of-the-art review covers recent developments in the use of heparin and heparin-like materials as anticoagulant, now including immunothrombosis observations, and as nonanticoagulant including a role in the treatment of SARS-coronavirus and inflammatory conditions.

Differential Neutralization of Unfractionated Heparin and Enoxaparin by Andexanet Alfa

INTRODUCTION

Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is an approved antidote used to reverse the bleeding effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulant (Direct-Xa agents) agents because it reverses anti-Xa activity. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) exhibit anti-Xa activity. The purpose is to investigate the neutralization of UFH and LMWH by andexanet in activated clotting time (ACT), thrombelastography (TEG), and anti-Xa due to the protamine sulfate shortage.

METHODS

UFH and LMWH were studied with andexanet, PS, or saline as potential reversal agents/controls at varying concentrations in ACT, TEG, and anti-Xa and compared to each other.

RESULTS

Andexanet partially neutralized both drugs several TEG parameters at high andexanet concentrations, but it was not as effective as protamine sulfate in any of the assays used. Most TEG parameters were correlated with andexanet concentration. In ACT, significant neutralization was demonstrated at many andexanet concentrations for UFH, but not LMWH. UFH was completely neutralized by PS in ACT, while LMWH was partially neutralized by PS in ACT. Andexanet alfa was a less effective neutralization agent than the protamine sulfate as it only partially neutralized UFH in ACT and was ineffective at neutralizing LMWH when tested at the same concentration as PS (10 ug/mL).

CONCLUSION

Andexanet partially neutralized UFH and LMWH with variability between assays, necessitating investigation into assay-dependent differences.