Do Circulating Histones Represent the Missing Link among COVID-19 Infection and Multiorgan Injuries, Microvascular Coagulopathy and Systemic Hyperinflammation?

Several studies shed light on the interplay among inflammation, thrombosis, multi-organ failures and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Increasing levels of both free and/or circulating histones have been associated to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), enhancing the risk of heart attack and stroke with coagulopathy and systemic hyperinflammation. In this view, by considering both the biological and clinical rationale, circulating histones may be relevant as diagnostic biomarkers for stratifying COVID-19 patients at higher risk for viral sepsis, and as predictive laboratory medicine tool for targeted therapies.

Sevuparin binds to multiple adhesive ligands and reduces sickle red blood cell-induced vaso-occlusion

Sevuparin is a novel drug candidate in phase II development as a treatment for vaso-occlusive crises (VOC) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). As a heparin-derived polysaccharide, sevuparin has been designed to retain anti-adhesive properties, while the antithrombin-binding domains have been eliminated, substantially diminishing its anticoagulant activity. Here, we demonstrate that sevuparin inhibits the adhesion of human sickle red blood cells (SS-RBCs) to stimulated cultured endothelial cells in vitro. Importantly, sevuparin prevents vaso-occlusion and normalizes blood flow in an in vivo mouse model of SCD vaso-occlusion. Analyses by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) demonstrate that sevuparin binds to P- and L-selectins, thrombospondin, fibronectin and von Willebrand factor, all of which are thought to contribute to vaso-occlusion in SCD. Despite low anticoagulation activity, sevuparin has anti-adhesive efficacy similar to the low molecular weight heparin tinzaparin both in vitro and in vivo. These results suggest that the anti-adhesive properties rather than the anticoagulant effects of heparinoids are critical for the treatment of vaso-occlusion in SCD. Therefore, sevuparin is now being evaluated in SCD patients hospitalized for treatment of VOC.

New insight into the effects of heparinoids on complement inhibition by C1-inhibitor

Complement activation is of major importance in numerous pathological conditions. Therefore, targeted complement inhibition is a promising therapeutic strategy. C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) controls activation of the classical pathway (CP) and the lectin pathway (LP). However, conflicting data exist on inhibition of the alternative pathway (AP) by C1-INH. The inhibitory capacity of C1-INH for the CP is potentiated by heparin and other glycosaminoglycans, but no data exist for the LP and AP. The current study investigates the effects of C1-INH in the presence or absence of different clinically used heparinoids on the CP, LP and AP. Furthermore, the combined effects of heparinoids and C1-INH on coagulation were investigated. C1-INH, heparinoids or combinations were analysed in a dose-dependent fashion in the presence of pooled serum. Functional complement activities were measured simultaneously using the Wielisa(®) -kit. The activated partial thrombin time was determined using an automated coagulation analyser. The results showed that all three complement pathways were inhibited significantly by C1-INH or heparinoids. Next to their individual effects on complement activation, heparinoids also enhanced the inhibitory capacity of C1-INH significantly on the CP and LP. For the AP, significant potentiation of C1-INH by heparinoids was found; however, this was restricted to certain concentration ranges. At low concentrations the effect on blood coagulation by combining heparinoids with C1-INH was minimal. In conclusion, our study shows significant potentiating effects of heparinoids on the inhibition of all complement pathways by C1-INH. Therefore, their combined use is a promising and a potentially cost-effective treatment option for complement-mediated diseases.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity

BACKGROUND

Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.