Predictive Role of Blood Cellular Indices and Their Relationship with Endogenous Glycosaminoglycans as Determinants of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Pulmonary Embolism.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we profiled the levels of blood cellular indices, endogenous glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and inflammatory biomarkers in a cohort comprised of pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, to determine their inter-relationships. Identification of this relationship may provide insight to the complex pathophysiology of PE and the predictive role of blood cellular indices in acute PE patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plasma samples from PE patients and healthy controls were analyzed for thrombo-inflammatory biomarkers (IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, VEGF, IFN-É£, TNF-α, IL-1α, IL-1ß, MCP-1, EGF, D-dimer, CRP and MMP-9) using biochip array and ELISA methods. The endogenous GAG levels were quantified using a fluorescence quenching method. The data regarding the blood cellular indices were collected through the review of patient medical records and analyzed to demonstrate their relationship. RESULTS: The levels of inflammatory biomarkers and endogenous GAGs were elevated in acute PE patients compared to controls (P < .05). Most of the blood cellular indices have shown significant differences in acute PE patients compared to controls (P < .05). The levels of inflammatory biomarkers, endogenous GAGs and the blood cellular indices have shown significant associations in correlation and multivariable analysis. While NLR, PLR and SII were significantly predicting the 30-day mortality, PNR, ELR and EMR were not sufficient to predict 30-day mortality in acute PE. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the increased thrombo-inflammatory response is associated with the release of GAGs and the changes in blood cellular indices. The predictive role of the blood cellular indices for mortality is dependent on their relationship with the inflammatory response.

Potential Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activity of Pentosan Polysulfate and Mucopolysaccharide Polysulfate.

With the increased prevalence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, such as Delta and Omicron, the COVID-19 pandemic has become an ongoing human health disaster, killing millions worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 invades its host through the interaction of its spike (S) protein with a host cell receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). In addition, heparan sulfate (HS) on the surface of host cells plays an important role as a co-receptor for this viral pathogen-host cell interaction. Our previous studies demonstrated that many sulfated glycans, such as heparin, fucoidans, and rhamnan sulfate have anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities. In the current study, a small library of sulfated glycans and highly negatively charged compounds, including pentosan polysulfate (PPS), mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS), sulfated lactobionic acid, sulodexide, and defibrotide, was assembled and evaluated for binding to the S-proteins and inhibition of viral infectivity in vitro. These compounds inhibited the interaction of the S-protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) (wild type and different variants) with immobilized heparin, a highly sulfated HS, as determined using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). PPS and MPS showed the strongest inhibition of interaction of heparin and S-protein RBD. The competitive binding studies showed that the IC50 of PPS and MPS against the S-protein RBD binding to immobilized heparin was ~35 nM and ~9 nM, respectively, much lower than the IC50 for soluble heparin (IC50 = 56 nM). Both PPS and MPS showed stronger inhibition than heparin on the S-protein RBD or spike pseudotyped lentiviral particles binding to immobilized heparin. Finally, in an in vitro cell-based assay, PPS and MPS exhibited strong antiviral activities against pseudotyped viral particles of SARS-CoV-2 containing wild-type or Delta S-proteins.

An Update on the Status of Vaccine Development for SARS-CoV-2 Including Variants. Practical Considerations for COVID-19 Special Populations.

The progress in the development of various vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2 have been rather remarkable owing to advancement in molecular and biologic sciences. Most of the current vaccines and those in development focus on targeting the viral spike proteins by generating antibodies of varying spectrum. These vaccines represent a variety of platforms including whole virus vaccines, viral vector vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines representing RNA, DNA, and their hybrid forms.The therapeutic efficacy of these vaccines varies owing to their pharmacodynamic individualities. COVID-19 variants are capable of inducing different pathologic responses and some of which may be resistant to antibodies generated by current vaccines. The current clinical use of these vaccines has been through emergency use authorization until recently. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of these vaccines have been tested in substantial numbers of individuals but studies in special populations that better reflect the global population are pending results. These specialized populations include young children, immunocompromised patients, pregnant individuals, and other specialized groups. Combination approaches, molecularly modified vaccination approaches, and vaccines conferring longer periods of immunity are being currently being investigated, as well as pharmacovigilance studies.The continual transformation of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are of concern along with the breakthrough infections. These considerations pose new challenges for the development of vaccination platforms. For this purpose, booster doses, combination vaccine approaches, and other modalities are being discussed. This review provides an updated account of currently available vaccines and those in advanced development with reference to their composition and mechanisms of action.A discussion on the use of vaccines in special populations including immunocompromised patients, pregnant women and other specialized populations are also included.

An Update on the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 and the Reportedly Rare Thrombotic Events Following Vaccination.

Today the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health problem. After more than a year with the pandemic, although our knowledge has progressed on COVID-19, there are still many unknowns in virological, pathophysiological and immunological aspects. It is obvious that the most efficient solution to end this pandemic are safe and efficient vaccines. This manuscript summarizes the pathophysiological and thrombotic features of COVID-19 and the safety and efficacy of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines with an aim to clarify the recent concerns of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination. The influx of newer information is rapid, requiring periodic updates and objective assessment of the data on the pathogenesis of COVID-19 variants and the safety and efficacy of currently available vaccines.

Comparative Anticoagulant and Thrombin Generation Inhibitory Profile of Heparin, Sulodexide and Its Components.

INTRODUCTION: Sulodexide represents a mixture of fast-moving heparin (FMH) and dermatan sulfate (DS) and has been used for the management of venous diseases such as DVT and related disorders. The purpose of this study is to compare sulodexide and its components with unfractionated heparin (UFH) to determine its suitability for the indications in which UFH is used. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) versions of sulodexide, FMH and DS were obtained from Alfasigma. API versions of UFH were obtained from Medefil Inc. Normal human citrated plasma was obtained from blood bank of the Loyola University Medical Center. Each of the individual agents were supplemented in plasma at a graded concentration of 0.0-10 µg/mL. Clotting assays (PiCT, aPTT, PT and TT), anti-Xa and anti-IIa and thrombin generation studies were carried out. Results were compiled as mean ± SD of 3 individual determination. RESULT: In the clot based (PiCT, aPTT and TT), anti-Xa and IIa assays, both the UFH and FMH produced stronger activities in these assays followed by sulodexide. DS did not show any anticoagulant activity. In the thrombin generation assay, FMH and UFH produced comparable inhibition of thrombin generation as measured by various parameters. Sulodexide was slightly weaker in this assay, whereas DS produced relatively weaker effects. CONCLUSION: In comparison to sulodexide, both UFH and FMH exhibit comparable anticoagulant activity despite differences in their molecular weight. These results suggest that sulodexide can be developed as a parenteral anticoagulant for indications in which UFH is used.