Protamine-induced immune thrombocytopenia

Caltrop-like Small-Molecule Antidotes That Neutralize Unfractionated Heparin and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin In Vivo

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are widely applied for surgical procedures and extracorporeal therapies, which, however, suffer bleeding risk. Protamine, the only clinically approved antidote, can completely neutralize UFH, but only partially neutralizes LMWHs, and also has a number of safety drawbacks. Here, we show that caltrop-like multicationic small molecules can completely neutralize both UFH and LMWHs. In vitro and ex vivo assays with plasma and whole blood and in vivo assays with mice and rats support that the lead compound is not only superior to protamine by displaying higher neutralization activity and broader therapeutic windows but also biocompatible. The effective neutralization dose and the maximum tolerated dose of the lead compound are determined to be 0.4 and 25 mg/kg in mice, respectively, suggesting good promise for further preclinical studies.

Heparin reversal with protamine sulfate after Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP): is less more?

PURPOSE

Percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) is a palliative intraarterial therapy for unresectable hepatic malignancies. During PHP, high-dose melphalan is infused via the hepatic artery to saturate tumor in the liver with the chemotherapeutic substance. The venous hepatic blood is filtered by an extracorporeal melphalan specific filtration system. Blood clotting in the extracorporeal filter system is prevented by administering unfractionated heparin (UFH) in high doses, which might be reversed with protamine sulfate after the procedure. Aim of this retrospective two-center-study was to analyze the potential effect of UFH reversal with protamine sulfate on complication rates following PHP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients receiving PHP treatment between 10/2014 and 04/2021 were classified according to their intraprocedural coagulation management: 92 patients/192 PHP received full UFH reversal with protamine (group_PROTAMINE); 13 patients/21 PHP in group_{REDUCED_PROTAMINE} received a reduced amount of protamine, and 28 patients/43 PHP did not receive UFH reversal with protamine (group_{NO_PROTAMINE}). Periinterventional clinical reports, findings and laboratory values were retrospectively evaluated. Complications and adverse events were classified according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEv5.0).

RESULTS

Thromboembolic events were recorded after 10 PHP procedures (5%) in group_PROTAMINE, six of which (3%) were major events (CTCAE grade 3-5). No (0%) thromboembolic events were recorded in group_{REDUCED_PROTAMINE} and group_{NO_PROTAMINE}. Hemorrhagic events were registered after 24 PHP (13%) in group_PROTAMINE, two of which (1%) were major (CTCAE grade 3-4). In group_{REDUCED_PROTAMINE}, only minor bleeding events were recorded, and one major hemorrhagic event was documented in group_{NO_PROTAMINE} (2%). There was a significant difference between the percentage of post-interventional thrombopenia in group_PROTAMINE (39%) and group_{REDUCED_PROTAMINE} (14%) versus group_{NO_PROTAMINE} (23%) (p=.00024). In group_PROTAMINE one patient suffered from a severe anaphylactic shock after the administration of protamine.

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective study implies that there might be a link between the practice of protamine sulfate administration to reverse the full hemodilutive effect of UFH after PHP and the post-interventional risk of thromboembolic events as well as clinically significant thrombopenia. Our data suggest that the standard use of protamine sulfate after PHP in low-risk patients without clinical signs of active bleeding should be critically re-evaluated.

Porous Polymers as Universal Reversal Agents for Heparin Anticoagulants through an Inclusion-Sequestration Mechanism

Heparins are widely used anticoagulants for surgical procedures and extracorporeal therapies. However, all of them have bleeding risks. Protamine sulfate, the only clinically approved antidote for unfractionated heparin (UFH), has adverse effects. Moreover, protamine can only partially neutralize low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and is not effective for fondaparinux. Here, an inclusion-sequestration strategy for efficient neutralization of heparin anticoagulants by cationic porous supramolecular organic frameworks (SOFs) and porous organic polymers (POPs) is reported. Isothermal titration calorimetric and fluorescence experiments show strong binding affinities of these porous polymers toward heparins, whereas dynamic light scattering and zeta potential analysis confirm that the heparin sequences are adsorbed into the interior of the porous hosts. Activated partial thromboplastin time, anti-FXa, and thromboelastography assays indicate that their neutralization efficacies are higher than or as high as that of protamine for UFH and generally superior to protamine for LMWHs and fondaparinux, which is further confirmed by tail-transection model in mice and ex vivo aPTT or anti-FXa analysis in rats. Acute toxicity evaluations reveal that one of the SOFs displays outstanding biocompatibility. This work suggests that porous polymers can supply safe and rapid reversal of clinically used heparins, as protamine surrogates, providing an improved approach for their neutralization.

Drug-associated thrombocytopenia

Many drugs have been implicated in drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP). Patients with DITP develop a drop in platelet count 5 to 10 days after drug administration with an increased risk of hemorrhage. The diagnosis of DITP is often challenging, because most hospitalized patients are taking multiple medications and have comorbidities that can also cause thrombocytopenia. Specialized laboratory diagnostic tests have been developed and are helpful to confirm the diagnosis. Treatment of DITP involves discontinuation of the offending drug. The platelet count usually starts to recover after 4 or 5 half-lives of the responsible drug or drug metabolite. High doses of intravenous immunoglobulin can be given to patients with severe thrombocytopenia and bleeding. Although in most cases, DITP is associated with bleeding, life-threatening thromboembolic complications are common in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Binding of antiplatelet factor 4/heparin antibodies to Fc receptors on platelets and monocytes causes intravascular cellular activation, leading to an intensely prothrombotic state in HIT. The clinical symptoms include a decrease in platelet counts by >50% and/or new thromboembolic complications. Two approaches can help to confirm or rule out HIT: assessment of the clinical presentation using scoring systems and in vitro demonstration of antiplatelet factor 4/heparin antibodies. The cornerstone of HIT management is immediate discontinuation of heparin when the disease is suspected and anticoagulation using nonheparin anticoagulant. In this review, we will provide an update on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of both DITP and HIT.

Approaches to prevent bleeding associated with anticoagulants: current status and recent developments

Anticoagulants are widely used for the prophylaxis and treatment of cardiovascular disorders and to prevent blood clotting during surgeries. However, the major limitation associated with anticoagulant therapy is bleeding; all the current anticoagulants do have a bleeding risk. The propensity to bleed is much higher among the elderly population and patients with renal insufficiency. Therefore, there is an utmost and urgent clinical need for a highly efficient, nontoxic antidote with excellent anticoagulant reversal activity. This will significantly improve the safety of anticoagulation therapy. This review summarizes the current options and approaches to reverse anticoagulation activity of clinically used anticoagulants. We start with an introduction to thrombosis and then summarize the details of current clinically available anticoagulants and their mechanisms of action and limitations. This is followed by current practices in anticoagulant neutralization including the details of the only clinically approved unfractionated heparin antidote, protamine; recent advances in the development of antidotes against heparin-based drugs; and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

Serologic characterization of anti-protamine/heparin and anti-PF4/heparin antibodies

Anti-protamine (PRT)/heparin antibodies are a newly described class of heparin-dependent antibodies occurring in patients exposed to PRT and heparin during cardiac surgery. To understand the biologic significance of anti-PRT/heparin antibodies, we developed a murine monoclonal antibody (ADA) specific for PRT/heparin complexes and compared it to patient-derived anti-PRT/heparin antibodies, as well as comparing polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies with anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin. Using monoclonal antibodies and polyclonal patient-derived antibodies, we show distinctive binding patterns of anti-PRT/heparin antibodies as compared with PF4/heparin antibodies. Whereas heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibody binding to PF4/heparin is inhibited by relatively low doses of heparin (0-1 U/mL), anti-PRT/heparin antibodies, including ADA, retain binding to PRT/heparin over a broad range of heparin concentrations (0-50 U/mL). Unlike PF4/heparin antibodies, which recognize PF4 complexed to purified or cell-associated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), anti-PRT/heparin antibodies show variable binding to cell-associated GAGs. Further, binding of anti-PRT/heparin antibodies to PRT/dextran complexes correlates closely with the ability of antibodies to bind to cell-surface PRT. These findings suggest that antibody binding to PRT/dextran may identify a subset of clinically relevant anti-PRT/heparin antibodies that can bind to cell-surface GAGs. Together, these findings show important serologic differences between HIT and anti-PRT/heparin antibodies, which may account for the variability in disease expression of the two classes of heparin-dependent antibodies.

Protamine-containing insulin but not analog insulin and duration of insulin use are risk factors for the production of insulin autoantibodies in insulin-treated patients with diabetes mellitus

Insulin autoantibodies can be produced by insulin injections but rarely cause severe side effects such as glucose instability and insulin allergy. We study the characteristics of insulin autoantibody-positive diabetic patients with a medical history of insulin therapy using single and multiple (adjusted for age, sex, type of diabetes) logistic regression analyses. Associations between insulin autoantibodies and age, sex, type of diabetes, HbA1c, and serum creatinine were not significant, but the association between insulin autoantibodies and duration of insulin use was significant. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were 1.08 (1.02-1.14) and 1.07 (1.01-1.14), respectively. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for protamine-containing insulin were 3.08 (1.49-6.34) and 4.27 (1.90-9.58), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for premixed biphasic insulin and intermediate-acting insulin were 2.21 (1.03-4.73) and 2.35 (1.01-5.49), respectively. Associations between insulin autoantibodies and any insulin analog were not significant. These results suggest that protamine-containing insulin and duration of insulin use are risk factors for the production of insulin autoantibodies. If patients with poorly controlled diabetes have a history of protamine-containing insulin therapy over a long time, the appearance of insulin autoantibodies should be monitored.

Approach to the diagnosis and management of drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia

Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) is a challenging clinical problem that is under-recognized, difficult to diagnose and associated with severe bleeding complications. DITP may be caused by classic drug-dependent platelet antibodies (eg, quinine); haptens (eg, penicillin); fiban-dependent antibodies (eg, tirofiban); monoclonal antibodies (eg, abciximab); autoantibody formation (eg, gold); and immune complex formation (eg, heparin). A thorough clinical history is essential in establishing the diagnosis of DITP and should include exposures to prescription medications, herbal preparations and even certain foods and beverages. Clinical and laboratory criteria have been established to determine the likelihood of a drug being the cause of thrombocytopenia, but these criteria can only be applied retrospectively. The most commonly implicated drugs include quinine, quinidine, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and vancomycin. We propose a practical approach to the diagnosis of the patient with suspected DITP. Key features are: the presence of severe thrombocytopenia (platelet nadir <20×10(9)/L); bleeding complications; onset 5 to 10days after first drug exposure, or within hours of subsequent exposures or after first exposure to fibans or abciximab; and exposure to drugs that have been previously implicated in DITP reactions. Treatment involves stopping the drug(s), administering platelet transfusions or other therapies if bleeding is present and counselling on future drug avoidance. The diagnosis can be confirmed by a positive drug re-challenge, which is often impractical, or by demonstrating drug-dependent platelet reactive antibodies in vitro. Current test methods, which are mostly flow cytometry-based, must show drug-dependence, immunoglobulin binding, platelet specificity and ideally should be reproducible across laboratories. Improved standardization and accessibility of laboratory testing should be a focus of future research.

High incidence of antibodies to protamine and protamine/heparin complexes in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass

Protamine is routinely used to reverse heparin anticoagulation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Heparin interacts with protamine to form ultralarge complexes that are immunogenic in mice. We hypothesized that patients exposed to protamine and heparin during CPB will develop antibodies (Abs) to protamine/heparin (PRT/H) complexes that are capable of platelet activation. Specimens from a recently completed prospective clinical trial (HIT [for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia] 5801 study; n = 500) of CPB patients were examined for PRT/H Abs at baseline, at time of hospital discharge (between days 3 through 7), and 30 days after CPB. PRT/H antibody features were characterized and correlated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We found a high incidence of PRT/H antibody formation (29%) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PRT/H Abs were of high titer (mean titer 1:14,744), showed heparin-dependent binding, and activated platelets in the presence of protamine. PRT/H Abs showed no cross-reactivity to platelet factor 4/heparin complexes, but were cross-reactive with protamine-containing insulin preparations. In the absence of circulating antigen at day 30, there were no complications of thrombocytopenia, thrombotic events, or long-term cardiovascular events. These studies show that Abs to PRT/H occur commonly after cardiac bypass surgery, share a number of serologic features with HIT Abs, including platelet activation, and may pose health risks to patients requiring drug reexposure.