Nebulized heparin is associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial

Inhaled heparin: Past, present, and future

While heparin has traditionally served as a key anticoagulant in clinical practice for nearly a century, recent years have witnessed a growing interest in its role as a potent antiinflammatory and antiviral agent, as well as an anticancer agent. To address challenges with injection-based delivery, exploring patient-friendly routes such as oral and pulmonary delivery is crucial. This review specifically highlights the multiple therapeutic benefits of inhaled heparin. In summary, this review serves as a valuable source of information, providing deep insights into the diverse therapeutic advantages of inhaled heparin and its potential applications within clinical contexts.

Adjunctive Therapies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Despite significant advances in understanding acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality rates remain high. The appropriate use of adjunctive therapies can improve outcomes, particularly for patients with moderate to severe hypoxia. In this review, the authors discuss the evidence basis behind prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, neuromuscular blocking agents, corticosteroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and considerations for their use in individual patients and specific clinical scenarios. Because the heterogeneity of ARDS poses challenges in finding universally effective treatments, an individualized approach and continued research efforts are crucial for optimizing the utilization of adjunctive therapies and improving patient outcomes.

The Efficacy of Daily Administration of Nebulized Heparin on the Prevention of Endotracheal Tube Blockage in Patients With Pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

Nosocomial infections pose a significant public health concern, impacting over 100 million people worldwide annually. Within this research, we investigated heparin nebulization through the endotracheal tube and its effect on preventing blockage due to clots and mucus plugs compared to normal saline.

METHODS

A double-blind clinical experiment was done on a cohort of 40 pneumonia patients who were intubated and hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz, Iran. The individuals were randomly assigned to two groups of 20 patients using a random allocation technique. The initial cohort was administered 5000 IU of heparin diluted in 4 ccs of 0.9% normal saline every eight hours via a nebulizer through a tracheal tube. In contrast, the second cohort was given 5 ccs of normal saline as a nebulizer through a tracheal tube. The study compared the incidence of tracheal tube obstruction caused by mucus plug or clot, the occurrence of patient hypoxia resulting in emergency tracheal tube replacement, and the frequency of emergency tracheal tube suction due to partial obstruction caused by mucus plug in both the heparin and saline groups.

RESULTS

According to our data, the number of patients in the heparin group who could avoid the need for emergency tracheal tube replacement owing to blockage was more significant than in the ordinary saline group (P=0.013). Heparin was significantly correlated with the number of times emergency suction was required to remove a tracheal tube occlusion (P=0.01). Heparin had no significant effect on coagulation factors (international normalized ratio [INR], platelet [PLT], and partial thromboplastin time [PTT]), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), saturation of patients, or tracheal tube secretions. There was no statistically significant difference in total time spent in the intensive care unit (P=0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are suggested to determine the effect of heparin nebulization on preventing endotracheal tube obstruction due to clots and mucus plugs in intubated ICU patients.

The effect of nebulized heparin on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients: a meta-analysis and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between use of nebulized heparin and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published between database inception and May 2022. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFDs) in 28 days, and length of hospitalization. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration No: CRD42022345533).

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs (651 patients) were included. Nebulized heparin was associated with reduced ICU length of stay (six studies; mean difference [MD] -1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.87, -0.33, I2 = 76%), reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (two studies; MD -2.63, 95% CI -3.68, -1.58, I2 = 92%) and increased VFDs in 28 days (two studies; MD 4.22, 95% CI 1.10, 7.35, I2 = 18%), without increased incidence of adverse events, such as bleeding; but was not associated with a reduction in length of hospitalization (three studies; MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.90, -0.90, I2 = 0%) or in-hospital mortality (five studies; odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.69, 1.77, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Nebulized heparin reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients, but has no effect on length of hospitalization or mortality.

Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects in early phase trials (which informed the design of the subsequent Phase III trials) are not valid guides to the differences between the interventions for the main outcomes of the Phase III trials. We undertook a systematic review (1) to generate a list of outcome measures used in critical care trials, (2) to determine the variability in the outcome reporting in the respiratory subgroup and (3) to create a smaller list of potential early phase endpoints in the respiratory subgroup.

METHODS

Data related to outcomes were extracted from studies published in the six top-ranked critical care journals between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes were classified into subcategories and categories. A subset of early phase endpoints relevant to the respiratory subgroup was selected for further investigation. The variability of the outcomes and the variability in reporting was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 6905 references were retrieved and a total of 294 separate outcomes were identified from 58 studies. The outcomes were then classified into 11 categories and 66 subcategories. A subset of 22 outcomes relevant for the respiratory group were identified as potential early phase outcomes. The summary statistics, time points and definitions show the outcomes are analysed and reported in different ways.

CONCLUSION

The outcome measures were defined, analysed and reported in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for synthesising data in systematic reviews and planning definitive trials. This review once again highlights an urgent need for standardisation and validation of surrogate outcomes reported in critical care trials. Future work should aim to validate and develop a core outcome set for surrogate outcomes in critical care trials.

Heparin, Low Molecular Weight Heparin, and Non-Anticoagulant Derivatives for the Treatment of Inflammatory Lung Disease

Unfractionated heparin has multiple pharmacological activities beyond anticoagulation. These anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, and mucoactive activities are shared in part by low molecular weight and non-anticoagulant heparin derivatives. Anti-inflammatory activities include inhibition of chemokine activity and cytokine synthesis, inhibitory effects on the mechanisms of adhesion and diapedesis involved in neutrophil recruitment, inhibition of heparanase activity, inhibition of the proteases of the coagulation and complement cascades, inhibition of neutrophil elastase activity, neutralisation of toxic basic histones, and inhibition of HMGB1 activity. This review considers the potential for heparin and its derivatives to treat inflammatory lung disease, including COVID-19, ALI, ARDS, cystic fibrosis, asthma, and COPD via the inhaled route.

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.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A randomised controlled pilot study

There is a strong scientific rationale to use nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in treating patients with COVID-19. This pilot study investigated whether nebulised UFH was safe and had any impact on mortality, length of hospitalisation and clinical progression, in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This parallel group, open label, randomised trial included adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to two hospitals in Brazil. One hundred patients were planned to be randomised to either "standard of care" (SOC) or SOC plus nebulized UFH. The trial was stopped after randomisation of 75 patients due to falling COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. Significance tests were 1-sided test (10% significance level). The key analysis populations were intention to treat (ITT) and modified ITT (mITT) which excluded (from both arms) subjects admitted to ITU or who died within 24 h of randomisation. In the ITT population (n = 75), mortality was numerically lower for nebulised UFH (6 out of 38 patients; 15.8%) versus SOC (10 out of 37 patients; 27.0%), but not statistically significant; odds ratio (OR) 0.51, p = 0.24. However, in the mITT population, nebulised UFH reduced mortality (OR 0.2, p = 0.035). Length of hospital stay was similar between groups, but at day 29, there was a greater improvement in ordinal score following treatment with UFH in the ITT and mITT populations (p = 0.076 and p = 0.012 respectively), while mechanical ventilation rates were lower with UFH in the mITT population (OR 0.31; p = 0.08). Nebulised UFH did not cause any significant adverse events. In conclusion, nebulised UFH added to SOC in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated and showed clinical benefit, particularly in patients who received at least 6 doses of heparin. This trial was funded by The J.R. Moulton Charity Trust and registered under REBEC RBR-8r9hy8f (UTN code: U1111-1263-3136).

Protective Effect of Nebulized Heparin in the Animal Models of Smoke Inhalation Injury: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

The pathophysiological mechanism of abnormal coagulation can result from smoke inhalation injury (SII). Heparin nebulization is a common treatment for lung disorders. This study aimed to use meta-analysis in animal models to examine the effectiveness of atomized heparin on SII. For our online searches, we used the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database up to January 2022. Data for SII were retrieved and compared to control animals. The studies' findings were determined by combining standardized mean difference (SMD) analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The findings showed that as compared to the control group, the heparin-treated group had a lower death rate (relative risk 0.42; 95% CI 0.22, 0.80; p < .05). The meta-analysis demonstrated favorable changes in lung physiology, including PaO2/FiO2 (SMD 1.04; 95% CI 0.65, 1.44; p < .001), lung wet-to-dry weight ratio (SMD -1.83; 95% CI -2.47, -1.18; p < .001), and pulmonary shunt Qs/Qt (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -1.29, -0.08; p < .05) after heparin nebulization for lung injury. The present data indicated that pulmonary artery mean pressure in the heparin therapy group was significantly lowered after 24 and 48 hours of therapy, suggesting that the cardiovascular system could recover following heparin treatment. As a result, heparin nebulization appeared to be more effective against SII and improved cardiopulmonary function compared to the control group. Graphical Abstract.

Pharmacologic therapies of ARDS: From natural herb to nanomedicine

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common critical illness in respiratory care units with a huge public health burden. Despite tremendous advances in the prevention and treatment of ARDS, it remains the main cause of intensive care unit (ICU) management, and the mortality rate of ARDS remains unacceptably high. The poor performance of ARDS is closely related to its heterogeneous clinical syndrome caused by complicated pathophysiology. Based on the different pathophysiology phases, drugs, protective mechanical ventilation, conservative fluid therapy, and other treatment have been developed to serve as the ARDS therapeutic methods. In recent years, there has been a rapid development in nanomedicine, in which nanoparticles as drug delivery vehicles have been extensively studied in the treatment of ARDS. This study provides an overview of pharmacologic therapies for ARDS, including conventional drugs, natural medicine therapy, and nanomedicine. Particularly, we discuss the unique mechanism and strength of nanomedicine which may provide great promises in treating ARDS in the future.

Anticoagulant Treatment in Severe ARDS COVID-19 Patients

Patients with COVID-19 may complicate their evolution with thromboembolic events. Incidence of thromboembolic complications are high and also, patients with the critically-ill disease showed evidence of microthrombi and microangiopathy in the lung probably due to endothelial damage by directly and indirectly injured endothelial and epithelial cells. Pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis and arterial embolism were reported in patients with COVID-19, and several analytical abnormal coagulation parameters have been described as well. D-dimer, longer coagulation times and lower platelet counts have been associated with poor outcomes. The use of anticoagulation or high doses of prophylactic heparin is controversial. Despite the use of anticoagulation or high prophylactic dose of heparin have been associated with better outcomes in observational studies, only in patients with non-critically ill disease benefits for anticoagulation was observed. In critically-ill patient, anticoagulation was not associated with better outcomes. Other measures such as antiplatelet therapy, fibrinolytic therapy or nebulized anticoagulants are being studied in ongoing clinical trials.

Anticoagulation as a therapeutic strategy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the global community and continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The development of effective vaccines has represented a major step towards reducing transmission and illness severity but significant challenges remain, particularly in regions where vaccine access has been limited. COVID-19 is associated with hypercoagulability and increased risk of thrombosis, with greatest risk among the critically ill. Interestingly, early observational data suggested that anticoagulant therapy might improve clinical outcomes, aside from thrombotic events, in patients with COVID-19. In this review we summarise data generated from three published randomised clinical trials which have sought to determine the effect of therapeutic heparin anticoagulation on efficacy and safety outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the multiplatform REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a and ATTACC randomised controlled trials and the RAPID trial. In the multiplatform REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a and ATTACC randomised controlled trials, therapeutic heparin was not associated with benefit in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with usual care (adjusted proportional odds ratio (OR) for increased organ-support free days up to day 21: 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67-1.03, posterior probability of futility 99.9%). Conversely, among hospitalised patients without critical illness, therapeutic heparin was associated with an increased probability of organ support-free days alive (adjusted OR, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03-1.58). The RAPID trial also evaluated the effect of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin in non-critically ill patients. In this study, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the odds of the primary composite outcome (death, mechanical ventilation or intensive care unit admission) (OR 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p = 0.12) but was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality [OR, 0.22 (95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65)]. Collectively these studies suggest that therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin may reduce the severity of illness and potentially even confer a survival benefit in hospitalised, non-critically ill patients with COVID-19. No benefit for therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin was evident in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Therefore, while the results of additional studies in this evolving field are pending, it is important to approach decisions regarding therapeutic heparin in moderately ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in a measured and individualised manner.

Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT): Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for an investigator-initiated international meta-trial of prospective randomised clinical studies

There is significant interest in the potential for nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) as a novel therapy for patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. The scientific and biological rationale for nebulised heparin stems from the evidence for extensive activation of coagulation resulting in pulmonary microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19 pneumonia. Nebulised delivery of heparin to the lung may limit alveolar fibrin deposition and thereby limit progression of lung injury. Importantly, laboratory studies show that heparin can directly inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, thereby prevent its entry into and infection of mammalian cells. UFH has additional anti-inflammatory and mucolytic properties that may be useful in this context. METHODS AND INTERVENTION: The Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT) is a collaborative prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled clinical trials across several countries in 5 continents, examining the effects of inhaled heparin in patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation on various endpoints. Each constituent study will randomise patients with COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. Patients are randomised to receive nebulised heparin or standard care (open label studies) or placebo (blinded placebo-controlled studies) while under invasive ventilation. Each participating study collect a pre-defined minimum dataset. The primary outcome for the meta-trial is the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 day, defined as days alive and free from invasive ventilation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The meta-trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04545541. Each contributing study is individually registered and has received approval of the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board. Results of this study will be shared with the WHO, published in scientific journals, and presented at scientific meetings.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: A Literature Review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an overwhelming inflammatory disorder of the lung due to direct and indirect insults to the lungs. ARDS is characterized by increased vascular permeability, protein-rich edema, diffuse alveolar infiltrate, and loss of aerated lung tissue, leading to decreased lung compliance, tachypnea, and severe hypoxemia. COVID-19 is generally associated with ARDS, and it has gained prime importance since it started. The mortality rate is alarmingly high in COVID-19-related ARDS patients regardless of advances in mechanical ventilation. Several pharmacological agents, including corticosteroids, nitric oxide, neuromuscular blocker, anti-TNF, statins, and exogenous surfactant, have been studied and some are under investigation, like ketoconazole, lisofylline, N-acetylcysteine, prostaglandins, prostacyclin, and fish oil. The purpose of this review is to appraise the understanding of the pathophysiology of ARDS, biomarkers, and clinical trials of pharmacological therapies of ARDS and COVID-19-related ARDS.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A multicentre case series of 98 patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy-potential of inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Retrospective, uncontrolled multicentre single-arm case series of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, treated with inhaled nebulised UFH (5000IU 8-hourly, 10000IU 4-hourly, or 25000IU 6-hourly) for 6±3 (mean±SD) days. Outcomes were APTT before treatment (baseline) and highest-level during treatment (peak), and adverse events including bleeding. Exploratory efficacy outcomes were oxygenation, assessed by SpO2 to FiO2 (S/F) ratio and FiO2, and the WHO modified ordinal clinical scale (MOCS).

RESULTS

98 patients were included. In patients on stable prophylactic or therapeutic systemic anticoagulant therapy but not receiving therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels increased from baseline of 34±10 seconds to a peak of 38±11 seconds (p<0.0001). In 3 patients on therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels did not significantly increase from baseline of 72±20 to a peak of 84±28 seconds (p=0.17). Two patients had serious adverse events: bleeding gastric ulcer requiring transfusion; thigh haematoma; both were on therapeutic anticoagulation. Minor bleeding occurred in 16 patients, 13 of which were on therapeutic anticoagulation. The S/F ratio and the FiO2 worsened before and improved after commencement of inhaled UFH (change in slope, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Inhaled nebulised UFH in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was safe. Although statistically significant, inhaled nebulised UFH did not produce a clinically relevant increase in APTT (peak values in the normal range). Urgent randomised evaluation of nebulised UFH in patients with COVID-19 is warranted and several studies are currently underway.

Effect of Nebulized Heparin on Weaning off Intubated Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU): A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treatment is based on supportive care such as mechanical ventilation, prophylaxis of stress ulcer, prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), nutritional support, and treatment of underlying disease. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the effects of nebulized heparin on weaning off intubated ARDS patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 60 patients with ARDS receiving routine care according to the ARDS protocol were randomly assigned into two groups: intervention group (receiving nebulized heparin 5000 u/BD for one week) and control group (receiving nebulized sterile water 2 cc/BD for one week). The respiratory index (PaO2/FiO2), pulmonary shunt percentage (measured by ABG), tidal volume, minute ventilation, admission duration in the ICU, and days of mechanical ventilation required were recorded for each patient for one week. Results: There was no significant difference in demographic data between the two groups. Inhaled heparin in patients with ARDS could significantly increase the respiratory index (PaO2/FiO2) and decrease pulmonary shunt percentage, minute ventilation, and tidal volume. It also significantly reduced the number of admission days in the ICU and the need for mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: The result of the present study showed that inhaled heparin in intubated ARDS patients admitted to the ICU improved respiratory and pulmonary status and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation and admission days in the ICU. Nebulizing heparin, as an anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulant agent, is an effective and safe medication for ARDS patients on mechanical ventilation.

FIO2 Trajectory as a Pragmatic Intermediate Marker in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Several markers of oxygenation are used as prognostic markers in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Real-world use is limited by the need for invasive measurements and unreliable availability in the electronic health record. A pragmatic, reliable, and accurate marker of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is needed to facilitate epidemiologic studies, clinical trials, and shared decision-making with patients. [Formula: see text] is easily obtained at the bedside and from the electronic health record. The [Formula: see text] trajectory may be a valuable marker of recovery in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

This was a historical cohort study of adult subjects admitted to an ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to community-acquired pneumonia and/or ARDS.

RESULTS

Our study included 2,670 subjects. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were consistently more available than was [Formula: see text] in the electronic health record: ([Formula: see text] vs [Formula: see text] vs [Formula: see text] : 100 vs 100 vs 72.8% on day 1, and 100 vs 99 vs 21% on day 5). A worsening [Formula: see text] trajectory was associated with reduced ventilator-free days. From days 2 to 5, every increase in [Formula: see text] by 10% from the previous day was associated with fewer ventilator-free days (on day 2: adjusted mean -1.25 [95% CI -1.45 to -1.05] d, P < .001). The [Formula: see text] trajectory also provided prognostic information. On days 3 - 5, an increase in [Formula: see text] from the previous day was associated with increased ventilator-free days (on day 3: adjusted mean 2.09 (95% CI 1.44-2.74) d; P < .001). [Formula: see text] models did not add predictive information compared with models with [Formula: see text] alone (on day 2: adjusted [Formula: see text] vs [Formula: see text] R2 0.122 vs 0.119; and on day 3: 0.153 vs 0.163).

CONCLUSIONS

[Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are pragmatic and readily available intermediate prognostic markers in acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The [Formula: see text] trajectory in the first 5 d of ICU admission provided important prognostic information (ventilator-free days). Although the [Formula: see text] trajectory was also associated with ventilator-free days, it did not provide more information than the [Formula: see text] trajectory alone.

Nanotherapeutics in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a form of oxygenation failure primarily characterized by rapid inflammation resulting from a direct pulmonary or indirect systemic insult. ARDS has been a major cause of death in the recent COVID-19 outbreak wherein asymptomatic respiratory tract infection progresses to ARDS from pneumonia have emphasized the need for a reliable therapy for the disease. The disease has a high mortality rate of approximately 30-50%. Despite the high mortality rate, a dearth of effective pharmacotherapy exists that demands extensive research in this area. The complex ARDS pathophysiology which remains to be understood completely and the multifactorial etiology of the disease has led to the poor diagnosis, impeded drug-delivery to the deeper pulmonary tissues, and delayed treatment of the ARDS patients. Besides, critically ill patients are unable to tolerate the off-target side effects. The vast domain of nanobiotechnology presents several drug delivery systems offering numerous benefits such as targeted delivery, prolonged drug release, and uniform drug-distribution. The present review presents a brief insight into the ARDS pathophysiology and summarizes conventional pharmacotherapies available to date. Furthermore, the review provides an updated report of major developments in the nanomedicinal approaches for the treatment of ARDS. We also discuss different nano-formulations studied extensively in the ARDS preclinical models along with underlining the advantages as well as challenges that need to be addressed in the future.

Pharmacological and clinical application of heparin progress: An essential drug for modern medicine

Heparin is the earliest and most widely used anticoagulant and antithrombotic drug that is still used in a variety of clinical indications. Since it was discovered in 1916, after more than a century of repeated exploration, heparin has not been replaced by other drugs, but a great progress has been made in its basic research and clinical application. Besides anticoagulant and antithrombotic effects, heparin also has antitumor, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and other pharmacological activities. It is widely used clinically in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, cancer, etc., as the first anticoagulant medicine in COVID-19 exerts anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects. At the same time, however, it also leads to a lot of adverse reactions, such as bleeding, thrombocytopenia, elevated transaminase, allergic reactions, and others. This article comprehensively reviews the modern research progress of heparin compounds; discusses the structure, preparation, and adverse reactions of heparin; emphasizes the pharmacological activity and clinical application of heparin; reveals the possible mechanism of the therapeutic effect of heparin in related clinical applications; provides evidence support for the clinical application of heparin; and hints on the significance of exploring the wider application fields of heparin.

Nebulised heparin for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

Mechanical ventilation in intensive care for 48 h or longer is associated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which might be present at the time ventilatory support is instituted or develop afterwards, predominantly during the first 5 days. Survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ARDS are at risk of considerably impaired physical function that can persist for years. An early pathogenic mechanism of lung injury in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients is inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrin deposition, leading to thrombosis of the microvasculature and hyaline membrane formation in the air sacs. The main aim of this study was to determine if nebulised heparin, which targets fibrin deposition, would limit lung injury and thereby accelerate recovery of physical function in patients with or at risk of ARDS.

Methods

The Can Heparin Administration Reduce Lung Injury (CHARLI) study was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial across nine hospitals in Australia. Adult intensive care patients on invasive ventilation, with impaired oxygenation defined by a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of less than 300, and with the expectation of invasive ventilation beyond the next calendar day were recruited. Key exclusion criteria were heparin allergy, pulmonary bleeding, and platelet count less than 50 X 10⁹/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with stratification by site and using blocks of variable size and random seed, via a web-based system, to either unfractionated heparin sodium 25 000 IU in 5 mL or identical placebo (sodium chloride 0·9% 5 mL), administered using a vibrating mesh membrane nebuliser every 6 h to day 10 while invasively ventilated. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function Score (out of 100) of survivors at day 60. Prespecified secondary outcomes, which are exploratory, included development of ARDS to day 5 among at-risk patients, deterioration of the Murray Lung Injury Score (MLIS) to day 5, mortality at day 60, residence of survivors at day 60, and serious adverse events. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. There was no imputation of missing data. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612000418875 .

Findings

Between Sept 4, 2012, and Aug 23, 2018, 256 patients were randomised. Final follow-up was on Feb 25, 2019. We excluded three patients who revoked consent and one ineligible participant who received no intervention. Of 252 patients included in data analysis, the mean age was 58 years (SD 15), 157 (62%) were men, and 118 (47%) had ARDS. 128 (51%) patients were assigned to the heparin group and 124 (49%) to the placebo group, all of whom received their assigned intervention. Survivors in the heparin group (n=97) had similar SF-36 Physical Function Scores at day 60 compared to the placebo group (n=94; mean 53·6 [SD 31·6] vs 48·7 [35·7]; difference 4·9 [95% CI −4·8 to 14·5]; p=0·32). Compared with the placebo group, the heparin group had fewer cases of ARDS develop to day 5 among the at-risk patients (nine [15%] of 62 patients vs 21 [30%] of 71 patients; hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·22 to 0·98]; p=0·0431), less deterioration of the MLIS to day 5 (difference −0·14 [–0·26 to −0·02]; p=0·0215), similar day 60 mortality (23 [18%] of 127 patients vs 18 [15%] of 123 patients; odds ratio [OR] 1·29 [95% CI 0·66 to 2·53]; p=0·46), and more day 60 survivors at home (86 [87%] of 99 patients vs 73 [73%] of 100 patients; OR 2·45 [1·18 to 5·08]; p=0·0165). A similar number of serious adverse events occurred in each group (seven [5%] of 128 patients in the heparin group vs three [2%] of 124 patients in the placebo group; OR 2·33 [0·59 to 9·24]; p=0·23), which were a transient increase in airway pressure during nebulisation (n=3 in the heparin group), major non-pulmonary bleeding (n=2 in each group), haemoptysis (n=1 in the heparin group), tracheotomy site bleeding (n=1 in the heparin group), and hypoxaemia during nebulisation (n=1 in the placebo group).

Interpretation

In patients with or at risk of ARDS, nebulised heparin did not improve self-reported performance of daily physical activities, but was well tolerated and exploratory outcomes suggest less progression of lung injury and earlier return home. Further research is justified to establish if nebulised heparin accelerates recovery in those who have or are at risk of ARDS.

Funding

Rowe Family Foundation, TR and RB Ditchfield Medical Research Endowment Fund, Patricia Madigan Charitable Trust, and The J and R McGauran Trust Fund.

INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP): Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an investigator-initiated international metatrial of randomised studies

AIMS

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale that warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential in patients with COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus' entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis.

METHODS

The INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP) metatrial is a prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are being conducted in multiple countries. Participating studies randomise adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome for the metatrial is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have additional outcomes.

ANALYSIS

We use a Bayesian approach to monitoring, followed by analysing individual patient data, outcomes and adverse events. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle, considering all participants in the treatment group to which they were assigned, except for cases lost to follow-up or withdrawn.

TRIAL REGISTRATION, ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The metatrial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04635241. Each contributing study is individually registered and has received approval of the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board. Results of this study will be shared with the World Health Organisation, published in scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings.

The Association of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Use and In-hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Purpose

To determine the association between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) use and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients consecutively enrolled from two major academic hospitals exclusively for COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, from January 26, 2020, to March 26, 2020. The primary outcome was adjusted in-hospital mortality in the LMWH group compared with the non-LMWH group using the propensity score.

Results

Overall, 525 patients with COVID-19 enrolled with a median age of 64 years (IQR 19), and 49.33% men. Among these, 120 (22.86%) were treated with LMWH. Compared with the non-LMWH group, the LMWH group was more likely to be older and male; had a history of hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke; and had more severe COVID-19 parameters such as higher inflammatory cytokines or D-dimer. Compared with non-LMWH group, LMWH group had a higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate (21.70% vs. 11.10%; p = 0.004), but a lower adjusted mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09–0.46). A propensity score-weighting analysis demonstrated similar findings (adjusted OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10–0.30). Subgroup analysis showed a significant survival benefit among those who were severely (adjusted OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.23) and critically ill (adjusted OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15–0.65), as well as among the elderly patients’ age > 65, IL-6 > 10 times upper limit level, and D-dimer > 5 times upper limit level.

Conclusions

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, LMWH use was associated with lower all-cause in-hospital mortality than non-LMWH users. The survival benefit was particularly significant among more severely ill patients.

Airway Redox Homeostasis and Inflammation Gone Awry: From Molecular Pathogenesis to Emerging Therapeutics in Respiratory Pathology

As aerobic organisms, we are continuously and throughout our lifetime subjected to an oxidizing atmosphere and, most often, to environmental threats. The lung is the internal organ most highly exposed to this milieu. Therefore, it has evolved to confront both oxidative stress induced by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and a variety of pollutants, pathogens, and allergens that promote inflammation and can harm the airways to different degrees. Indeed, an excess of ROS, generated intrinsically or from external sources, can imprint direct damage to key structural cell components (nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, and proteins) and indirectly perturb ROS-mediated signaling in lung epithelia, impairing its homeostasis. These early events complemented with efficient recognition of pathogen- or damage-associated recognition patterns by the airway resident cells alert the immune system, which mounts an inflammatory response to remove the hazards, including collateral dead cells and cellular debris, in an attempt to return to homeostatic conditions. Thus, any major or chronic dysregulation of the redox balance, the air-liquid interface, or defects in epithelial proteins impairing mucociliary clearance or other defense systems may lead to airway damage. Here, we review our understanding of the key role of oxidative stress and inflammation in respiratory pathology, and extensively report current and future trends in antioxidant and anti-inflammatory treatments focusing on the following major acute and chronic lung diseases: acute lung injury/respiratory distress syndrome, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis.

Emerging pharmacological therapies for ARDS: COVID-19 and beyond

ARDS, first described in 1967, is the commonest form of acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite considerable advances in our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of ARDS, insights into the biologic mechanisms of lung injury and repair, and advances in supportive care, particularly ventilatory management, there remains no effective pharmacological therapy for this syndrome. Hospital mortality at 40% remains unacceptably high underlining the need to continue to develop and test therapies for this devastating clinical condition. The purpose of the review is to critically appraise the current status of promising emerging pharmacological therapies for patients with ARDS and potential impact of these and other emerging therapies for COVID-19-induced ARDS. We focus on drugs that: (1) modulate the immune response, both via pleiotropic mechanisms and via specific pathway blockade effects, (2) modify epithelial and channel function, (3) target endothelial and vascular dysfunction, (4) have anticoagulant effects, and (5) enhance ARDS resolution. We also critically assess drugs that demonstrate potential in emerging reports from clinical studies in patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. Several therapies show promise in earlier and later phase clinical testing, while a growing pipeline of therapies is in preclinical testing. The history of unsuccessful clinical trials of promising therapies underlines the challenges to successful translation. Given this, attention has been focused on the potential to identify biologically homogenous subtypes within ARDS, to enable us to target more specific therapies 'precision medicines.' It is hoped that the substantial number of studies globally investigating potential therapies for COVID-19 will lead to the rapid identification of effective therapies to reduce the mortality and morbidity of this devastating form of ARDS.

Inhaled and systemic heparin as a repurposed direct antiviral drug for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

Here, we advocate a highly favourable opportunity for the treatment of COVID-19 disease by repurposing a long-serving medical agent with an excellent history of clinical use, namely heparin. Heparin is best known as an anticoagulant, but it also exhibits direct antiviral activity against many enveloped viruses and has anti-inflammatory activity. The high incidence of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients suggests that coagulopathy plays an important role in the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. This already makes heparin a unique, potentially curative agent that can be used immediately to help resolve the ongoing crisis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. We demonstrate here in vitro that heparin does indeed inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection. The three concurrent modes of activity of heparin (antiviral, anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory) against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 form a unique therapeutic combination. Thus, repurposing of heparin to fight SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 appears to be a powerful, readily available measure to address the current pandemic.

Respiratory Management in Smoke Inhalation Injury

Smoke inhalation injury (SII) is a major morbidity and cause of mortality in patients with burns. Damage caused by inhalation of thermal or chemical irritants, including toxic fumes and chemicals, leads to respiratory cilia and epithelial cell injuries, which turn to severe bronchospasm and alveolar damage and results in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Respiratory management plays a vital role in the treatment of SII. In this review, we provide an overview of SII with emphasis on respiratory management, including aerosol therapy, bronchial hygiene therapy, advanced ventilation modes, and heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula. In summary, the information may be helpful for further improvements in outcomes.

Targeting coagulation activation in severe COVID-19 pneumonia: lessons from bacterial pneumonia and sepsis

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has rapidly spread throughout the world, resulting in a pandemic with high mortality. There are no effective treatments for the management of severe COVID-19 and current therapeutic trials are focused on antiviral therapy and attenuation of hyper-inflammation with anti-cytokine therapy. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia shares some pathological similarities with severe bacterial pneumonia and sepsis. In particular, it disrupts the haemostatic balance, which results in a procoagulant state locally in the lungs and systemically. This culminates in the formation of microthrombi, disseminated intravascular coagulation and multi-organ failure. The deleterious effects of exaggerated inflammatory responses and activation of coagulation have been investigated in bacterial pneumonia and sepsis and there is recognition that although these pathways are important for the host immune response to pathogens, they can lead to bystander tissue injury and are negatively associated with survival. In the past two decades, evidence from preclinical studies has led to the emergence of potential anticoagulant therapeutic strategies for the treatment of patients with pneumonia, sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and some of these anticoagulant approaches have been trialled in humans. Here, we review the evidence from preclinical studies and clinical trials of anticoagulant treatment strategies in bacterial pneumonia and sepsis, and discuss the importance of these findings in the context of COVID-19.

Nebulised heparin as a treatment for COVID-19: scientific rationale and a call for randomised evidence

Nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale and warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential, for COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). COVID-19 ARDS displays the typical features of diffuse alveolar damage with extensive pulmonary coagulation activation resulting in fibrin deposition in the microvasculature and formation of hyaline membranes in the air sacs. Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who manifest severe disease have high levels of inflammatory cytokines in plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and significant coagulopathy. There is a strong association between the extent of the coagulopathy and poor clinical outcomes.The anti-coagulant actions of nebulised UFH limit fibrin deposition and microvascular thrombosis. Trials in patients with acute lung injury and related conditions found inhaled UFH reduced pulmonary dead space, coagulation activation, microvascular thrombosis and clinical deterioration, resulting in increased time free of ventilatory support. In addition, UFH has anti-inflammatory, mucolytic and anti-viral properties and, specifically, has been shown to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent its entry into mammalian cells, thereby inhibiting pulmonary infection by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that inhaled UFH safely improves outcomes in other inflammatory respiratory diseases and also acts as an effective mucolytic in sputum-producing respiratory patients. UFH is widely available and inexpensive, which may make this treatment also accessible for low- and middle-income countries.These potentially important therapeutic properties of nebulised UFH underline the need for expedited large-scale clinical trials to test its potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Glycosaminoglycans as Multifunctional Anti-Elastase and Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Cystic Fibrosis Lung Disease

Neutrophil elastase (NE) is a major protease in the airways of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) that activates airway inflammation by several mechanisms. NE stimulates epithelial toll like receptors (TLR) resulting in cytokine upregulation and release, upregulates MUC5AC, a major airway mucin, degrades both phagocytic receptors and opsonins resulting in both neutrophil and macrophage phagocytic failure, generates oxidative stress via extracellular generation and uptake of heme free iron, and activates other proteases. Altogether, these mechanisms create a significant inflammatory challenge that impairs innate immune function and results in airway remodeling. Currently, a major gap in our therapeutic approach to CF lung disease is the lack of an effective therapeutic strategy targeting active NE and its downstream pro-inflammatory sequelae. Polysulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) are potent anti-elastase drugs that have additional anti-inflammatory properties. Heparin is a prototype of a glycosaminoglycan with both anti-elastase and anti-inflammatory properties. Heparin inhibits NE in an allosteric manner with high potency. Heparin also inhibits cathepsin G, blocks P-selectin and L-selectin, hinders ligand binding to the receptor for advanced glycation endproducts, and impedes histone acetyltransferase activity which dampens cytokine transcription and High Mobility Group Box 1 release. Furthermore, nebulized heparin treatment improves outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, acute lung injury and smoke inhalation. However, the anticoagulant activity of heparin is a potential contraindication for this therapy to be developed for CF lung disease. Therefore, modified heparins and other GAGs are being developed that retain the anti-elastase and anti-inflammatory qualities of heparin with minimal to no anticoagulant activity. The modified heparin, 2-O, 3-O desulfated heparin (ODSH), maintains anti-elastase and anti-inflammatory activities in vitro and in vivo, and has little residual anticoagulant activity. Heparan sulfate with O-sulfate residues but not N-sulfate residues blocks allergic asthmatic inflammation in a murine model. Polysulfated hyaluronic acid abrogates allergen- triggered rhinosinusitis in a murine model. Finally, nonsaccharide glycosaminoglycan mimetics with specific sulfate modifications can be designed to inhibit NE activity. Altogether, these novel GAGs or GAG mimetics hold significant promise to address the unmet need for inhaled anti-elastase and anti-inflammatory therapy for patients with CF.

Mucoactive agents for acute respiratory failure in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of admission to intensive care units (ICUs). Mucoactive agents are medications that promote mucus clearance and are frequently administered in patients with ARF, despite a lack of evidence to underpin clinical decision making. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if the use of mucoactive agents in patients with ARF improves clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic and grey literature (January 2020). Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data and quality assessed studies. We included trials of adults receiving ventilatory support for ARF and involving at least one mucoactive agent compared with placebo or standard care. Outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation. Meta-analysis was undertaken using random-effects modelling and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were included (1712 patients), investigating four different mucoactive agents. Mucoactive agents showed no effect on duration of mechanical ventilation (seven trials, mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% CI -2.97 to 0.29, I²=82%, very low certainty) or mortality, hospital stay and ventilator-free days. There was an effect on reducing ICU length of stay in the mucoactive agent groups (10 trials, MD -3.22, 95% CI -5.49 to -0.96, I²=89%, very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not support the use of mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF. The existing evidence is of low quality. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the role of specific mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095408.

Empirical Treatment and Prevention of COVID-19

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the population and throughout the cells within our body has been developing. Another major cycle of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is expected in the coming fall, could be even more severe than the current one. Therefore, effective countermeasures should be developed based on the already obtained clinical and research information about SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this review was to summarize the data on the empirical treatment of COVID-19 acquired during this SARS-CoV-2 infection cycle; this would aid the establishment of an appropriate healthcare policy to meet the challenges in the future. The infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by common cold along with hypersensitivity reaction. Thus, in addition to treating common cold, it is essential to minimize the exposure of cells to the virus and to mitigate the uncontrolled immune response. A proper combination of antiviral agents, immune modulators such as prednisolone, and anticoagulants such as heparin and anti-C5a antagonists could be employed to minimize lung damage and prevent systemic involvements. Finally, strategies to achieve population immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be developed through understanding of the interaction between the immune system and the virus.

Nebulized Heparin in Burn Patients with Inhalation Trauma-Safety and Feasibility

Background: Pulmonary hypercoagulopathy is intrinsic to inhalation trauma. Nebulized heparin could theoretically be beneficial in patients with inhalation injury, but current data are conflicting. We aimed to investigate the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of nebulized heparin. Methods: International multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in specialized burn care centers. Adult patients with inhalation trauma received nebulizations of unfractionated heparin (25,000 international unit (IU), 5 mL) or placebo (0.9% NaCl, 5 mL) every four hours for 14 days or until extubation. The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 post-admission. Here, we report on the secondary outcomes related to safety and feasibility. Results: The study was prematurely stopped after inclusion of 13 patients (heparin N = 7, placebo N = 6) due to low recruitment and high costs associated with the trial medication. Therefore, no analyses on effectiveness were performed. In the heparin group, serious respiratory problems occurred due to saturation of the expiratory filter following nebulizations. In total, 129 out of 427 scheduled nebulizations were withheld in the heparin group (in 3 patients) and 45 out of 299 scheduled nebulizations were withheld in the placebo group (in 2 patients). Blood-stained sputum or expected increased bleeding risks were the most frequent reasons to withhold nebulizations. Conclusion: In this prematurely stopped trial, we encountered important safety and feasibility issues related to frequent heparin nebulizations in burn patients with inhalation trauma. This should be taken into account when heparin nebulizations are considered in these patients.

Nebulized heparin and salbutamol versus salbutamol alone in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

Nebulized heparin has been effectively used in the management of many pulmonary diseases. However, its effect on mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin and salbutamol to increase ventilator-free days (VFD) in mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients and the effect of nebulized heparin on respiratory and coagulation functions.

Methods

In this double-blind controlled study, 60 mechanically ventilated adult patients with AECOPD were randomly allocated into two groups; heparin and salbutamol (HS) group and salbutamol only (S) group. In the HS group, patients received nebulized heparin (25,000 IU) and salbutamol (5 mg) every 6 hours. Patients in the S group received nebulized salbutamol only (5 mg). The treatment was continued while patients remained ventilated for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome was VFDs at day 14. PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, number of nebulizations withheld, C-reactive protein (CRP) titer and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were secondary outcomes.

Results

Patients in the Group HS had significantly more VFDs 4.7 ± 3.3 compared with those in the Group S 2.4 ± 2.6, P = 0.007. PaCO2 levels, PaO2/FiO2, the decrease in the CRP level and the increase in the APTT from the baseline showed no evidence of difference in both groups.

Conclusions

The co-administration of nebulized heparin and salbutamol, compared with salbutamol alone, significantly increased (VFDs) among mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients without increasing bleeding risks.

What factors predispose patients to acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Sepsis, pneumonia, and shock are the most common conditions predisposing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and certain host genetic variants have been associated with the development of ARDS. Risk modifiers include abuse of alcohol and tobacco, malnutrition, and obesity. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) and the simplified Early Acute Lung Injury Score predict ARDS based on clinical and investigational criteria. Hospital-acquired ARDS may result from a medley factors of which high tidal volume ventilation, high oxygen concentration, and plasma transfusion are most commonly implicated. The Checklist for Lung Injury Prevention (CLIP) has been developed to ensure compliance with evidence-based practice that may affect ARDS occurrence. To date, no pharmacologic intervention has been shown to prevent ARDS

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Bench-to-Bedside Approaches to Improve Drug Development

Despite 50 years of extensive research, no definite drug is currently available to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and the supportive therapies remain the mainstay of treatment. To improve drug development for ARDS, researchers need to deeply analyze the “omics” approaches, reevaluate the suitable therapeutic targets, resolve the problems of inadequate animal modeling, develop the strategies to reduce the heterogeneity, and reconsider new therapeutic and analytical approaches for better designs of clinical trials.

Anticoagulant therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents a complex pathophysiology characterized by pulmonary activated coagulation and reduced fibrinolysis. Despite advances in supportive care of this syndrome, morbidity and mortality remains high, leading to the need of novel therapies to combat this disease. Focus these therapies in the inhibition of ARDS development pathophysiology is essential. Beneficial effects of anticoagulants in ARDS have been proved in preclinical and clinical trials, thanks to its anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory properties. Moreover, local administration by nebulization in the alveolar compartment increases local efficacy and does not produce systemic bleeding. In this review the coagulation and fibrinolytic pathway and its pharmacological targets to treat ARDS are summarized.

Vibrating Mesh Nebulisers – Can Greater Drug Delivery to the Airways and Lungs Improve Respiratory Outcomes?

Aerosols are an increasingly important mode of delivery of drugs, particularly bronchodilators, for the treatment of respiratory diseases, notably asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The most common type of nebuliser is the jet nebuliser (JN); they have been in use for more than a century but these devices can be cumbersome to use and may sometimes deliver insufficient amounts of drug. A more recent development in aerosol therapy is the vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN) which is very user friendly and is more efficient than the JNs due to an extremely low residual volume. Scintigraphy images from studies of volunteer subjects using radio-labelled aerosol treatment show that VMN-generated aerosols deliver more drug to patients in a shorter period of time than JN-generated aerosols. Various bench, animal model and small clinical studies have shown that VMNs are more efficient than JNs in drug delivery, potentially improving clinical outcomes. These studies have included various breathing circuits used in mechanical ventilation (MV), non-invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula systems and devices for spontaneously breathing patients. The efficiency of drug delivery was affected by factors including the position of the nebuliser in the circuit and humidity. Some studies have shown potential substantial savings by hospitals in the cost of MV treatments after switching from metered dose inhalers to VMNs. VMNs have also been shown to be effective for the administration of inhaled antibiotics, corticosteroids and other drugs. Larger studies of the effects of VMNs on patient outcomes are needed but they are likely to be an increasingly important means of administering therapies to a burgeoning population with respiratory disease.

Nebulized Heparin With N-Acetylcysteine and Albuterol Reduces Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Inhalation Injury

OBJECTIVE

Nebulized heparin has been proposed to improve pulmonary function in patients with inhalation injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of nebulized heparin with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and albuterol on the duration of mechanical ventilation in burn patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study evaluating mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to a regional burn center with inhalation injury. Outcomes were compared between patients who were prescribed a combination of nebulized heparin with NAC and albuterol versus similar patients who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria (heparin n = 22; nonheparin n = 26). Patients in the nonheparin group had higher percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) burned (29.00 [5.75-51.88] vs 5.25 [0.50-13.25] %TBSA; P = .009), longer duration of mechanical ventilation (6.50 [2.75-17.00] vs 3.00 [1.00-8.25] days; P = .022), and longer intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) (3.00 [3.00-28.75] vs 5.50 days [2.00-11.25]; P = .033). Upon regression, use of heparin was the only variable associated with reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation ( P = .039).

CONCLUSION

Nebulized heparin in combination with NAC and albuterol was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Nebulized anticoagulants in lung injury in critically ill patients-an updated systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies

Pneumonia, inhalation trauma and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), typical causes of lung injury in critically ill patients, are all three characterized by dysregulated inflammation and coagulation in the lungs. Nebulized anticoagulants are thought to have beneficial effects as they could attenuate pulmonary coagulopathy and maybe even affect pulmonary inflammation. A systematic search of the medical literature was performed using terms referring to aspects of the condition ('pneumonia', 'inhalation trauma' and 'ARDS'), the intervention ('nebulized', 'vaporized', and 'aerosolized') and anticoagulants limited to agents that are commercially available and frequently given or tested in critically ill patients ['heparin', 'danaparoid', 'activated protein C' (APC), 'antithrombin' (AT) and 'tissue factor pathway inhibitor' (TFPI)]. The systematic search identified 16 articles reporting on preclinical studies and 11 articles reporting on human trials. All nebulized anticoagulants attenuate pulmonary coagulopathy in preclinical studies using various models for lung injury, but the effects on inflammation are less consistent. Nebulized heparin, danaparoid and TFPI, but not APC and AT also reduced systemic coagulation. Nebulized heparin in lung injury patients shows contradictory results, and there is concern over systemic side effects of this strategy. Future studies need to focus on the way to nebulize anticoagulants, as well as on efficient but safe dosages, and other side effects.

The use of pulmonary clearance medications in the acutely ill patient

INTRODUCTION

Retention of airway secretions occurs in disease, leading to airway plugging, atelectasis, and worsened respiratory mechanics, making airway clearance an important therapeutic target. Areas covered: Many medications designed to enhance clearance of airway secretions are available. We will review the medications available to enhance airway clearance, their mechanisms of action, and the evidence available for their use in acutely ill patients. Expert commentary: In the cystic fibrosis (CF) population, beneficial effects have been shown in pulmonary function with the use of some of these agents. In the non-CF population, there is limited evidence regarding these medications. While some studies have found benefit, the quality of evidence is low, making it difficult to draw conclusions. While certain patients may derive benefit, the general use of these medications in acutely ill patients without CF cannot be recommended at this time.

Fifty Years of Research in ARDS. Is Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome a Preventable Disease?

Despite significant advances in our understanding and management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the morbidity and mortality from ARDS remains high. Given the limited number of effective treatments for established ARDS, the strategic focus of ARDS research has shifted toward identifying patients with or at high risk of ARDS early in the course of the underlying illness, when strategies to reduce the development and progression of ARDS and associated organ failures can be systematically evaluated. In this review, we summarize the rationale, current evidence, and future directions in ARDS prevention.

Inhalation therapies in acute respiratory distress syndrome

The defining features of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are an excessive inflammatory respiratory response associated with high morbidity and mortality. Treatment consists mainly of measures to avoid worsening lung injury and cannot reverse the underlying pathophysiological process. New pharmacological agents have shown promising results in preclinical studies; however, they have not been successfully translated to patients with ARDS. The lack of effective therapeutic interventions has resulted in a recent interest in strategies to prevent ARDS with treatments delivering medications directly to the lungs by inhalation and nebulization, hopefully minimizing systemic adverse events. We analyzed the effect of different aerosolized drugs such as bronchodilators, corticosteroids, pulmonary vasodilators, anticoagulants, mucolytics and surfactant. New therapeutic strategies and ongoing trials using carbon monoxide (CO) and AP301 peptide are also briefly reviewed.

A Pilot Study of Nebulized Heparin for Prevention of Ventilator Induced Lung Injury: Comparative Effects with an Inhaled Corticosteroid

Background:

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is a side effect of mechanical ventilation. Lung inflammation and pulmonary activation of coagulation are induced by mechanical stress. Clinical and preclinical studies show that heparin possesses anti-inflammatory properties. Therefore, we assessed the effects of nebulized heparin in VILI.

Methods:

Sixty critically ill adult patients who require mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h were included in this prospective, nonrandomized controlled study. Patients received nebulized heparin (10,000 U every 6 h) for 5 days. The matched control group received nebulized budesonide as routine practice in our center. This study assessed changes in partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) and rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) during the study as primary endpoints.

Results:

The average daily PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was not statistically significant between both groups (187 ± 11.6 vs. 171 ± 11.6, P = 0.35). The RSBI also did not differ between groups (P = 0.58). Heparin administration was associated with a higher number of ventilator-free days among survivors but not significantly (7.7 ± 10.6 vs. 5.1 ± 8, 95% confidence interval − 2.2–7.5, P = 0.28). Successful weaning from mechanical ventilation was higher in the heparin group (P = 0.42). We did not observe any serious or increased adverse effects from nebulized heparin.

Conclusion:

The results of this study show that the overall effectiveness of nebulized heparin is at least as comparable with a potent corticosteroid (budesonide). Heparin could be a safe and effective modality for patients who at risk of VILI.

Nebulized Recombinant Human Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor Attenuates Coagulation and Exerts Modest Anti-inflammatory Effects in Rat Models of Lung Injury

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at a constant risk of direct (e.g., by pneumonia) or indirect lung injury (e.g., by sepsis). Excessive alveolar fibrin deposition is a prominent feature of lung injury, undermining pulmonary integrity and function.

METHODS

We examined the effect of local administration of recombinant human tissue factor pathway inhibitor (rh-TFPI), a natural anticoagulant, in two well-established models of lung injury in rats. Rats received intratracheal instillation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, causing direct lung injury, or they received an intravenous injection of Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS), causing indirect lung injury. Rats were randomized to local treatment with rh-TFPI or placebo through repeated nebulization.

RESULTS

Challenge with P. aeruginosa or LPS was associated with increased coagulation and decreased fibrinolysis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and plasma. Rh-TFPI levels in BALF increased after nebulization, whereas plasma rh-TFPI levels remained low and systemic TFPI activity was not affected. Nebulization of rh-TFPI attenuated pulmonary and systemic coagulation in both models, without affecting fibrinolysis. Nebulization of rh-TFPI modestly reduced the inflammatory response and bacterial growth of P. aeruginosa in the alveolar compartment.

CONCLUSIONS

Local treatment with rh-TFPI does not alter systemic TFPI activity; however, it attenuates both pulmonary and systemic coagulopathy. Furthermore, nebulized rh-TFPI modestly reduces the pulmonary inflammatory response and allows increased bacterial clearance in rats with direct lung injury caused by P. aeruginosa.