4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Heparins: Process-related physico-chemical and compositional characteristics, fingerprints and impurities

Journal

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
Volume 102, Issue 5, Pages 846-853

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH09-01-0064

Keywords

Heparin; dermatan sulfate; process-related impurities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the past 25 years, heparin extraction and purification processes have changed. The results of these changes are reflected by the continuous increase in potency of the International Standard for heparin. This increase is due not only to a higher purity, but also to a number of changes in the physicochemical characteristics of heparin. For long time, all these changes have been disregarded as non-critical by regulatory authorities. Heparin marketing authorisation was reviewed only two years ago and Pharmacopoeia monographs were reviewed just for the addition of new tests, mainly aimed at tackling the oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) crisis. Currently, heparin monographs are again under revision. Such changes, different for each manufacturer, have caused a further increase in the heterogeneity of individual batches of heparin. This review aims at showing that chemical, physical and biological characteristics of heparin (such as disaccharide composition, amount of low sulfated and high sulfated sequences, molecular weight profiles [MW], activities, structural artifacts, fingerprints and glycosaminoglycans impurities) are all process-dependent and may significantly vary when different processes are used to minimise the content of dermatan sulfate. The wide heterogeneity of the physico-chemical characteristics of currently marketed heparin and the lack of suitable and shareable reference standards for the identification/quantification of process-related impurities caused, and are still causing, heated debates among scientific institutions, companies and authorities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available