Salicylic acid 2% / Mucopolysaccharide polysulfate 0.2% gel

Background: Mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS) cream as a moisturizer is widely applied to treat eczema, and a lot of clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy and safety. However, there is no further research to collect and analyze these studies. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy for non-exudative eczema. Methods: Ten databases were searched to identify the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to July 31, 2021. Revman 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of eligible 20 studies were included. Among the 20 studies, 2 studies compared MPS cream with other moisturizers, 14 compared MPS cream plus topical corticosteroids (TCS) with TCS alone, and 4 compared with MPS cream plus tacrolimus ointment with tacrolimus ointment alone. The pooled results demonstrated that MPS cream had a higher total efficacy rate [Risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30, P < 0.00001], a lower recurrence rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.74, P = 0.002) and a lower pruritus score [mean difference (MD) −1.78, 95% CI: −2.16 to −1.40, P < 0.00001] than urea cream or vaseline ointment. Moreover, in comparison with TCS or tacrolimus ointment alone, the combination treatment performed better in terms of total efficacy rate, total symptom score, recurrence rate, and pruritus score. For safety, the skin adverse events were mild, and MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy did not increase the risk of skin adverse events. Conclusions: MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy could provide a good effect for treating non-exudative eczema with mild and tolerable skin adverse events. However, due to the suboptimal quality of the included studies, high-quality and large-sample RCTs are needed in the future for update or validation. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ), identifier: CRD42021265735.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Although considerable data are available on oral venoactive drugs, very little information has been published on the types and outcomes of topical treatments for venous disease (VD). This comprehensive review assesses the efficacy and safety of topical heparin and heparinoid-containing products (HCPs) for VD treatment. Methods: This narrative review adhered to established methodologies and standards, utilizing the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) for quality assessment. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science, covering publications from January 1, 1950, to December 1, 2024. Findings were presented in a narrative format, following structured recommendations to ensure clarity and coherence. Results: Topical heparin and HCPs provide anticoagulation, enhance microcirculation, and regulate skin permeability, with effects influenced by the concentration and formulation. While they effectively improve skin microcirculation in healthy individuals, research on their intracellular effects is limited. Mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS) in heparinoids offers similar vascular benefits and promotes antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory actions. Moisture and gentle abrasion enhance heparin absorption. Topical heparin and HCPs effectively treat superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) and varicose veins (VVs). Products like Hirudoid significantly alleviate SVT symptoms, including pain and swelling. Clinical trials demonstrate substantial symptom improvement with heparin gel (1000 IU/g). For varicose veins, Xioglican cream stabilizes symptoms and improves quality of life, while other formulations like Essaven Gel and Venoruton enhance microcirculation. Conclusions: Managing VD with topical treatments is complicated by the outdated literature and inconsistent methodologies. There is a clear need for systematic research to establish guidelines on the administration, dosage, and frequency of topical treatments. The recommendations in this review aim to provide a foundation for future studies to improve the management of SVT and VVs disease.

Abstract licence: CC BY

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.

Abstract licence: CC BY