Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome related to Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) may cause severe illness in 20% of patients. This may be in part due to an uncontrolled immune-response to SARS-CoV-2 infection triggering a systemic hyperinflammatory response, the so-called "cytokine storm". The reduction of this inflammatory immune-response could be considered as a potential therapeutic target against severe COVID-19. The relationship between inflammation and clot activation must also be considered. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that currently, no specific antiviral treatment is available for SARS-CoV-2. While moderate-severe forms need in-hospital surveillance plus antivirals and/or hydroxychloroquine; in severe and life-threating subsets a high intensity anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapy could be a therapeutic option. However, right data on the effectiveness of different immunomodulating drugs are scarce. Herein, we discuss the pathogenesis and the possible role played by drugs such as: antimalarials, anti-IL6, anti-IL-1, calcineurin and JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, heparins, angiotensin-converting enzyme agonists and statins in severe COVID-19.

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) is a central regulator of inflammation, and TNF-α antagonists may be effective in treating inflammatory disorders in which TNF-α plays a major pathogenic role. TNF-α has also been associated with inflammatory mechanisms related to implantation, placentation, and pregnancy outcome. TNF-α is secreted by immune cells and works by binding to TNFR1 and TNFR2 cell receptors. TNF-α is also related to JAK/STAT pathways, which opens up hypothetical new targets for modifying. The accurate balance between Th1 cytokines, mainly TNF-α, Th17, and Th2, particularly IL-10 is essential to achieve good obstetric outcomes. TNF-α targeted therapy could be rational in treating women with obstetric complication related to overproduction of TNF-α, such as recurrent pregnancy loss, early and severe pre-eclampsia, and recurrent implantation failure syndrome, all "idiopathic" or related to aPL positivity. Along the same lines, Th1 cytokines, mainly TNF- α, play a leading pathogenic role in rheumatic and systemic autoimmune diseases occurring in women and, to a lesser extent, in men of reproductive age. These disorders have to be clinically silent before pregnancy can be recommended, which is usually only possible to achieve after intensive anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive treatment, TNF-α blockers included. Physicians should be aware of the theoretic potential but low embryo-fetal toxicity risk of these drugs during pregnancy. From an updated review in May 2016, we can conclude that TNF-α blockers are useful in certain "refractory" cases of inflammatory disorders related to poor obstetric outcomes and infertility. Furthermore, TNF-α blockers can be safely used during the implantation period and pregnancy. Breastfeeding is also permitted with all TNF-α inhibitors. Since data on the actual mechanism of action of JAK-STAT in inflammatory obstetric disorders including embryo implantation are scarce, for the time being, therapeutic interventions in this setting should be discouraged. Finally, adverse effects on sperm quality, or causing embryo-fetal anomalies, in men treated with TNF inhibitors have not been described.

Objectives To compare clinical features, laboratory data and fetal-maternal outcomes between 1000 women with obstetric APS (OAPS) and 640 with aPL-related obstetric complications not fulfilling Sydney criteria (non-criteria OAPS, NC-OAPS). Methods This was a retrospective and prospective multicentre study from the European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Results A total of 1650 women with 5251 episodes, 3601 of which were historical and 1650 latest episodes, were included. Altogether, 1000 cases (OAPS group) fulfilled the Sydney classification criteria and 650 (NC-OAPS group) did not. Ten NC-OAPS cases were excluded for presenting thrombosis during follow-up. All cases were classified as category I (triple positivity or double positivity for aPL) or category II (simple positivity). Overall, aPL laboratory categories showed significant differences: 29.20% in OAPS vs 17.96% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category I, and 70.8% in OAPS vs 82% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category II. Significant differences were observed when current obstetric complications were compared (P < 0.001). However, major differences between groups were not observed in treatment rates, livebirths and thrombotic complications. In the NC-OAPS group, 176/640 (27.5%) did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup A), 175/640 (27.34%) had a low titre and/or non-persistent aPL positivity but did meet the clinical criteria (subgroup B) and 289/640 (45.15%) had a high aPL titre but did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup C). Conclusion Significant clinical and laboratory differences were found between groups. Fetal-maternal outcomes were similar in both groups when treated. These results suggest that we could improve our clinical practice with better understanding of NC-OAPS patients.

No abstract