Subcutaneous Administration of a Monoclonal Antibody to Prevent Malaria.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous administration of the monoclonal antibody L9LS protected adults against controlled Plasmodium falciparum infection in a phase 1 trial. Whether a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously can protect children from P. falciparum infection in a region where this organism is endemic is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial in Mali to assess the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous administration of L9LS in children 6 to 10 years of age over a 6-month malaria season. In part A of the trial, safety was assessed at three dose levels in adults, followed by assessment at two dose levels in children. In part B of the trial, children were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive 150 mg of L9LS, 300 mg of L9LS, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first P. falciparum infection, as detected on blood smear performed at least every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. A secondary efficacy end point was the first episode of clinical malaria, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: No safety concerns were identified in the dose-escalation part of the trial (part A). In part B, 225 children underwent randomization, with 75 children assigned to each group. No safety concerns were identified in part B. P. falciparum infection occurred in 36 participants (48%) in the 150-mg group, in 30 (40%) in the 300-mg group, and in 61 (81%) in the placebo group. The efficacy of L9LS against P. falciparum infection, as compared with placebo, was 66% (adjusted confidence interval [95% CI], 45 to 79) with the 150-mg dose and 70% (adjusted 95% CI, 50 to 82) with the 300-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Efficacy against clinical malaria was 67% (adjusted 95% CI, 39 to 82) with the 150-mg dose and 77% (adjusted 95% CI, 55 to 89) with the 300-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous administration of L9LS to children was protective against P. falciparum infection and clinical malaria over a period of 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05304611.).

Low-Dose Subcutaneous or Intravenous Monoclonal Antibody to Prevent Malaria.

BACKGROUND: New approaches for the prevention and elimination of malaria, a leading cause of illness and death among infants and young children globally, are needed. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of L9LS, a next-generation antimalarial monoclonal antibody, and its protective efficacy against controlled human malaria infection in healthy adults who had never had malaria or received a vaccine for malaria. The participants received L9LS either intravenously or subcutaneously at a dose of 1 mg, 5 mg, or 20 mg per kilogram of body weight. Within 2 to 6 weeks after the administration of L9LS, both the participants who received L9LS and the control participants underwent controlled human malaria infection in which they were exposed to mosquitoes carrying Plasmodium falciparum (3D7 strain). RESULTS: No safety concerns were identified. L9LS had an estimated half-life of 56 days, and it had dose linearity, with the highest mean (±SD) maximum serum concentration (Cmax) of 914.2±146.5 µg per milliliter observed in participants who had received 20 mg per kilogram intravenously and the lowest mean Cmax of 41.5±4.7 µg per milliliter observed in those who had received 1 mg per kilogram intravenously; the mean Cmax was 164.8±31.1 in the participants who had received 5 mg per kilogram intravenously and 68.9±22.3 in those who had received 5 mg per kilogram subcutaneously. A total of 17 L9LS recipients and 6 control participants underwent controlled human malaria infection. Of the 17 participants who received a single dose of L9LS, 15 (88%) were protected after controlled human malaria infection. Parasitemia did not develop in any of the participants who received 5 or 20 mg per kilogram of intravenous L9LS. Parasitemia developed in 1 of 5 participants who received 1 mg per kilogram intravenously, 1 of 5 participants who received 5 mg per kilogram subcutaneously, and all 6 control participants through 21 days after the controlled human malaria infection. Protection conferred by L9LS was seen at serum concentrations as low as 9.2 µg per milliliter. CONCLUSIONS: In this small trial, L9LS administered intravenously or subcutaneously protected recipients against malaria after controlled infection, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; VRC 614 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05019729.).

United States regulatory requirements for skin and eye irritation testing.

PURPOSE: Eye and skin irritation test data are required or considered by chemical regulation authorities in the United States to develop product hazard labelling and/or to assess risks for exposure to skin- and eye-irritating chemicals. The combination of animal welfare concerns and interest in implementing methods with greater human relevance has led to the development of non-animal skin- and eye-irritation test methods. To identify opportunities for regulatory uses of non-animal replacements for skin and eye irritation tests, the needs and uses for these types of test data at U.S. regulatory and research agencies must first be clarified. METHODS: We surveyed regulatory and non-regulatory testing needs of U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) agencies for skin and eye irritation testing data. Information reviewed includes the type of skin and eye irritation data required by each agency and the associated decision context: hazard classification, potency classification, or risk assessment; the preferred tests; and whether alternative or non-animal tests are acceptable. Information on the specific information needed from non-animal test methods also was collected. RESULTS: A common theme across U.S. agencies is the willingness to consider non-animal or alternative test methods. Sponsors are encouraged to consult with the relevant agency in designing their testing program to discuss the use and acceptance of alternative methods for local skin and eye irritation testing. CONCLUSIONS: To advance the implementation of alternative testing methods, a dialog on the confidence of these methods to protect public health and the environment must be undertaken at all levels.