ASIA syndrome and endocrine autoimmune disorders.

An adjuvant is an immunological or pharmacological substance or group of substances that can be added to a given agent to enhance its effect in terms of efficacy, effectiveness and potency. Different mechanisms have been hypothesized underlying the action of the adjuvant, including boosting immune (innate and adaptive) response: this generally results in sparing the necessary amount of the agent and can potentially reduce the frequency of the needed number of therapeutic interventions. Adjuvants can be commonly found in vaccines, immunization products, mineral oils, cosmetics, silicone breast implants and other therapeutic/medical devices, being usually safe and effective. However, in a fraction of genetically susceptible and predisposed subjects, the administration of adjuvants may lead to the insurgence of serious side-effects, called "autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome by adjuvants" (ASIA) or Shoenfeld's syndrome. The present review is aimed at focusing on the "endocrine pebbles" of the mosaic of autoimmunity and of the ASIA syndrome, collecting together 54 cases of sub-acute thyroiditis, 2 cases of Hashimoto's thyroiditis, 11 cases of primary ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency, 13 cases of autoimmune diabetes type 1, and 1 case of autoimmune adrenal gland insufficiency occurred after exposure to adjuvants.

Protective effect of Echinacea purpurea (Immulant) against cisplatin-induced immunotoxicity in rats.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin, one of the most effective anticancer drugs, is known to cause undesirable adverse effects, including immunotoxicity. Echinacea purpurea is an important medicinal plant with immunostimulatory and anti-inflammatory activities. We have investigated the protective effect of an herbal formulation (Immulant) containing E. purpurea extract against cisplatin-induced immunotoxicity in rats. METHODS: Forty mature albino rats were randomized into four groups (10 rats/group). Control (group 1) animals were subjected to intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of saline solution (0.2 ml) once every 3 days. Group 2 animals received cisplatin (3.5 mg/kg, i.p.) once every 3 days for successive 2 weeks. Group 3 rats received oral Immulant (150 mg/kg) once daily for 2 weeks. Group 4 animals received oral Immulant treatment as in group 3 in addition to cisplatin as in group 2. Serum level of total protein and albumin, total and differential leukocytic count, phagocytic activity of monocytes, humoral activity and splenic histopathology and immunohistochemistry were used as diagnostic markers of immunotoxicity. RESULTS: Cisplatin induced marked inhibition of cellular immunity as exhibited by significant decrease of leukocytic count, lymphocyte percentage and phagocytic activity with marked increase in neutrophil percentage. Humoral immunity represented by marked inhibition in total protein and γ-globulin concentration and significant inhibition in antibody titer against Mycoplasma gallisepticum were recorded. Histopathological and immunohistochemical observation of the spleen of cisplatin-treated rats revealed obvious pathological findings of marked depletion and degeneration of lymphoid tissue. Co-oral administration of Immulant resulted in substantial improvement of various immunotoxicological indices compared to cisplatin control. CONCLUSION: The herbal medicine Immulant is an immunostimulant which could be used to treat the immunotoxic effects of cisplatin. Graphical abstract Cisplatin (CP) is a highly effective antineoplastic DNA alkylating agent. CP induces free radical production causing an oxidative damage.Cisplatin induced marked inhibition in cellular and humoral immunityEchinacea purpurea (Immulant) is a powerful anticytotoxic agent against cisplatin toxicity.

Immunogenicity and Immune Complex Disease in Preclinical Safety Studies.

This article summarizes a continuing education presentation on immunogenicity that was part of a continuing education course entitled, "Clinical Pathology of Biotherapeutics." Immunogenicity of a biotherapeutic can have diverse impacts including altered systemic exposure and pharmacologic responses and, in a fraction of the cases, safety concerns including cross-reactive neutralization of endogenous proteins or sequela related to immune complex disease (ICD). In most cases, immune complexes are readily cleared from circulation; however, based on physiochemical properties, insoluble complexes form, activate complement, and deposit in tissues. Using published information and personal experience, a set of repeat-dose monkey toxicity studies with manifestations suggestive of ICD was reviewed to summarize the spectrum of clinical and pathology findings. The most common live-phase observation linked to ICD was an acute postdosing reaction following multiple dose administrations characterized by generalized collapse and attributed to acute complement activation. Less common live-phase observations were related to syndromes such as a consumptive coagulopathy or a protein losing nephropathy. The most common histologic change attributed to ICD was multi-organ vascular/perivascular inflammation followed by glomerulonephritis. The presentation concluded with a description of the challenges in assessing the relevance of immunogenicity-related reaction in monkey to human clinical use.

Tools to investigate and avoid drug-hypersensitivity in drug development.

INTRODUCTION: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are common adverse effects of pharmaceuticals that clinically resemble allergies, and which are becoming an important burden to healthcare systems. Alongside accurate diagnostic techniques, tools which can predict potential drug-inducing hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-clinical phase are critical. Despite the important adverse reactions linked to immune-mediated hypersensitivity, at present, there are no validated or required in vivo or in vitro methods to screen the sensitizing potential of drugs and their metabolites in the pre-clinical phase. Areas covered: Enhanced prediction in preclinical safety evaluation is extremely important. The purpose of this review is to assess the state of the art of tools available to assess the allergenic potential of drugs and to highlight our current understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying inappropriate immune activation. Expert opinion: The knowledge that allergenic drugs share common mechanisms of immune cell activation with chemical allergens, and of the definition of the mechanistic pathway to adverse outcomes, can enhance targeting toxicity testing in drug development and hazard assessment of hypersensitivity. Additional efforts and extensive resources are necessary to improve preclinical testing methodologies, including optimization, better design and interpretation of data.

Current Evidence on Safety and Practical Considerations for Administration of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States.

Liquid sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used off-label for decades, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved grass and ragweed SLIT tablets have been available in the United States since 2014. Potentially life-threatening events from SLIT do occur, although they appear to be very rare, especially for FDA-approved products. Practice guidelines that incorporate safety precautions regarding the use of SLIT in the United States are needed. This clinical commentary attempts to address unresolved issues including controversy regarding the FDA mandate for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors for patients on SLIT; how to approach polysensitized patients; optimal timing and duration of SLIT administration; how to address gaps in therapy; whether antihistamines can prevent local reactions, if certain patient populations (such as persistent asthmatics) should not receive SLIT; and when to instruct patients to self-administer epinephrine. Key points are that physicians should focus on educating patients regarding: (1) when not to administer SLIT; (2) how to recognize a potentially serious allergic reaction to SLIT; and (3) when to administer epinephrine and seek emergency care.

Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory and Immunomediated Skin Diseases: Safety Profile.

Biologic treatments have modified the therapeutic armamentarium in the treatment of many dermatological and non- dermatological diseases and data on literature have widely focused on the efficacy and safety of TNF-alpha inhibitors in psoriasis. Although the etiopathogenesis has not completely elucidated, inflammation appears the lait motif unifying the immune-pathogenesis of diverse skin disease, as atopic dermatitis, alopecia areata and hidradenitis suppurativa. Actually, data on the off-label use of biologics in cutaneous immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are scarce and restricted to anecdotal cases and case series. The present review aims to evidence the major off- label use of TNF-alpha inhibitors in dermatology.

Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory and Immunomediated Arthritis: Safety Profile.

The increasing insights into the pathogenetic mechanisms of inflammatory autoimmune arthritis and the development of innovative systems of industrial production have led to discover molecules that are able to target/block other molecules that play a critical role in the immune system functioning, and that have been introduced in clinical practice alone and/or in addiction with other "old" disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. For this reason, such drugs are currently known as "biological drugs" and include molecules that induce the immunosuppression acting on several immune pathways. However, though the biological drugs have been employed from more than a decade, there still exist some drawbacks of their use, in particular about the high costs of this therapy and their overall safety, including the route of administration for the intravenous use. In this review we provide an update on the correct use and current therapeutic indications of such drugs, including some of the new biologic therapies that will be soon available for the clinical use, focusing on these biological drugs: • Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab); • The T cell co-stimulation inhibitor, abatacept; • The anti-CD20 receptor monoclonal B cell agent, rituximab; • The interlukin-6 (IL-6) receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab; • The interlukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitor, anakinra; • The interlukin-IL17 (IL-17) pathway inhibitors (ustekinumab, secukinumab, brodalumab).

Biologic Therapy in Psoriasis: Safety Profile.

This review focuses on the emerging concepts concerning the efficacy profile of biological drugs in psoriasis ranging from moderate to severe, and attempts to provide the most recent individual positioning of biologics in treating psoriasis. Biologic agents targeting towards specific immune mediators have emerged as treatment options for patients with moderate to-severe plaque psoriasis unresponsive or intolerant to traditional systemic agents. Data on the safety of biologics are available for up to 5 years in psoriasis and are on the whole reassuring. National registries are still evolving and will provide data on safety, to help the long-term monitoring of patients with psoriasis ongoing biological treatment. Although several biologics have demonstrated good efficacy and tolerability in short-term trials, treatment guidelines recommend them as third line therapies due to relative lack of long-term safety data, especially for those who have been commercialized recently. Here, we have reviewed the long-term safety data obtained from National Registries, randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies and meta-analyses on etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab in the treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory Immunomediated Systemic Diseases: Safety Profile.

The discovery of some key molecular mechanisms underlying the dysregulation of the immune system responsible for inflammatory systemic diseases as severe as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Systemic Sclerosis (SSc), and Systemic Vasculitides, led to the development and subsequent introduction into clinical practice of biological drugs which are significantly improving the management of such complex disorders. This novel molecular targeted therapeutics represents in fact a valid alternative or complementary treatment to conventional immunosuppressive strategies, characterized by broad, unspecific actions and severe adverse effects. Main advantages of the use of biologic drugs reside in their steroid-sparing effect and in the ability of inducing remission of refractory disease states or curing specific organ involvements. Aim of this article is to review and briefly discuss the scientific evidence supporting the use of biologics in these diseases, with a particular emphasis on their efficacy and safety profile compared to the canonical drugs.

Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory Eye Conditions (Ophtalmology): Safety Profile.

Non-infectious uveitis can be a potentially sight threatening disease. Very recently, therapeutic strategies have turned towards a new methodology, which includes biologic agents. The introduction of biologic drugs has started a Copernican revolution in ophthalmology: biologic therapies represent a revolutionary option for those patients who present non-responder, sight threatening uveitis. The availability of these therapies has improved the uveitis outcome. The present review shows the most relevant medical literature on biologic agents in ophthalmology, such as tumor necrosis factor blockers, anti-interleukins and other related biologics. Several papers reported the efficacy of biologic agents in a large number of refractory uveitides, which suggest a promising role of biologic drugs for selected cases. On the other hand, the medical literature does not have consistent numbers yet, which hopefully will validate the promising preliminary results. Biologic agents are not only promising drugs for the treatment of nonresponder uveitis, but also they show an apparently favourable safety profile, although several topics remain unsolved: it is still not clear when commencing the treatment, which agent to choose, and the length of biologic therapy. Moreover, the high costs and the still not clear safety profile have very often limited their use only for severe, non-responder uveitis in highly specialized uveitis centres.

A fit-for-purpose strategy for the risk-based immunogenicity testing of biotherapeutics: a European industry perspective.

There is much debate in the pharmaceutical industry on how to translate the current guidelines on immunogenicity testing for biotherapeutics into a testing strategy that suits the specific requirements of individual drug candidates. In this paper, member companies from the European immunogenicity platform (EIP) present a consensus view on the essential requirements for immunogenicity testing of a biotherapeutic throughout the various phases of drug development, to ensure patient safety and to enable successful market entry. Our aim is to open the debate and provoke discussion on this important topic which is unique to biotherapeutic drug development. The scope of this paper is limited to aspects relevant to biotherapeutic drug development and does not include fundamental academic studies of immunogenicity. Here, we propose two pre-defined testing strategies for the detection and characterization of anti-drug antibody (ADA) responses where the different strategies are based on the phase of development for a biotherapeutic, a. without (category 1) and b. with (category 2) the expected potential to elicit ADA mediated severe clinical consequences. The harm of a potential ADA response determines which of the two testing strategies is adopted. Rather than replacing the overall risk assessment which is known to be challenging and multi-factorial, the testing strategy selection is a starting point for immunogenicity testing which adapts throughout drug development as more information becomes available. The scientific rationale on which the "case-by-case" approach advocated in white papers and guidance documents may be translated for each individual drug development program is provided and, underpins the recommendations made here.

Immunogenicity of mAbs in non-human primates during nonclinical safety assessment.

The immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals used in clinical practice remains an unsolved challenge in drug development. Non-human primates (NHPs) are often the only relevant animal model for the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), but the immune response of NHPs to therapeutic mAbs is not considered to be predictive of the response in humans because of species differences. In this study, we accessed the drug registration files of all mAbs registered in the European Union to establish the relative immunogenicity of mAbs in NHPs and humans. The incidence of formation of antidrug-antibodies in NHPs and patients was comparable in only 59% of the cases. In addition, the type of antidrug-antibody response was different in NHP and humans in 59% of the cases. Humanization did not necessarily reduce immunogenicity in humans. Immunogenicity interfered with the safety assessment during non-clinical drug development when clearing or neutralizing antibodies were formed. While important to interpret the study results, immunogenicity reduced the quality of NHP data in safety assessment. These findings confirm that the ability to compare relative immunogenicity of mAbs in NHPs and humans is low. Furthermore, immunogenicity limits the value of informative NHP studies.

Experimental study on anaphylaxis of qingkailing injection and its components on Beagle dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To study the anaphylaxis of Qingkailing injection (QI) and its components. METHODS: Experimental anaphylactoid and allergic reactions were used. Changes in the behaviors of Beagles and serum levels of histamine, immunoglobulin (Ig)E, IgG, IgM, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), and interleukin (IL)-4, as well as blood pressure, after injecting QI and its components on the forelimb veins of Beagles were observed. RESULTS: According to comprehensive determination of abnormal behavior scores and changes in serum levels of histamine, IgE, IgG, IgM, ECP, and IL-4, as well as in blood pressure, radix isatidis and hyodeoxycholic acid caused anaphylactoid reactions, and honeysuckle, radix isatidis, hydrolysate, cholic acid and Gardenia jasminoides caused allergic reactions. The anaphylaxis of QI involved anaphylactoid and allergic reactions. CONCLUSION: QI and its components need to be refined further to improve the safety, efficacy, and quality of its use in clinical settings.

Safety of higher dosages of Viscum album L. in animals and humans--systematic review of immune changes and safety parameters.

BACKGROUND: Viscum album L extracts (VAE, mistletoe) and isolated mistletoe lectins (ML) have immunostimulating properties and a strong dose-dependent cytotoxic activity. They are frequently used in complementary cancer treatment, mainly to improve quality of life, but partly also to influence tumour growth, especially by injecting VAE locally and in high dosage. The question is raised whether these higher dosages can induce any harm or immunosuppressive effects. METHODS: Systematic review of all experiments and clinical studies investigating higher dosages of VAE in animals and humans (Viscum album > 1 mg in humans corresponding to > 0.02 mg/kg in animals or ML > 1 ng/kg) and assessing immune parameters or infections or adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: 69 clinical studies and 48 animal experiments reported application of higher doses of VAE or ML and had assessed immune changes and/or harm. In these studies, Viscum album was applied in dosages up to 1500 mg in humans and 1400 mg/kg in animals, ML was applied up to 6.4 µg/kg in humans and in animals up to 14 µg/kg subcutaneously, 50 µg/kg nasally and 500 µg/kg orally. A variety of immune parameters showed fluctuating or rising outcomes, but no immunosuppressive effect. Side effects consisted mainly of dose-dependent flu-like symptoms (FLS), fever, local reactions at the injection site and various mild unspecific effects. Occasionally, allergic reactions were reported. After application of high doses of recombinant ML, reversible hepatotoxicity was observed in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Application of higher dosages of VAE or ML is not accompanied by immunosuppression; altogether VAE seems to exhibit low risk but should be monitored by clinicians when applied in high dosages.

Immunotoxicity of zearalenone in Balb/c mice in a high subchronic dosing study counteracted by Raphanus sativus extract.

Radish (Raphanus sativus) is a cruciferous plant, rich on flavonoids, isothiocyanates, and phenolic acids. They show anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity both in vitro and in vivo. Isothiocyanates and flavonoids have been reported previously to prevent low-sub-chronic dose of zearalenone (ZEN) causing immunotoxicity. The present study focuses on the amelioration of fusarotoxicosis in Balb/c mice by feeding two concentrations of radish extract. The extract at 15 and 30 mg/kg bw, was evaluated to reduce the deleterious effects in immunological parameters of high subchronic doses of 40 and 80 mg of ZEN/kg bw on modulation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). ZEN consuming mice showed a "dose-related" decrease in weight gain and in the immune relative weights organs. Moreover, Atrophy and lymphoid depletion were seen in the histopathology of spleen. Ingestion of ZEN at either level had a significant effect on total red blood cell numbers and on their relative number of lymphocytes. Likewise, ZEN alters the production of regulatory cytokines and antibody of LPS stimulated mice. By contrast, the additions of radish extract with a low or high dose of ZEN moderately decreased the affected mice and/or the severity of lesions, and all tested parameters were normal or at least near normal levels. In addition, the radish extract alone did not produce any significant changes in all tested parameters compared with the controls. In conclusion, radish extract was effective for the protection of high dose ZEN-immunotoxication in mice and it could contribute to a solution of the ZEN immunotoxicity in humans and in farm animals.

Species selection considerations for preclinical toxicology studies for biotherapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical efficacy and safety studies, especially chronic studies, can be difficult to perform when the candidate therapeutic agent is a human protein due to the specificity of these molecules for the human target. The main issues are: i) the human protein or target may not be pharmacologically active in rodents or dogs, the standard toxicology species; or ii) the therapeutic agent may be so immunogenic in these species, that longer duration studies are not possible due to the formation of neutralizing antibodies. Thus, preclinical safety testing of biotherapeutics poses a particular challenge in selecting a relevant animal species for use in toxicology studies. OBJECTIVE: This article will discuss the considerations that are unique to safety assessment of biotherapeutics and will provide alternatives to the standard toxicity testing which is conducted for small molecules. METHODS: This article is based on published information with regards to species selection considerations as well as information from the FDA website on several marketed compounds. In addition, discussions of this topic that have occurred in public forums as well as the experience of the author are considered. CONCLUSION: The most important consideration in species selection for a biotherapeutic is that the drug is pharmacologically active in the preclinical species. This is a key consideration as biotherapeutics are highly targeted and rarely, if ever, demonstrate off-target toxicity. Because of this species specificity, nonhuman primates are often the only relevant species that can be used to assess the safety of a biotherapeutic. Other alternatives such as use of a homologous protein in rodents or the use of transgenic or knockout mice can also be used to assess safety although the caveats to these approaches must be considered.