Overview of Hepatitis B Vaccine Non-Response and Associated B Cell Amnesia: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The advent of the hepatitis B vaccine has achieved tremendous success in eradicating and reducing the burden of hepatitis B infection, which is the main culprit for hepatocellular carcinoma-one of the most fatal malignancies globally. Response to the vaccine is achieved in about 90-95% of healthy individuals and up to only 50% in immunocompromised patients. This review aimed to provide an overview of hepatitis B vaccine non-response, the mechanisms involved, B cell amnesia, and strategies to overcome it. METHODS: Databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.org, were used to search and retrieve articles using keywords on hepatitis B vaccine non-response and B cell amnesia. The PRISMA guideline was followed in identifying studies, screening, selection, and reporting of findings. RESULTS: A total of 133 studies on hepatitis B vaccine non-response, mechanisms, and prevention/management strategies were included in the review after screening and final selection. Factors responsible for hepatitis B vaccine non-response were found to include genetic, immunological factors, and B cell amnesia in healthy individuals. The genetic factors were sex, HLA haplotypes, and genetic polymorphisms in immune response markers (cytokines). Non-response was common in conditions of immunodeficiency, such as renal failure, haemodialysis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis C co-infection, and latent hepatitis B infection. Others included diabetes mellitus and HIV infection. The mechanisms involved were impaired immune response by suppression of response (T helper cells) or induced suppression of response (through regulatory B and T cells). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive and careful understanding of the patient factors and the nature of the vaccine contributes to developing effective preventive measures. These include revaccination or booster dose, vaccine administration through the intradermal route, and the use of adjuvants in the vaccine.

VP37 Protein Inhibitors for Mpox Treatment: Highlights on Recent Advances, Patent Literature, and Future Directions.

Monkeypox disease (Mpox) has threatened humankind worldwide since mid-2022. The Mpox virus (MpoxV) is an example of Orthopoxviruses (OPVs), which share similar genomic structures. A few treatments and vaccines are available for Mpox. OPV-specific VP37 protein (VP37P) is a target for developing drugs against Mpox and other OPV-induced infections such as smallpox. This review spotlights the existing and prospective VP37P inhibitors (VP37PIs) for Mpox. The non-patent literature was collected from PubMed, and the patent literature was gathered from free patent databases. Very little work has been carried out on developing VP37PIs. One VP37PI (tecovirimat) has already been approved in Europe to treat Mpox, while another drug, NIOCH-14, is under clinical trial. Developing tecovirimat/NIOCH-14-based combination therapies with clinically used drugs demonstrating activity against Mpox or other OPV infections (mitoxantrone, ofloxacin, enrofloxacin, novobiocin, cidofovir, brincidofovir, idoxuridine, trifluridine, vidarabine, fialuridine, adefovir, imatinib, and rifampicin), immunity boosters (vitamin C, zinc, thymoquinone, quercetin, ginseng, etc.), and vaccines may appear a promising strategy to fight against Mpox and other OPV infections. Drug repurposing is also a good approach for identifying clinically useful VP37PIs. The dearth in the discovery process of VP37PIs makes it an interesting area for further research. The development of the tecovirimat/NIOCH-14-based hybrid molecules with certain chemotherapeutic agents looks fruitful and can be explored to obtain new VP37PI. It would be interesting and challenging to develop an ideal VP37PI concerning its specificity, safety, and efficacy.

The Urgent Threat of Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Glimpse of the Drugs of the Future, with Related Patents and Prospects.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is an urgent threat and unmet medical need. The current treatments for CDI are not enough to fight the burden of CDI and recurrent CDI (r-CDI). This review aims to highlight the future drugs for CDI and their related patented applications. The non-patent literature was collected from PubMed and various authentic websites of pharmaceutical industries. The patent literature was collected from free patent databases. Many possible drugs of the future for CDI, with diverse mechanisms of action, are in development in the form of microbiota-modulating agents (e.g., ADS024, CP101, RBX2660, RBX7455, SYN-004, SER-109, VE303, DAV132, MET-2, and BB128), small molecules (e.g., ridinilazole, ibezapolstat, CRS3123, DNV3837, MGB-BP-3, alanyl-L-glutamine, and TNP-2198), antibodies (e.g., IM-01 and LMN-201), and non-toxic strains of CD (e.g., NTCD-M3). The development of some therapeutic agents (e.g., DS-2969b, OPS-2071, cadazolid, misoprostol, ramoplanin, KB109, LFF571, and Ramizol) stopped due to failed clinical trials or unknown reasons. The patent literature reveals some important inventions for the existing treatments of CDI and supports the possibility of developing more and better CDI-treatment-based inventions, including patient-compliant dosage forms, targeted drug delivery, drug combinations of anti-CDI drugs possessing diverse mechanisms of action, probiotic and enzymatic supplements, and vaccines. The current pipeline of anti-CDI medications appears promising. However, it will be fascinating to see how many of the cited are successful in gaining approval from drug regulators such as the US FDA and becoming medicines for CDI and r-CDI.

Innovations and development of Covid-19 vaccines: A patent review.

More than 125 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported globally with rising cases in all countries since the first case was reported. A vaccine is the best measure for the effective prevention and control of COVID-19. There are more than 292 COVID-19 candidates' vaccines being developed as of July 2021 of which 184 are in human preclinical trials. A patent provides protection and a marketing monopoly to the inventor of an invention for a specified period. Therefore, vaccine developers, including Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Inovio, and Gamaleya also filed patent applications for the protection of their vaccines. This review aims to provide an insight into the patent literature of COVID-19 vaccines. The patent search was done using Patentscope and Espacenet databases. The results have revealed that most of the key players have patented their inventive COVID-19 vaccine. Many patent applications related to COVID-19 vaccines developed via different technologies (DNA, RNA, virus, bacteria, and protein subunit) have also been filed. The publication of a normal patent application takes place after 18 months of its filing. Therefore, many patents/patent applications related to the COVID-19 vaccine developed through different technology may come into the public domain in the coming days.

Bioinformatics analysis of rhinovirus capsid proteins VP1-4 sequences for cross-serotype vaccine development.

BACKGROUND: Rhinoviruses (RV) are associated with the development and exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They've also been linked to more severe diseases like pneumonia, acute bronchiolitis, croup, and otitis media. Because of the hypervariable sequences in the same serotypes, no effective vaccine against rhinoviruses has been developed to date. With the availability of new full-length genome sequences for all RV-A and RV-B serotyped strains, this study used bioinformatics to find a suitable RV strain with the highest similarity matrices to the other strains. METHODS: The full genomic sequences of all known different RV-A and -B prototypes were downloaded from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and divided into minor low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) and major intercellular adhesion molecule groups (ICAM). The sequences were edited using Biological Sequence Alignment Editor, v 7.2.0 (BioEdit software) to study each capsid protein (VP1, VP2, VP3, and VP4) and analyzed using the EMBL-EBI ClustalW server and the more current Clustal Omega tool for the calculation of the identities and similarities. RESULTS: We analyzed and predicted immunogenic motifs from capsid proteins that are conserved across distinct RV serotypes using a bioinformatics technique. The amino acid sequences of VP3 were found to be the most varied, while VP4 was the most conserved protein among all RV-A and RV-B strains. Among all strains studied, RV-74 demonstrated the highest degree of homology to other strains and could be a potential genetic source for recombinant protein production. Nine highly conserved regions with a minimum length of 9-mers were identified, which could serve as potential immune targets against rhinoviruses. CONCLUSION: Therefore, bioinformatics analysis conducted in the current study has paved the way for the selection of immunogenic targets. Bioinformatically, the ideal strain's capsid protein is suggested to contain the most common RVs immunogenic sites.

Patterns of Human Respiratory Viruses and Lack of MERS-Coronavirus in Patients with Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Southwestern Province of Saudi Arabia.

We undertook enhanced surveillance of those presenting with respiratory symptoms at five healthcare centers by testing all symptomatic outpatients between November 2013 and January 2014 (winter time). Nasal swabs were collected from 182 patients and screened for MERS-CoV as well as other respiratory viruses using RT-PCR and multiplex microarray. A total of 75 (41.2%) of these patients had positive viral infection. MERS-CoV was not detected in any of the samples. Human rhinovirus (hRV) was the most detected pathogen (40.9%) followed by non-MERS-CoV human coronaviruses (19.3%), influenza (Flu) viruses (15.9%), and human respiratory syncytial virus (hRSV) (13.6%). Viruses differed markedly depending on age in which hRV, Flu A, and hCoV-OC43 were more prevalent in adults and RSV, hCoV-HKU1, and hCoV-NL63 were mostly restricted to children under the age of 15. Moreover, coinfection was not uncommon in this study, in which 17.3% of the infected patients had dual infections due to several combinations of viruses. Dual infections decreased with age and completely disappeared in people older than 45 years. Our study confirms that MERS-CoV is not common in the southwestern region of Saudi Arabia and shows high diversity and prevalence of other common respiratory viruses. This study also highlights the importance and contribution of enhanced surveillance systems for better infection control.

Antibody and immune memory persistence post infant hepatitis B vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the level of hepatitis B immunity among undergraduate students 23 years after commencement of the nationwide hepatitis B childhood immunization program in Malaysia. METHODS: A total of 402 serum samples obtained from volunteer undergraduate students were screened for the presence of hepatitis B surface antibodies using qualitative ELISA. RESULTS: Results showed that 62.7% of volunteers had protective anti-hepatitis B surface antigens (≥10 IU/L), of whom 67.9% received three doses of the vaccine. The estimated post-vaccination immunity was found to be at least 20 years, indicating persistent immunity against hepatitis B and a significant association (P < 0.05) with duration of vaccination. Anamnestic response 1 month post-hepatitis B booster was 94.0% and highly significant (P < 0.01). Isolated antihepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) prevalence was found to be 5.0%, all having had a positive anamnestic response. CONCLUSION: Immunity after primary vaccination with hepatitis B recombinant vaccine persists for at least 20 years post-vaccination, with significant association with the number of vaccinations. Furthermore, the presence of anamnestic response to booster vaccine indicates long-lasting immunity despite decreasing antibody levels; therefore, the need for hepatitis B vaccine boosters may not be of significant benefit after complete infant vaccination.