Phage Therapy in Germany-Update 2023.

Bacteriophage therapy holds promise in addressing the antibiotic-resistance crisis, globally and in Germany. Here, we provide an overview of the current situation (2023) of applied phage therapy and supporting research in Germany. The authors, an interdisciplinary group working on patient-focused bacteriophage research, addressed phage production, phage banks, susceptibility testing, clinical application, ongoing translational research, the regulatory situation, and the network structure in Germany. They identified critical shortcomings including the lack of clinical trials, a paucity of appropriate regulation and a shortage of phages for clinical use. Phage therapy is currently being applied to a limited number of patients as individual treatment trials. There is presently only one site in Germany for large-scale good-manufacturing-practice (GMP) phage production, and one clinic carrying out permission-free production of medicinal products. Several phage banks exist, but due to varying institutional policies, exchange among them is limited. The number of phage research projects has remarkably increased in recent years, some of which are part of structured networks. There is a demand for the expansion of production capacities with defined quality standards, a structured registry of all treated patients and clear therapeutic guidelines. Furthermore, the medical field is still poorly informed about phage therapy. The current status of non-approval, however, may also be regarded as advantageous, as insufficiently restricted use of phage therapy without adequate scientific evidence for effectiveness and safety must be prevented. In close coordination with the regulatory authorities, it seems sensible to first allow some centers to treat patients following the Belgian model. There is an urgent need for targeted networking and funding, particularly of translational research, to help advance the clinical application of phages.

Molecular phenotypes of human parvovirus B19 in patients with myocarditis.

AIM: To investigate molecular phenotypes of myocardial B19V-infection to determine the role of B19V in myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). METHODS: Endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs) from 498 B19V-positive patients with myocarditis and DCM were analyzed using molecular methods and functional experiments. EMBs were obtained from the University Hospitals of Greifswald and Tuebingen and additionally from 36 German cardiology centers. Control tissues were obtained at autopsy from 34 victims of accidents, crime or suicide. Identification of mononuclear cell infiltrates in EMBs was performed using immunohistological staining. Anti-B19V-IgM and anti-B19V-IgG were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). B19V viral loads were determined using in-house quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). For B19V-genotyping a new B19V-genotype-specific restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP)-PCR was established. B19V-genotyping was verified by direct DNA-sequencing and sequences were aligned using BLAST and BioEdit software. B19V P6-promoter and HHV6-U94-transactivator constructs were generated for cell culture experiments. Transfection experiments were conducted using human endothelial cells 1. Luciferase reporter assays were performed to determine B19V-replication activity. Statistical analysis and graphical representation were calculated using SPSS and Prism5 software. RESULTS: The prevalence of B19V was significantly more likely to be associated with inflammatory cardiomyopathy (iCMP) compared to uninflamed DCM (59.6% vs 35.3%) (P < 0.0001). The detection of B19V-mRNA replication intermediates proved that replication of B19V was present. RFLP-PCR assays showed that B19V-genotype 1 (57.4%) and B19V-genotype 2 (36.7%) were the most prevalent viral genotypes. B19V-genotype 2 was observed more frequently in EMBs with iCMP (65.0%) compared to DCM (35%) (P = 0.049). Although there was no significant difference in gender-specific B19V-loads, women were more frequently infected with B19V-genotype 2 (44.6%) than men (36.0%) (P = 0.0448). Coinfection with B19V and other cardiotropic viruses was found in 19.2% of tissue samples and was associated with higher B19V viral load compared to B19V-monoinfected tissue (P = 0.0012). The most frequent coinfecting virus was human herpes virus 6 (HHV6, 16.5%). B19V-coinfection with HHV6 showed higher B19V-loads compared to B19V-monoinfected EMBs (P = 0.0033), suggesting that HHV6 had transactivated B19V. In vitro experiments confirmed a 2.4-fold increased B19V P6-promoter activity by the HHV6 U94-transactivator. CONCLUSION: The finding of significantly increased B19V loads in patients with histologically proven cardiac inflammation suggests a crucial role of B19V-genotypes and reactivation of B19V-infection by HHV6-coinfection in B19V-associated iCMP. Our findings suggest that B19V-infection of the human heart can be a causative event for the development of an endothelial cell-mediated inflammatory disease and that this is related to both viral load and genotype.