RESUMEN
During the production of snake antivenoms, the animals used as immunoglobulin source are subjected to processes that could deteriorate their physical condition. Therefore, these conditions must be carefully designed and validated. In this work, the immunization and bleeding protocols applied to horses used to produce the African polyspecific antivenom EchiTAb-plus-ICP were evaluated regarding their effects on the horses' health. The study focused on horses that had been previously immunized with venoms and then received periodic booster venom injections for antivenom production. It was found that the periodic immunization with 5 mg of a mixture of venoms of Bitis arietans, Echis ocellatus, Dendroaspis polylepis, and Naja nigricollis did not induce systemic signs of envenomation, and only caused mild swelling at the injection site, which did not evolve to abscesses, fistulas, or fibrosis. Three consecutive days of bleeding, collecting 6-8 L of blood per day, and self-transfusing the red blood cells (RBC) in the second and third days, did not induce evident cardiorespiratory alterations. However, this procedure caused significant reductions in RBC, hematocrit, hemoglobin, and total plasma protein values. Seven weeks after bleeding, these parameters were recovered, and horses were ready for the next immunization/bleeding cycle. The intravenous administration of equine albumin, at a dose of 2 g/kg body weight, increased the apparent plasma volume and the albumin concentration. However, this procedure induced early adverse reactions and transient alterations of the serum levels of the enzyme gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), thus suggesting some degree of hepatic injury. It was concluded that immunization and bleeding as described in this work do not cause significant clinical alterations in the horse's health, except for a transient drop in some hematological parameters. The albumin-based fluid therapy used does not hasten the recovery after bleeding but instead induces adverse events in the animals.
RESUMEN
Adjuvant emulsions are widely used to enhance the antibody response in animals used as immunoglobulin source to produce snake antivenoms. We tested the performance of four commercial emulsion adjuvants (Montanide, Freund, Carbigen, and Emulsigen-D) and an experimental adjuvant (QH-769) in the antibody response of horses towards venoms of the African snakes Bitis arietans, Echis ocellatus, Dendroaspis polylepis and Naja nigricollis. Montanide, Freund and Carbigen adjuvants generated the highest immune response but induced moderate/severe local lesions at the site of injection. In contrast, Emulsigen-D and QH-769 adjuvants generated the lowest immune response and low incidence of local lesions. No evidence of systemic alterations was observed in the horses immunized with any of the adjuvants. It is suggested that the use of Montanide or Freund-based emulsions in the first immunization steps, followed by the use of Emulsigen-D, QH-769 or similar adjuvants in the following injections, could result in a satisfactory immune response against snake venoms, while not inducing serious local deleterious effects.
RESUMEN
In the current global emergency due to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, passive immunotherapy emerges as a promising treatment for COVID-19. Among animal-derived products, equine formulations are still the cornerstone therapy for treating envenomations due to animal bites and stings. Therefore, drawing upon decades of experience in manufacturing snake antivenom, we developed and preclinically evaluated two anti-SARS-CoV-2 polyclonal equine formulations as potential alternative therapy for COVID-19. We immunized two groups of horses with either S1 (anti-S1) or a mixture of S1, N, and SEM mosaic (anti-Mix) viral recombinant proteins. Horses reached a maximum anti-viral antibody level at 7 weeks following priming, and showed no major adverse acute or chronic clinical alterations. Two whole-IgG formulations were prepared via hyperimmune plasma precipitation with caprylic acid and then formulated for parenteral use. Both preparations had similar physicochemical and microbiological quality and showed ELISA immunoreactivity towards S1 protein and the receptor binding domain (RBD). The anti-Mix formulation also presented immunoreactivity against N protein. Due to high anti-S1 and anti-RBD antibody content, final products exhibited high in vitro neutralizing capacity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 80 times higher than a pool of human convalescent plasma. Pre-clinical quality profiles were similar among both products, but clinical efficacy and safety must be tested in clinical trials. The technological strategy we describe here can be adapted by other producers, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
