Current topics in microbiology and immunology最新文献

The twenty-first century has witnessed seven human viral pandemics. Approximately once every three to four years over the past quarter-century, the world has experienced a new viral epidemic that expanded well beyond its original national borders to become a pandemic. The probability that another pandemic caused by a previously unknown agent will occur in the near future is thus very high and public health agencies must prioritize mechanisms for detecting their first signals. At the onset of these recent pandemics, no specific therapeutic agent was available for any of the newly emergent pathogens. However, convalescent plasma therapy can be available as soon as there are survivors and is likely to be effective if used early and in sufficient strength. But for the three forms of passive antibody-convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, and hyperimmune globulins-to be available and effective in a pandemic situation, careful strategic planning will be necessary. In the pre-pandemic period, we must reinforce the capacities of blood banks and plasma fractionating companies in the production and storage of their products; ensure that outpatient settings can provide intravenous products; educate providers in the proper use of plasma; and create a research infrastructure to examine the effectiveness of passive antibody products. Once a pandemic is underway, regulatory bodies should simplify the approval of research and emergency use protocols and develop treatment registries. Incentives for the rapid production of monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune globulins will likely be required. A national resource to link providers with passive antibody products and national databases to monitor pandemic progress and pandemic treatment will permit the most effective allocation of pandemic-fighting resources. We cannot afford to wait until the next pandemic is upon us to respond. The time to strengthen clinical, research, and manufacturing infrastructure to permit us to be ready to confront the next new virulent pathogen is now.

Despite concerns about potential side effects, based both on historical experience with plasma products and more recent concerns about contemporary use of plasma, COVID-19 convalescent plasma has been shown to be a very safe product. Research early in the COVID-19 pandemic documented-among the very large population of convalescent plasma recipients in the US Convalescent Plasma Study component of the FDA-authorized Expanded Access Program-that the overall risk profile was no different than that seen for fresh frozen plasma, a product used routinely in medical practice. The safety of CCP was further demonstrated using real-world evidence, pragmatic trials, and formal randomized trials. The rates of all serious adverse events were very low, an especially impressive finding in light of the fact that nearly all safety data came from the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in patients who were hospitalized, were older, and/or had significant co-morbid cardiopulmonary and metabolic disorders. The well-known complications of blood and plasma transfusions-transfusion-associated circulatory overload and transfusion-related acute lung injury-were found with no higher incidence than with standard use of blood and plasma, nor was there evidence for antibody-dependent enhancement or increased incidence of thromboembolic events. The comprehensive safety profile derived from studies enrolling hundreds of thousands of recipients of COVID-19 convalescent plasma across the world should allay safety fears about the rapid deployment of convalescent plasma in future pandemics.

Convalescent Plasma (CP) has been used prophylactically and therapeutically over the past century to address a variety of infectious threats. Two tenets of the use of CP were clear from prior experience in the setting of other infectious outbreaks: (1) best results are obtained when CP is given early in the course of the disease, and (2) plasma containing high-titer neutralizing capacity is necessary to achieve optimal results. The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic along with the initial lack of effective therapeutic alternatives, combined with the relative safety of the approach of administration of CP, led to the initiation of an expanded access program (EAP) that ultimately provided CP to tens of thousands of individuals. When the program was initiated, no high-throughput assay was available for the determination of antibody titers, so antibody positive units were administered without regard to titer. With foresight regarding the need to ultimately determine such titers, samples from the CP units administered were retained and titers were determined retrospectively. An automated live-virus neutralization assay was ultimately selected for this purpose based on an evaluation of its accuracy and precision. Ultimately, an analysis performed in 13,794 individuals from the EAP for which clinical outcomes were known following the administration of single units of COVID-19 CP between the period of April and August 2020 indicated that higher titer COVID-19 CP was associated with a modest reduction in absolute mortality. The benefit observed was confined to individuals who were not intubated, and there was a trend toward a greater reduction in mortality using the highest SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody-containing CP units. This experience during the COVID-19 pandemic is instructive for the future. To facilitate the production of CP that is likely to be most effective, high-throughput assays to determine neutralizing antibody titers need to be developed and implemented early during an outbreak to facilitate the identification and early administration of high-titer units.

The use of the serum or plasma of patients or animals who have recovered from an infectious disease, or had been immunized with a relevant antigen, to treat or prevent the same infection in others began in the late 1880s when French and German scientists uncovered, one step at a time, several of the elements of the immune system's response to infection. A key finding was that the damage caused by some bacteria depends upon their secreted toxins which can be neutralized by biologic agents. Antitoxins to diphtheria and tetanus began to be manufactured in large animals in France, Germany, and the US in the 1890s and were soon being used worldwide. The impact of diphtheria antitoxin on childhood mortality was profound. Shortly after the development of antitoxins, convalescent serum began to be used for its anti-bactericidal properties thus addressing serious infections caused by non-toxin-producing organisms. The effectiveness of antitoxins and antisera was demonstrated by examining mortality rates in hospitals before and after the introduction of antitoxins, by comparisons of treated and untreated patients, by comparing early and late treatment and dosage, by examining vital data mortality trends, and by several randomized and alternate assignment trials. Antitoxins continue to have a role in the rare cases of diphtheria and other conditions largely eradicated by immunization, but serum therapy nearly disappeared from the medical armamentarium with the development of antibiotics in the 1940s. Inasmuch as new human pathogens are now emerging with unprecedented regularity as seen in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and because specific therapies are unlikely to be available for them, plasma-based antibody therapies are likely to again carve out a niche in infectious disease control.

The AKT kinases are critical signaling molecules that regulate cellular physiology upon the activation of tyrosine kinase receptors and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases (PI3K). AKT kinases govern many cellular processes considered hallmarks of cancer, including cell proliferation and survival, cell size, tumor invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. AKT signaling is regulated by multiple tumor suppressors and oncogenic proteins whose loss or activation, respectively, leads to dysregulation of this pathway, thereby contributing to oncogenesis. Herein, we review the enormous body of literature documenting how the AKT pathway becomes hyperactivated in sporadic human tumors and various hereditary cancer syndromes. We also discuss the role of activating mutations of AKT pathway genes in various chimeric overgrowth disorders, including Proteus syndrome, hypoglycemia with hypertrophy, CLOVES and SOLAMEN syndromes, and hemimegalencephaly.

During the global health emergency caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evidence relating to the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy-evidence critically needed for both public policy and clinical practice-came from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy. The challenges of conducting clinical research during a pandemic, combined with the biological complexities of convalescent plasma treatment, required the use of observational data to fully assess the impact of convalescent plasma therapy on COVID symptomatology, hospitalization rates, and mortality rates. Observational studies showing the mortality benefits of convalescent plasma emerged early during the COVID-19 pandemic from multiple continents and were substantiated by real-time pragmatic meta-analyses. Although many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were initiated at the onset of the pandemic and were designed to provide high-quality evidence, the relative inflexibility in the design of clinical trials meant that findings generally lagged behind other forms of emerging information and ultimately provided inconsistent results on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. In the pandemic framework, it is necessary to emphasize more flexible analytic strategies in clinical trials, including secondary, subgroup, and exploratory analyses. We conclude that in totality, observational studies and clinical trials taken together provide strong evidence of a mortality benefit conferred by COVID-19 convalescent plasma, while acknowledging that some randomized clinical trials examined suboptimal uses of convalescent plasma.

Convalescent plasma has increasingly been used to treat various viral infections and confer post-exposure prophylactic protection during the last decade and has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has highlighted the need for cost-effective, accessible, and easy-to-use alternatives to conventional blood plasmapheresis techniques, allowing hospitals to become more self-sufficient in harvesting and transfusing donor plasma into recipients in a single setting. To this end, the use of a membrane-based bedside plasmapheresis device (HemoClear) was evaluated in an open-label, non-randomized prospective trial in Suriname in 2021, demonstrating its practicality and efficacy in a low-to middle-income country. This paper will review the use of this method and its potential to expedite the process of obtaining convalescent plasma, especially during pandemics and in resource-constrained settings.

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 have been widely deployed in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. I review here the impact of those therapeutics in the early pandemic, ranging from structural classification to outcomes in clinical trials to in vitro and in vivo evidence of basal and treatment-emergent immune escape. Unfortunately, the Omicron variant of concern has completely reset all achievements so far in mAb therapy for COVID-19. Despite the intrinsic limitations of this strategy, future developments such as respiratory delivery of further engineered mAb cocktails could lead to improved outcomes.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. Such patients are at increased risk for serious complications of infection and may also develop a unique syndrome of persistent infection. This article reviews the rationale for CCP utilization in immunocompromised patients and the evidence for its value in immunosuppressed patients with both acute and persistent COVID-19. Both historical precedence and understanding of the mechanisms of action of antibody treatment support this use, as do several lines of evidence derived from case series, comparative studies, randomized trials, and systematic reviews of the literature. A summary of recommendations from multiple practice guidelines is also provided.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swept across the world in the waning months of 2019 and emerged as the cause of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020. The use of convalescent plasma (CP) for prior respiratory pandemics provided a strong biological rationale for the rapid deployment of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in early 2020 when no validated treatments or prior immunity existed. CCP is an antiviral agent, with its activity against SARS-CoV-2 stemming from specific antibodies elicited by the virus. Early efforts to investigate the efficacy of CCP in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that targeted hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate the overall efficacy of CCP despite signals of benefit in certain subgroups, such as those treated earlier in disease. In contrast, studies adhering to the principles of antibody therapy in their study design, choice of patient population, and product qualification, i.e., those that administered high levels of specific antibody during the viral phase of disease in immunocompromised or very early in immunocompetent individuals, demonstrated benefits. In this chapter, we leverage the knowledge gained from clinical studies of CCP for COVID-19 to propose a framework for future studies of CP for a new infectious disease. This framework includes obtaining high-quality CP and designing clinical studies that adhere to the principles of antibody therapy to generate a robust evidence base for using CP.