ABSTRACT
Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MIP) earlier known as Mw is a soil-borne, non-pathogenic, saprophytic and rapidly growing strain of mycobacteria. MIP is approved as a vaccine/ immunomodulator for various indications including mycobacterium infections like leprosy in humans. Its administration has resulted in satisfactory clinical improvement, accelerated bacillary clearance, and increased immune responses to Mycobacterium leprae antigens, thereby shortening the full recovery time of the patients. It also shares its antigens with M.tuberculosis. In the last decade, RCTs have been done establishing immunotherapeutic properties of MIP in the treatment of leprosy, tuberculosis, warts and experimently in leishmaniasis. Through its immune inducing and cytotoxic property, it has also proved beneficial for human use especially in treating lung cancer. The beneficial role of it is also being explored in breast, cervical, oral, liver, and bladder cancers. Various studies on MIP have shown that it has immune-modulating properties in humans. The curiosity of the human mind has led to it being tried in Covid treatment trials. The results have shown that administering MIP has lowered inflammatory markers in Covid 19 patients, promising us for it to be a potential treatment option. More RCTs with a larger sample size should be done to establish this. Cytokine storm seen in bacterial sepsis is also decreased with MIP administration. Considering the encouraging results in hastening recovery in various diseases it appears that MIP is perhaps not being exploited to its fullest potential
ABSTRACT
Background: Contacts of leprosy patients have an increased risk of infection with Mycobacterium leprae. Contact tracing and chemo- or immunoprophylaxis are important means of preventing leprosy transmission. Aims: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunoprophylaxis with Mycobacterium indicus pranii vaccine in reducing anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 titers in household contacts of leprosy patients. Methods: This prospective single-center study was conducted in a tertiary care center in North India from January 2015 to December 2016. Contacts of leprosy patients (both paucibacillary and multibacillary) were screened for anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 antibodies with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Those found positive were given immunoprophylaxis with a single dose of Mycobacterium indicus pranii vaccine, and anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 titers were evaluated at six and 12 months. All contacts were clinically followed for three years. Results: Of the 135 contacts of 98 leprosy patients that were screened, 128 were recruited. Seventeen of these contacts were positive for anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 antibodies and were given Mycobacterium indicus pranii vaccine. Two contacts were lost to follow-up. After immunoprophylaxis, anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 titers were negative in all patients at all intervals, and no contact developed any clinical signs or symptoms of leprosy during the three-year follow-up. Limitations: The small number of contacts studied, the short follow-up period and the absence of a control group were limitations of this study. Dicussion: We could not find any papers on natural decline of PGL 1 titres in contacts, although in leprosy patients, these titres may even increase after completion of treatment. However the titres do correlate with bacterial load (reference: Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1998 Sep;66(3):356-64) so if the tires decrease or become negative it may be considered as an indirect evidence of bacillary clearance. Hence we may suggest the protective efficacy. Furthermore, as the editor mentioned, considering the small number of positive patients, a control group was not possible in the present pilot study, but such studies may be carried out in the future. Conclusion: Immunoprophylaxis with Mycobacterium indicus pranii vaccine is effective and safe in preventing disease in contacts of leprosy patients. However, these findings need to be replicated in larger studies.
ABSTRACT
Background: MIP is a cultivable, non-pathogenic organism, which shares several antigens with Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae. It has several proposed clinical applications. However, its cytotoxic effect on pancreatic cancer has not been documented. Hence, the study was conducted to investigate MIP induced cytotoxicity on Mia-Pa-Ca2 cells. To determine the cytotoxic potential of heat killed Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MIP) on pancreatic cancer cells in vitro along with gemcitabine & 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) level was also studied post MIP treatment. Methods: Cytotoxic effect of MIP, gemcitabine and 5-FU on Mia-Pa-Ca2 cells was determined. We have analyzed extent of apoptosis using flow cytometry and changes in p38 levels, c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK) and extracellular signalregulated kinase (ERK) using ELISA. Results: MIP not only exhibits cell cytotoxicity in dose dependent manner, but also enhances efficacy of gemcitabine and 5-FU when used in combination. Flow cytometry analyses reveals apoptosis of Mia-Pa-Ca2 cells post MIP treatment compared to untreated cells. MAPK pathway study using ELISA shows that p38 and JNK levels are suppressed while there is no change in ERK level. Conclusion: With these results we conclude that MIP is a cytotoxic agent. Cytotoxicity is exhibited by apoptosis. Combining MIP with gemcitabine and 5-FU shows synergistic effect (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pancreatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Fluorouracil , Kidney Neoplasms/diagnosis , MycobacteriumABSTRACT
Background: Multiple cutaneous warts in adults are often symptomatic, cosmetically disabling, and difficult to treat. Killed Mycobacterium indicus pranii (previously known as Mycobacterium w, popularly known as Mw) vaccine has earlier been investigated in genital warts with encouraging results. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of intralesional injected killed Mw vaccine for the treatment of extensive extragenital cutaneous warts. Methods: In this study, a retrospective analysis of medical records was performed in patients with cutaneous warts treated with intralesional Mw vaccine. Only patients with more than 5 extra‑genital warts, involving at least two body sites and which had not shown any signs of spontaneous regression over 6 months were treated with the vaccine. Results: Forty four patients were treated with intralesional Mw vaccine. The mean number of warts was 41.5 ± 25.7 with a disease duration of 3.1 ± 2.5 years. Complete clearance was achieved in 24 (54.5%) patients with a mean of 3.4 ± 1.1 intralesional injections. Cosmetically acceptable response to therapy (>75% clearance) was achieved in 37 (84.1%) patients. Wart response at distant sites was seen in 38 (86.3%) patients. Thirty‑six patients (81.8%) experienced mild therapy‑related side effects. Eighteen patients with complete response were followed up for 5.27 ± 1.7 months and none had recurrence of lesions. Conclusions: Killed Mw vaccine is safe and effective in the treatment of extensive cutaneous warts. Larger, preferably randomized controlled trials are needed to assess its efficacy vis a vis standard therapies for warts.