ABSTRACT
Increasing production capacity may necessitate the facility to cater for higher hazardous area category (e.g., H-Occupancy) design features, such as specialized building construction and potential blast zones. [...]an assessment should cover: * Quantification of flammable material use for production steps, including buffer preparation and LNP storage * Equipment and facility cleaning strategies that contribute to the facility flammable materials inventory * Impact of HVAC design to avoid hazardous atmospheres (e.g., full fresh air), use of local exhaust ventilation (LEV) or fume hoods * Solvent distribution methods (e.g., closed solvent delivery and waste removal systems) * Location of solvent bulk storage outside of the processing area/ facility, and piping in what is necessary plus removing spent solvent in a timely manner (e.g., piped transfer to a waste tank for removal by a specialist contractor). At present, the process cannot be fully single-use, so thought needs to be put into the cleaning and sterilization processes, plus the analytical support infrastructure needed for reusable product-contact surfaces. [...]it is recommended that for each mRNA project, consideration is given to the following aspects to determine the link between the equipment available and the facility design: * Need for custom/proprietary equipment * Independent production rooms with "through-wall" buffer transfer through iris ports in from logistics corridor (Buffer Prep/Hold) * Room electrical classification needs versus process step. * Equipment selection versus electrical and fire code requirements * Benefits and limitations of implementing single-use technologies, given that the process will be hybrid (with stainless steel). [...]the limited capacity for outsourcing of supporting functions, such as facility environmental monitoring or product sterility testing, should be considered during concept design.
ABSTRACT
The immune system is developed to preserve its hosts from an ever-expanding cluster of pathogenic microbes. The elimination of toxic substances, allergens, or any other harmful existences that come in, passing the mucosal surfaces, is as well the responsibility of this special system. Its ability to distinguish self (our bodies' functioning cells and tissues) from non-self is the key aspect to its ability to mobilize some reaction to an invasion initiated by the stranger substances listed above. To identify and kill unsafe microorganisms, the host applies both natural and versatile systems, our innate and adaptive immune systems. Vaccines are used to combat the current SARS-CoV-2 strain by utilizing immune system mechanisms, specifically the adaptive immune system. Vectored vaccines, protein vaccines, genetic vaccine, and monoclonal antibody for passive vaccination are among the vaccine platforms under consideration for SARS-CoV-2. Each vaccine has its own benefits and drawbacks. This paper is written to describe the three major forms of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the unique mechanisms of elements of the immune system associated with the virus. © 2023 SPIE.
ABSTRACT
Delivery of self-amplifying mRNA (SAM) has high potential for infectious disease vaccination due to its self-adjuvanting and dose-sparing properties. Yet a challenge is the susceptibility of SAM to degradation and the need for SAM to reach the cytosol fully intact to enable self-amplification. Lipid nanoparticles are successfully deployed at incredible speed for mRNA vaccination, but aspects such as cold storage, manufacturing, efficiency of delivery, and the therapeutic window can benefit from further improvement. To investigate alternatives to lipid nanoparticles, a class of >200 biodegradable end-capped lipophilic poly(beta-amino ester)s (PBAEs) that enable efficient delivery of SAM in vitro and in vivo as assessed by measuring expression of SAM encoding reporter proteins is developed. The ability of these polymers to deliver SAM intramuscularly in mice is evaluated, and a polymer-based formulation that yields up to 37-fold higher intramuscular (IM) expression of SAM compared to injected naked SAM is identified. Using the same nanoparticle formulation to deliver a SAM encoding rabies virus glycoprotein, the vaccine elicits superior immunogenicity compared to naked SAM delivery, leading to seroconversion in mice at low RNA injection doses. These biodegradable nanomaterials may be useful in the development of next-generation RNA vaccines for infectious diseases.Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Advanced Therapeutics published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundFollowing the launch of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there have been increased reports of autoimmune diseases developing de novo following vaccination. These cases include rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune hepatitis, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, and connective tissue diseases. Nevertheless, COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with autoimmune diseases and are strongly recommended.ObjectivesThe aim of this in silico analysis is to investigate the presence of protein epitopes encoded by the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine, one of the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccines, that could elicit an aberrant adaptive immune response in predisposed individuals.MethodsThe FASTA sequence of the protein encoded by the BNT-162b2 vaccine was retrieved from http://genome.ucsc.edu and used as a key input to the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (www.iedb.org). Linear peptides with 90% BLAST homology were selected, and T-cell, B-cell, and MHC ligand assays without MHC restriction were searched and evaluated. HLA-disease associations were screened on the HLA-SPREAD platform (https://hla-spread.igib.res.in) by selecting only positive markers.ResultsA total of 183 epitopes were found, corresponding to 178 SARS-CoV-2 and 5 SARS-CoV spike epitopes, respectively. Results were obtained from 22 T-cell assays, 398 B-cell assays, and 2 MHC ligand assays. Complementary receptors included 1080 T-cell receptors and 0 B-cell receptors.Specifically, the IEDB_epitope:1329790 (NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY) was shown to bind to HLA-DRB1*15:02 and HLA-DRB1*15:03 alleles, whereas the IEDB_epitope:1392457 (TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT) was reported to bind to HLA-DRB1*07:01, HLA-DRB1*03:01, HLA-DRB3*01:01, and HLA-DRB4*01:01 alleles. The HLA alleles detected were found to be positively associated with various immunological disorders (Table 1).Table 1.MHC-restricted epitopes of the BNT-162b2 vaccine and potentially associated immunological conditionsEpitopeAssayMHC moleculeAssociated disease (population)NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY + OX(C10)cellular MHC/mass spectrometry ligand presentationHLA-DRB1*15:02Takayasu arteritis (Japanese) Arthritis (Taiwanese) Scleroderma (Japanese) Colitis (Japanese)HLA-DRB1*15:03Systemic lupus erythematosus (Mexican American)TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT + SCM(K2)as aboveHLA-DRB1*07:01Allergy, hypersensitivity (Caucasian)HLA-DRB1*03:01Type 1 diabetes (African) Sarcoidosis, good prognosis (Finnish)HLA-DRB3*01:01Graves' disease (Caucasian) Thymoma (Caucasian) Sarcoidosis (Scandinavian) Autoimmune hepatitis (Caucasian)HLA-DRB4*01:01Vitiligo (Saudi Arabian)ConclusionSimilar to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the protein product of the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine contains immunogenic epitopes that may trigger autoimmune phenomena in predisposed individuals. Genotyping for HLA alleles may help identify at-risk individuals. However, further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and potential clinical implications.References[1]Vita R, Mahajan S, Overton JA et al. The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D339-D343. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1006.[2]Dholakia D, Kalra A, Misir BR et al. HLA-SPREAD: a natural language processing based resource for curating HLA association from PubMed s. BMC Genomics 23, 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08239-0[3]Parker R, Partridge T, Wormald C et al. Mapping the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein-derived peptidome presented by HLA class II on dendritic cells. Cell Rep. 2021 May 25;35(8):109179. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109179.[4]Knierman MD, Lannan MB, Spindler LJ et al. The Human Leukocyte Antigen Class II Immunopeptidome of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell Rep. 2020 Dec 1;33(9):108454. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108454.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Messenger RNAmRNAmedicine was urgently approved in 2020 as a vaccine for COVID-19 . However, current mRNA therapeutics are not fully established, with challenges remaining in translation efficiency and drug delivery system. Therefore, further research is needed to adapt mRNA therapeutics to other diseases. Furthermore, the preparation of mRNA drugs is time-consuming and costly because of the biological methods used. Our laboratory has been working on chemical methods to solve these issues. In this paper, we introduce chemical modifications and novel capping reactions as a method to improve the translation efficiency of mRNA and the introduction of disulfide modification to oligonucleotide therapeutics as an effort on the drug delivery system.Copyright © 2023, Japan Society of Drug Delivery System. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To assess the course of COVID-19 infections and the tolerability of the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech and the viral vector vaccines from Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE). Method(s): From July 2020 to July 2021, we consecutively included adult outpatients with confirmed epilepsy. These PWE were interviewed about COVID-19 infections and vaccinations. Results of follow-up visits were added until the cut-off date (December 31, 2021). The data of COVID-19-infected without vaccinations or fully vaccinated PWE without COVID-19 infections were analyzed. Full vaccination was defined as a double vaccination with the Pfizer/BionTech, Moderna, or Astra Zeneca vaccines or a single Johnson & Johnson vaccination. Result(s): At cut-off, 612 of 1152 PWE fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 51 PWE had been infected without vaccination and 561 had full vaccination without infection. Among the infected PWE, 76.5% presented with symptoms;9.8% had a severe course (one death). The leading symptoms were influenza-like disorders (48.7% of infected PWE with symptoms), anosmia (28.2%), and ageusia (20.5%). Seizure increases or relapses after sustained seizure freedom occurred in 7.8%. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 113 vaccinated PWE (20.1% of all vaccinated PWE). The leading AEs were fatigue, fever, and headache. The AE rate per vaccine was 14.0% for Pfizer/BionTech, 32.7% for Moderna, 25.8% for Astra Zeneca, and 46.2% for Johnson & Johnson. Of the AEs, 93.3% lasted <=1 week. Seizure increase or relapse occurred in 1.4% and was significantly less frequent than in the infected group (p= 0.0016). Conclusion(s): The course of COVID-19 infections and the tolerability of the vaccines were similar as in the general population, yet, seizure worsening occurred more often after the infection than after the vaccination.Copyright © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, part of Springer Nature.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients suffering from systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) display poor antibody development after two doses of mRNA vaccinations leaving these patients with only limited humoral protection against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease courses. Of key interest is the effect of conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological/ targeted drugs (b/tsDMARDs) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs on the time of protection.ObjectivesTo compare antibody titer development in patients with vasculitis and connective tissue disease (CTD) with healthy controls 6 months after two mRNA vaccinations and after third immunization. To analyze factors, that affect the velocity of titer decline, well as qualitative humoral response.MethodsPatients with SARD were enrolled and matched for gender and age with healthy control subjects (HC) and the humoral response after 6 months to two doses of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in terms of SARS-COV-2 antibody titer was assessed. In addition to binding antibody units (BAU) we also analyzed neutralizing antibodies. Patients receiving B-cell depleting therapy and those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (via detection of nucleocapsid antibodies) were excluded. Differences between two groups were calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsA total of 53 patients with SARD (42 patients suffering from connective tissue disease and 11 with vasculitis respectively) and 73 HC were analysed. Interestingly only patients receiving a combination therapy of different csDMARDs/ b/tsDMARDs demonstrated diminished antibody titers 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccine (p-value p-value<0,001), whereas patients receiving only csDMARD as monotherapy displayed comparable antibody levels to healthy controls. This effect was equalized after a third booster vaccination (p-value=0,13). Concerning disease entities, patients with vasculitis seemed to have lower BAU than HC (p-value<0,05) and patients suffering from CTD. After third vaccination both patient groups had lower antibody levels than HC (vasculitis: p-value <0,0001;CTD: p-value p-value<0,01). Lower antibody levels before third vaccination correlated with lower antibodies after third immunization.ConclusionPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases undergoing combination therapy may be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, due to reduced antibody levels 6 months following two doses of mRNA vaccine. Our data strongly recommends antibody measurements in patients receiving combination therapy and individualized earlier booster vaccination.Figure 1.Anti-SARS-Cov-2 S antibody titers. A: Antibody titers measured 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccination in patients with connective tissue disease, vasculitis and healthy controls. B, Antibody levels according to disease entity. AB: antibody;BAU: binding antibody unit;CTD: connective tissue disease;HC: healthy control;mono: disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug monotherapy;combination: combination therapy of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs;RBD: receptor binding domain;[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic parameters and therapy of study participants.SARD (n=53)HC (n=73)Age, mean (standard deviation)53.55 (±14.04)51.27 (±14.07)Female45 (84.9%)47 (64.4%)Connective tissue disease42 (79%)Vasculitis11 (21%)csDMARD or b/tsDMARD monotherapy22 (41%)csDMARD and/or b/tsDMARD combination therapy13 (25%)No therapy18 (34%)Methotrexate8 (15%)Mycophenolate mofetil10 (19%)Hydroxychloroquine17 (32%)Azathioprine8 (15%)Belimumab3 (6%)Tocilizumab3 (6%)Glucocorticoid dose 1. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.8 (±10.8)Glucocorticoid dose 2. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.6 (±10.7)SARD: Systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, HC: Healthy controls, csDMARD: conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and b/tsDMARD: biological/ targeted drugs disease modifying antirheumatic drugsREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsElisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Selma Tobudic: None declared, Helmuth Hasla her Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Thomas Maria Karonitsch: None declared, Daniel Mrak: None declared, Thomas Nothnagl: None declared, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helga Lechner-Radner: None declared, Judith Sautner: None declared, Florian Winkler: None declared, Heinz Burgmann Speakers bureau: speaker fees from Shionogi, Pfizer, MSD, Paid instructor for: advisory boards for Valneva, MSD, Gilead, Consultant of: consulting fees from MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Gilead, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: other from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: grants from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Stephan Blüml Speakers bureau: personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Novartis, Peter Mandl Speakers bureau: reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis, Grant/research support from: research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, MSD and UCB.
ABSTRACT
In December 2020, two shipments of the vaccine experienced temperature excursions in which product was actually kept at overly cold temperatures (3). Urgent need to protect data One problem that vaccine developers and regulatory agencies need to address is the urgent need to protect data, says Nigel Thorpe, technology director with Secure Age, which specializes in enterprise data encryption using a public key infrastructure platform. For operators on the plant floor, the efforts required are fraught with potential error, especially during shift changes, says Jim Evans, director of Verista, Inc.'s vision, connectivity, and automation division. Raw materials The speed with which vaccines have been developed and are being distributed pose important questions centred around variability. If we're having a raw materials shortage when the vaccines haven't even been scaled up, what will happen when they get full approval?" he asks.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAcetaminophen (APAP = paracetamol) may potentially impact vaccine-associated immune responses as the intake of APAP has been associated with a worse outcome in tumor patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.[1]Different DMARD regimen have been shown to impair the humoral immune response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis but the effect of paracetamol has not been explored thus far.ObjectivesTo analyse whether the intake of APAP may interfere with antiviral humoral immune responses following two doses of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA based vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on DMARD therapy.MethodsThe RECOVER trial (Rheumatoid Covid-19 Vaccine Immune Response) was a non-randomised, prospective observational control group trial and enrolled 77 RA patients on DMARD therapy and 21 healthy controls (HC). We performed a posthoc analysis of blood samples taken before the first vaccine dose (T0), two (T1) and three (T2) weeks after the first and second vaccine dose, and at 12 (T3) weeks. APAP intake was measured using ELISA. The antibody response (anti-S) to the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was measured with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) test. The neutralizing activity NT50 at week 12 was assessed using an HIV-based pseudovirus neutralization assay against Wuhan-Hu-1.ResultsBaseline characteristics of participants are detailed in Table 1. The immunogenicity analyses were based on 73 RA patients after exclusion of 4 patients with previously unnoticed SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive for anti-nucleoprotein at baseline). APAP was detected in serum samples from 34/73 (25%) RA patients and in 7/21 (33%) HC (least at one timepoint T0, T1 and/or T2). APAP intake in HC did not affect levels of anti-S at any timepoint and all HC developed potent neutralizing activity (NT50 ≥ 250) at week 12. RA patients, who tested positive for APAP at T1, showed comparable anti-S levels at T1, T2 and T3 compared to RA patients not exposed to APAP. The detection of APAP at T2 corresponded to lower anti-S levels at T2 (Figure 1 A, B). The detection of APAP at T2 was associated with a significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity at week 12 compared to patients without perivaccination APAP exposure (p =0.04) (Figure 1 C).ConclusionA decrease of antiviral humoral immune responses was observed in RA patients (but not in HC) who were exposed to APAP at the time of the second mRNA vaccine dose compared to patients in whom APAP was not detected. Our data suggest that the use of paracetamol within the time period around vaccination may impair vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with an already higher risk for blunted immune responses.Reference[1]Bessede A et al. Ann Oncol 2022;33: 909-915Table 1.Baseline characteristics: RA patients and HC with/without APAP exposureRA APAP – n = 37RA APAP + n = 36p-valueHC APAP – n = 8HC APAP + n = 13p-valueAge (yrs), mean (± SD)62 (13)67 (10)0.07 (NS)45 (12)44 (14)0.90 (NS)Female sex, n (%)24 (65)19 (53)0.29 (NS)2 (25)5 (38)0.53 (NS)Vaccination type/schedulemRNA-1273, n (%)4 (11)8 (22.2)0.19 (NS)0 (0)0 (0)BNT162b2, n (%)33 (89)28 (77.8)0.19 (NS)8 (100)13 (100)RA disease characteristicsACPA ± RF, n (%)17/37 (46)19/36 (53)0.56 (NS)NANANARA disease duration (yrs ± SD)9.2 (9.8)10.2 (8.1)0.67 (NS)NANANADMARD therapycsDMARD-mono, n (%)13/37 (35)9/36 (25)0.35 (NS)NANANAbDMARD-mono/combo, n (%)16/37 (43)16/36 (44)0.92 (NS)NANANAtsDMARDs-mono/combo, n (%)8/37 (22)11/36 (31)0.38 (NS)NANANAPrednisone, n (%)15/37 (41)12/36 (33.3)0.52 (NS)NANANAMean daily dose prednisone (mg ± SD)4.6 ± 1.13.9 ± 2.30.39 (NS)NANANA* APAP = acetaminophenFigure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease, which presents an immune disorder that leads to the production of autoantibodies with potential involvement of multiple organs. Infections are one of the most frequent causes of hospitalization and death in lupus patients, and SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a global threat since March 2020. Immunization of these patients has been strongly recommended, although vaccine evaluation studies have not included this profile of patients.ObjectivesTo evaluate the immunogenicity and safety after 2 doses of the vaccine against SARS-CoV2 in patients with SLE.MethodsSubgroup of SLE patients from the prospective multicenter cohort of patients with immune-mediated diseases "SAFER” – Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease, a phase IV study. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 took place with vaccines approved by Brazilian regulatory bodies CoronaVac (Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine), ChadOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and this project followed in line with the guidelines of the National Immunization Plan in Brazil. Patients aged 18 years or older with a previous diagnosis of SLE (according to the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria) were included. Patients were evaluated by telephone contact and in a face-to-face visit on the 28th day after each dose. Patients were followed up by means of blood collection for measurement of IgG antibody against SARS-COV-2 by chemiluminescence and disease activity assessed using SLEDAI-2K score.ResultsA total of 367 individuals with SLE were included, of whom 207 received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 128 received 2 doses of ChadOx-1 and 32 received 2 doses of BNT162b2. 90% of the subjects were female with a mean age of 37 years. About 42% (154) of the individuals included did not have any other associated comorbidity. 50% (182) of patients were using oral glucocorticoids and azathioprine was the most frequent immunosuppressive therapy. Regarding disease activity parameters, 38% (140) of patients had zero SLEDAI-2K at baseline and 41% (147) had zero SLEDAI-2K 28 days after the 2nd dose. Anti-DNA positivity was 30.7% (16/52) at inclusion and 32.6% (17/52) 28 days after the 2nd dose. Complement consumption was present in 18% (10/55) at inclusion and in 14.5% (8/55) 28 days after the 2nd vaccine dose. The geometric mean titers of IgG antibodies against SARS-COV-2 increased in the different vaccine groups, log 2.27 BAU/mL at inclusion and log 5.58 BAU/mL 28 days after the 2nd dose. Antibody titers after second dose varied between different vaccines, 4.96 BAU/mL CoronaVac, 6.00 BAU/mL ChadOx-1 and 7.31 BAU/mL BNT162b2 vaccine, p < 0.001. Only 3.54% (13/367) patients had covid-19 infection after the 15th day of the second dose of immunization, 9 of them having received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 4 of them of ChadOx-1 and none of them receiving BNT162b2, with p-value of 0.63.ConclusionThis study suggests that vaccines against SARS-COV-2 are safe in SLE patients. Induction of immunogenicity occurred in different vaccine regimens. Only 3.5% of individuals had COVID-19 infection with no difference between the types of vaccines evaluated. Future analyzes to explore the association of the effect of immunosuppressive medication, as well as the impact of booster doses and longer follow-up on clinical outcome will be performed.References[1]Mason A, et al. Lupus, vaccinations and COVID-19: What we know now. Lupus. 2021;30(10):1541-1552.[2]Furer V, Eviatar T, Zisman D, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: A multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1330-1338.[3]Izmirly PM, Kim MY, Samanovic M, et al. Evaluation of Immune Response and Disease Status in SLE Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online 2021.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
This review article highlights the importance of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines and how it has been developed to fight against various diseases such as, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), rabies, cancer treatments, and coronavirus (Covid-19). During the past two years, covid-19 has become a worldwide pandemic, and the mRNA has played a major role in the manufacturing of its vaccine. We have highlighted the technology behind the development of mRNA vaccine, synthesis, and working of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). This mRNA vaccine produces a duplicate of a molecule that corresponds to a viral protein for producing an immune response, and these are given to us in a series of shots designed to protect us from developing a disease. The LNPs which carry the mRNA protein prevent the degradation of it and maintain more constant serum levels. In addition, this review article specifically mentions HIV, rabies, cancer, covid-19 and how these are important in the treatment of these diseases. This review article further highlights the mRNA vaccines for the survival of human beings against various deadly diseases in the near future. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
ABSTRACT
According to Jeetendra Vaghjiani, senior director of clinical development and strategic marketing at Lonza, emerging biotech companies are reliant on contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) because of their development and manufacturing capacity, expertise, and flexibility. Because of the high attrition rate associated with drug development, the better your preclinical programme, the stronger the position you can establish in terms of programme design and patient identification (2). [...]because of the relative scarcity of approvals over the past decade, companies looking to capitalize on this new market are likely to require specialized knowledge to get through the approvals process.
ABSTRACT
Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have long been suggested as encouraging candidates for widespread vaccination since they are manufactured rapidly and induce both humoral and cellular immune system components against pathogens. Available data on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines are relatively limited and the spectrum of skin reactions is still unclear. We would like to contribute to the literature by presenting a rare case with cutaneous reactions and discussing the skin complications of these kinds of vaccines. Our patient was a 17-year-old healthy female patient who applied to the pediatric emergency department with urticarial plaques that started from the legs and spread to the trunk nearly 80 hours after the second dose of the BioNTech-Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was applied. The patient, whose skin lesions recurred more severely within 24 hours at home, and who noticed mild swelling in the fingers of the right hand and on the lip, was brought to the emergency service for the second time. Patients and physicians should be aware of the risk of delayed adverse skin reactions as well as the development of immediate hypersensitivity reactions such as urticaria and angioedema after administration of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundA 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed.ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses.Methods50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period.ResultsAt week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781 – 10208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633 - 16050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDue to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Mrak Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Daniela Sieghart: None declared, Elisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp and Pfizer, Peter Mandl: None declared, Lisa Göschl: None declared, Philipp Hofer: None declared, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Irina Gessl: None declared, Renate Kain Speakers bureau: Otsuka, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharma, MEDahead and Janssen Cilag, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helmuth Haslacher Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Leonhard Heinz: None declared, Michael Bonelli Consultant of: EliLilly.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundIt is known that rheumatologic patients often present a course of COVID-19 similar to that of the general population. Some factors are linked to a worse COVID-19 outcome, such as moderate glucocorticoid (GC) dose, high body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities.ObjectivesTo describe the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of symptoms, therapy and need for hospitalization compared to a control group. Also, to evaluate the variation in disease activity before and after COVID-19.MethodsIn this monocentric prospective study, we recruited consecutive adult patients with RA classified according to ACR-EULAR 2010 criteria who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 through molecular or rapid antigen swab tests between September 2020 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical data, including age, BMI, smoking habit, comorbidities, treatment at the diagnosis of COVID-19, duration of COVID-19, symptoms related to the infection and therapy required, together with the vaccination status were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. We compared DAS28-CRP before the infection and at the first visit after the resolution. As controls (Cs), individuals with COVID-19 but with no referred diagnosis of rheumatic/autoimmune disease were recruited.ResultsWe enrolled 111 patients affected by RA (males 15%, median age 56 years, IQR 25) and 89 Cs (males 44%, median age 47 years, IQR 43), whose demographic and clinical characteristics are reported in Table 1. The median RA disease duration was 108 months (IQR 201). At the COVID-19 diagnosis, 62 patients (56%) were assuming csDMARDs, 67 (60%) bDMARDs, and 18 (16%) GC with a median prednisone equivalent dose of 4 mg/day (IQR 1). DAS28-CRP was available for 62 patients, with a median value of 1.67 (IQR 2.71);42 patients (60%) were in remission (Figure 1). Before developing COVID-19, only 35 (32%) RA patients and 42 (47%) Cs had completed the vaccinal cycle, which was performed by mRNA vaccine in all the patients and 87% of Cs. The median COVID-19 duration was 18 days (IQR 18) for RA patients and 14 days (IQR 13.5) for Cs (p>0.7). Cs reported a significantly higher frequency of constitutional symptoms (headache and asthenia) compared to RA patients (p<0.00001). When hospitalization was required, RA patients received heparin more frequently than Cs (p<0.039). Once COVID-19 was resolved, RA patients were evaluated after a median of 2 months (IQR 2). DAS28-CRP was available for 68 patients, with a median value of 1.61 (IQR 1.77);42 patients (68%) were in remission (Figure 1).No differences in terms of COVID-19 duration, clinical manifestations, and therapy emerged comparing RA patients in remission (40;58%) with patients with the active disease before COVID-19 (29;42%). Also, in vaccinated subjects, the outcome of COVID-19 was similar in RA patients and Cs, irrespective of RA activity.ConclusionCOVID-19's impact on patients with RA was not significantly different from the general population, even for patients with active RA. Patients did not suffer from reactivation of RA because of COVID-19. In our opinion, these positive results could be ascribed to the massive vaccination campaign.References[1]Conway R et al, Ir J Med Sci. 2023[2]Andersen KM et al, Lancet Rheumatol. 2022Table 1.Clinical characteristics, COVID-19 symptoms, and therapy of the two groups. Values in brackets are expressed as percentages unless specified. Musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.Rheumatoid arthritis N=111Controls N=89P value*ACTIVE SMOKERS13 (12)20 (22)BMI (IQR)24 (7)23(6)COMORBIDITIES64 (58)44 (49)Cardiovascular26 (23)18 (20)Endocrine24 (22)14 (16)Musculoskeletal11 (10)6 (7)Neoplastic12 (11)3 (3)CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS96 (86)74 (83)Fever50 (45)47 (53)Constitutional symptoms52 (47)75 (84)p <0.00001Respiratory symptoms100 (90)86 (97)Gastrointestinal symptoms12 (11)13 (15)THERAPY88 (79)74 (67)NSAIDs41 (37)31 (35)Glucocorticoids24 (22)21 (30)Antibiotics33 (30)27 (24)Oxygen6 (5)5 (6)Heparin8 (7)0 (0)p <0.039HOSPITALIZATION10 (9)6 (9)*Where not indi ated, p value >0.5Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Introduction/Objective COVID-19 vaccine-related lymphadenopathy, particularly in the ipsilateral axilla, is a relatively well-known side effect of mRNA vaccines with many reports in radiology, but less is known regarding histopathology and additional sites of lymphadenopathy, as well as other localized potential vaccine-related mass manifestations. In addition to a case of minimal change disease, we report two cases here with associated systemic and local pathologic changes related to COVID-19 vaccination. Methods/Case Report In case #1, a 17-year-old male presented with a 2.4 cm left postauricular mass. He had originally noticed the mass six months prior and thought that it had recently been growing. The mass was soft, nonfluctuant, and nontender to palpation. Given the risk of malignancy, a resection was performed. Histology showed an enlarged lymph node composed of mixed inflammatory cell components consistent with lymphoid hyperplasia and no evidence of malignancy. On further chart review, the patient had received his second COVID-19 vaccination just prior to noticing the mass enlarging. A SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike IgG assay was as high as 24,396 AU/ml, suggesting that this benign lymphadenopathy was most likely related to his vaccination. For case #2, a 47-year-old male developed a painless right deltoid mass shortly after receiving his vaccination at the same area that subsequently increased in size over seven months to 6.5 cm. Imaging showed a heterogeneous mass within the deltoid muscle concerning for malignancy and a biopsy was performed. Sections showed wavy, bland spindle cells with nuclei staining diffusely positive for beta-catenin, consistent with fibromatosis at his vaccination site. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) NA. Conclusion In summary, these case reports show potential systemic and local reactive effects in response to COVID-19 vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Vaccination has been proved to be the most effective strategy to prevent the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The mRNA vaccine based on nano drug delivery system (NDDS) - lipid nanoparticles (LNP) has been widely used because of its high effectiveness and safety. Although there have been reports of severe allergic reactions caused by mRNA-LNP vaccines, the mechanism and components of anaphylaxis have not been completely clarified yet. This review focuses on two mRNA-LNP vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. After summarizing the structural characteristics, potential allergens, possible allergic reaction mechanism, and pharmacokinetics of mRNA and LNP in vivo, this article then reviews the evaluation methods for patients with allergic history, as well as the regulations of different countries and regions on people who should not be vaccinated, in order to promote more safe injection of vaccines. LNP has become a recognized highly customizable nucleic acid delivery vector, which not only shows its value in mRNA vaccines, but also has great potential in treating rare diseases, cancers and other broad fields in the future. At the moment when mRNA-LNP vaccines open a new era of nano medicine, it is expected to provide some inspiration for safety research in the process of research, development and evaluation of more nano delivery drugs, and promote more nano drugs successfully to market.Copyright © 2023, Chinese Pharmaceutical Association. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
During the past 2 years, messenger RNA (mRNA) nanovaccine has shown its remarkable antiviral efficacy, rapid manufacture, and good safety profile for preventing coronavirus infection. Meanwhile, intracellular delivery of mRNA-based cancer vaccine starts to show great potential to elicit antitumor immunity. mRNA encoding tumor antigens, delivery vehicles, and immune adjuvants are the key components of mRNA cancer vaccine. To achieve robust antitumor efficacy, mRNA encoding tumor antigens need to be efficiently delivered and translated in dendritic cells with concurrent innate immune stimulation to promote antigen presentation. Compared with other types of tumor vaccines, mRNA nanovaccine is featured by efficient antigen expression, high potential for rapid development, low-cost manufacture, and safe administration. In this chapter, we mainly focus on the mRNA synthesis, mRNA modification, delivery vectors with immune-stimulating features, and tumor antigen selection and discuss the future direction of mRNA nanovaccine in cancer immunotherapy. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023.