استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

This book is the first to tell the extraordinary yet unheralded history of monoclonal antibodies. Often referred to as Mabs, they are unfamiliar to most nonscientists, yet these microscopic protein molecules are everywhere, quietly shaping our lives and healthcare. Discovered in the mid-1970s in the laboratory where Watson and Crick had earlier unveiled the structure of DNA, Mabs have radically changed understandings of the pathways of disease. They have enabled faster, cheaper, and more accurate clinical diagnostic testing on a vast scale. And they have played a fundamental role in pharmaceutical innovation, leading to such developments as recombinant interferon and insulin, and personalized drug therapies such as Herceptin. Today Mabs constitute six of the world's top ten blockbuster drugs and make up a third of new introduced treatments. -- From dust jacket.

Oncology Book of 2011, British Medical Association's Medical Book Awards Awarded first prize in the Oncology category at the 2011 BMA Medical Book Awards, Monoclonal Antibody and Peptide-Targeted Radiotherapy of Cancer helps readers understand this hot pharmaceutical field with up-to-date developments. Expert discussion covers a range of diverse topics associated with this field, including the optimization of design of biomolecules and radiochemistry, cell and animal models for preclinical evaluation, discoveries from key clinical trials, radiation biology and dosimetry, and considerations in regulatory approval. With chapters authored by internationally renowned experts, this book delivers a wealth of information to push future discovery.

One-third of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with biological therapy show lack of response. The use of predictive biomarkers to identify responders to treatment may provide guidance in optimising treatment strategies and reduce unnecessary side effects and costs. To test the ability of myeloid-related proteins (MRP)8/14 protein complexes, an endogenous TLR-4 receptor agonist, to predict and monitor response to biologics in RA patients. 170 RA patients treated with adalimumab (n=86), infliximab (n=60) or rituximab (n=24) were categorised into clinical responders (n=123) and non-responders (n=47). MRP8/14 serum complexes were measured at baseline, and 4 and 16 weeks after initiation of treatment and related to response outcome. Before initiation of treatment, responders showed significantly higher MRP8/14 protein complex levels compared with non-responders in each prospective cohort (p=0.010, p=0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Logistic regression analysis showed that having high MRP8/14 baseline levels increased the odds of being a responder by 3.3 up to 55. In responders to adalimumab or infliximab treatment, MRP8/14 levels decreased after 4 weeks of treatment by 46% and 60% and after 16 weeks by 61% and 68%, respectively. In contrast, MRP8/14 levels were stable in non-responders. In patients treated with rituximab, MRP8/14 levels decreased by 59% after 16 weeks in responders and increased by 89% after 16 weeks in non-responders. Serum concentrations of MRP8/14 protein complex are a promising biomarker to predict response to biological therapy in active RA patients at baseline and could be used to monitor response to treatment across different mechanisms of action.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are one of the fastest growing classes of oncology therapeutics. After half a century of research, the approvals of brentuximab vedotin (in 2011) and trastuzumab emtansine (in 2013) have paved the way for ongoing clinical trials that are evaluating more than 60 further ADC candidates. The limited success of first-generation ADCs (developed in the early 2000s) informed strategies to bring second-generation ADCs to the market, which have higher levels of cytotoxic drug conjugation, lower levels of naked antibodies and more-stable linkers between the drug and the antibody. Furthermore, lessons learned during the past decade are now being used in the development of third-generation ADCs. In this Review, we discuss strategies to select the best target antigens as well as suitable cytotoxic drugs; the design of optimized linkers; the discovery of bioorthogonal conjugation chemistries; and toxicity issues. The selection and engineering of antibodies for site-specific drug conjugation, which will result in higher homogeneity and increased stability, as well as the quest for new conjugation chemistries and mechanisms of action, are priorities in ADC research.

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.

Angiopoietin-like 3 is an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase. Evinacumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, activating lipoprotein lipase. In patients with hypercholesterolemia that is refractory to statin and PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, the use of evinacumab reduced plasma lipid levels by more than 50% at the maximum dose.

Background The risk of subsequent infections in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who receive biologic therapy after a serious infection is unclear. Objective To compare the subsequent risk of hospitalised infections associated with specific biologic agents among RA patients previously hospitalised for infection while receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Methods Using 2006–2010 Medicare data for 100% of beneficiaries with RA enrolled in Medicare, we identified patients hospitalised with an infection while on anti-TNF agents. Follow-up began 61 days after hospital discharge and ended at the earliest of: next infection, loss of Medicare coverage or 18 months after start of follow-up. We calculated the incidence rate of subsequent hospitalised infection for each biologic and used Cox regression to control for potential confounders. Results 10 794 eligible hospitalised infections among 10183 unique RA patients who contributed at least 1 day of biologic exposure during follow-up. We identified 7807 person-years of exposure to selected biologics—333 abatacept, 133 rituximab and 7341 anti-TNFs (1797 etanercept, 1405 adalimumab, 4139 infliximab)—and 2666 associated infections. Mean age across biologic exposure cohorts was 64–69 years. The crude incidence rate of subsequent hospitalised infection ranged from 27.1 to 34.6 per 100 person-years. After multivariable adjustment, abatacept (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99) and etanercept (HR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96) users had significantly lower risks of subsequent infection compared to infliximab users. Conclusions Among RA patients who experienced a hospitalised infection while on anti-TNF therapy, abatacept and etanercept were associated with the lowest risk of subsequent infection compared to other biologic therapies.

Malaria remains a cause of substantial global morbidity and mortality. In this report, an engineered monoclonal antibody showed protection against malaria infection in a controlled human infection model.

To provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018. Only head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group. 36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15 370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer. Compared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events. PROSPERO CRD42017082553.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the relative efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus conventional drugs in patients with cancer that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology up to March 2018.Review methodsStudies of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) that had available hazard ratios for death based on PD-L1 positivity or negativity were included. The threshold for PD-L1 positivity or negativity was that PD-L1 stained cell accounted for 1% of tumour cells, or tumour and immune cells, assayed by immunohistochemistry staining methods.Results4174 patients with advanced or metastatic cancers from eight randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Compared with conventional agents, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with significantly prolonged overall survival in both patients that were PD-L1 positive (n=2254, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.74) and PD-L1 negative (1920, 0.80, 0.71 to 0.90). However, the efficacies of PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade treatment in patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative were significantly different (P=0.02 for interaction). Additionally, in both patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative, the long term clinical benefits from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade were observed consistently across interventional agent, cancer histotype, method of randomisation stratification, type of immunohistochemical scoring system, drug target, type of control group, and median follow-up time.ConclusionsPD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy is a preferable treatment option over conventional therapy for both patients that are PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. This finding suggests that PD-L1 expression status alone is insufficient in determining which patients should be offered PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy.