For modulation of Th cell responses, peptides offere several advantages over intact Ags as immunogens or tolerogens (either as altered peptide ligands (APLs), competitors, or vaccines). First, peptides require less stringent degradative conditions than native Ags. Second, with a smaller determinant, there is less likelihood of cross-reactivity between the peptide and other self-proteins. And third, peptides offer exquisite specificity over native Ags. Despite these advantages, the use of peptides has remained fairly limited, because they are rapidly cleared from the circulation and poorly taken-up by APCs (by pinocytosis only) : effectiveness of taking up can be increased by coupling peptides to ligands (eg. transferrin (Tf)) specific for cell surface receptors found on APCs (eg. CD71 / TfR).
![]() |
Subscribe to Cancer Vaccines | |
| Email: | |
|
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
|
|
epitopes presentable by MHC class I molecules of |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plasmid priming + AAV boosting | ||||
| BCL1 | anti-Id antibodies-dependent (30-80%) |
anti-Id antibodies-dependent (30-100%) | ||||||||
| 38C13 (Href, Lref) | anti-Id antibodies-independent (30%) |
no anti-idiotype antibodies induced (exception : ) (40%) |
no anti-Id antibodies induced (80%) |
|||||||
| JLms (sIg-) | CD8+ T cell-dependent (20%) |
CD8+ T cell-dependent (50%) |
no anti-Id antibodies induced CD8+ T cell-dependent |
|||||||
This effort should clearly be integrated with RAID's mission
of developing academically held immunotherapeutics using the
BRB as a resource for coordination of the production of these
materials. Such an enterprise cannot be successful unless its
budget is at least doubled and its physical plant
significantly upgraded. These increases represent a tiny
fraction of the total NCI budget and would go a long way to
fulfilling the stated mission: significant reduction in cancer
morbidity and mortality over the next decade. Resources might
also come through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, as
this endeavor is clearly aligned with the NIH's vision of
creating translationally relevant core technologies and making
their outputs broadly available to the community. The FDA must
take responsibility for better educating itself and the
oncology community regarding the cutting-edge
immunotherapeutics currently being developed. This would be
most efficiently accomplished by significantly expanding the
scope of BRMAC's composition and advisory role. In addition,
the FDA could develop an online database of immunotherapeutics
that covers mechanisms of action, potential and actual
toxicities, contacts (within academia, companies and the FDA)
with expertise in a particular area and regulatory
points-to-consider for investigational new drug applications.
This would alleviate much of the confusion and misperceptions
about regulatory issues regarding specific classes of agents.
As suggested above, the FDA has great power to facilitate the
development of combinations of experimental biologic agents by
promoting the message that combinatorial experimental
therapies with a sound scientific basis are encouraged rather
than discouraged. This message can only come with the
confidence of a well-educated FDA that communicates more
effectively with both academia and industry. In the case of
cancer therapeutics, creation of separate centers for the
evaluation of therapeutics for acutely lethal diseases may
facilitate a more accommodating atmosphere for novel
combinatorial immunotherapeutics by reorientation of
risk-benefit judgments. Only with concerted measures such as
these will the tremendous opportunities that immunologic
science has provided over the past decade be effectively
tapped for the sake of the most effective therapy for patients
with cancer.
Thus far, the emphasis has been on the activation of one arm
of the immune system, in the majority of cases T-cell
immunity, since T cells are believed to be the major players
in tumor control. The available experimental evidence argues
that activation of multiple arms of the immune system is a
must to enhance the ability of immunotherapy to control tumor
growthref1,
ref2
Companies
manufacturing
cancer immunotherapeutics
Web resources :
Approach to manufacturing and characterizing bulk populations of gene-modified autologous T cells for use in treating follicular lymphoma PBMC from healthy donors, obtained after informed consent, were stimulated in vitro with Ab to CD3e (OKT3) and rhuIL-2 and then electroporated with plasmid DNA containing a human CD19-specific chimeric Ag receptor (CAR) gene and HSV-1 thymidine kinase (TK) gene. Stably transfected cells were selected in cytocidal concentrations of hygromycin B over multiple 14-day stimulation culture cycles and then cryopreserved. Vials of cryopreserved/selected T cells were used to initiate T-cell expansion cultures to produce cell products for clinical infusion. These cultures were characterized for phenotype, function and suitability for use in adoptive immunotherapy studies. Bulk populations of gene-modified T cells derived from peripheral blood of healthy donors express CD19+ chimeric Ag receptor at low levels and can specifically lyse CD19+ target cells in vitro. These cells display a differentiated T-effector phenotype, are sensitive to ganciclovir-mediated killing and display a non-transformed phenotype. TCR Vb usage indicated that all populations tested were polyclonal. Ex vivo cell expansion from cryopreserved cell banks is sufficient to produce doses of between 5x109 and 1x1010 cells/run. One of three transductions resulted in a population of cells that was not suitable for infusion but was identified during release testing. No populations displayed any evidence of bacterial, fungal or mycoplasma contamination. Genetically modified T cells have been characterized by cell-surface marker phenotype, functional activity against CD19+ targets and requisite safety testing. These pre-clinical data confirm the feasibility of this approach to manufacturing T-cell productsref. Characterization of an artificial antigen-presenting cell to propagate cytolytic CD19-specific T cellsref. CD28 costimulation provided through a CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor enhances in vivo persistence and antitumor efficacy of adoptively transferred T cellsref
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentaglobin© | |
| manufacturer | Alpha Therapeutic Corp. | Alpha Therapeutic Corp. | Baxter Corp./Hyland Immune Division | Immuno-U.S. Inc. | Baxter Corp./Hyland Immune Division; distrib. by American Red Cross (ARC) | Bayer | Aventis Behring | ZLB Bioplasma | Kedrion S.p.a. | Baxter S.p.a. | American Red Cross | Baxter Corp. | Novartis Pharmaceuticals | Biotest |
| formulations | 5% (half the solvent can be used to create a 10% = 100
mg/ml solution) :
|
5% :
|
5% :
|
5%
|
||||||||||
| method of preparation (including viral inactivation) | cold alcohol fractionation, PEG/bentonite fractionation, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley ultrafiltration, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | cold ethanol, PEG, trypsin | Cohn-Oncley ultrafiltration, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley pH 4.25, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley pasteurization, ultrafiltration | KistlerNitschmann; pH 4.0 + trace pepsin | Cohn alcohol fractionation, New York Blood Center solvent-detergent treatment, pH 4.0 | ||||||
| form | liquid | liquid | lyophilized | lyophilized | lyophilized | liquid | lyophilized | lyophilized | liquid | |||||
| shelf-life | 24 months | 24 months | 24 months at T < 25°C (2 hrs after reconstitution) | 24 months | 27 months | 26 months | 24 months | 24 months | storage +2-+8°C | |||||
| reconstitution time | liquid solution | liquid solution | < 5' at RT; > 20' if cold | < 10' at RT | < 5' at RT; > 20' if cold | liquid solution | < 20' | several minutes | ||||||
| recommended concentration | 5% | 10% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 10% | 5% | 3% | ||||||
| recommended infusion rate | 3 mL/kg/hr | 3 mL/kg/hr | 0.5 ml/kg/h => 8 mL/kg/hr | 2 mL/min | 4 mL/kg/hr | 4.8 mL/kg/hr | 3.6 mL/kg/hr | 2.5 mL/min | 0.46-0.92 ml/kg/h for 20-30 minutes, then increase up to 1.85 ml/kg/h | 0.16 ml/kg/min | ||||
| time to infuse 70 g (1g/kg) | 7 hr | 3.5 hr | 5.3 hr | 12 hr | 5.3 hr | 2.3 hr | 5.8 hr | 16 hr | ||||||
| sugar content | 5% D-sorbitol | 5% D-sorbitol | 2% glucose | 5% glucose | 2% glucose | sugar-free (glycine) | 5% sucrose | 5% sucrose | maltose | glucose (1 g/g IgG), macrogol | ||||
| sodium content (determines osmolality) | 1.3 mEq/L | < 1 mEq/L | 0.85% at 5% concentration | 0.3% | 0.85% at 5% concentration | trace | 0.5% | up to 0.9%, depending on diluent | ||||||
| osmolality | 300 mOsm/L | 300 mOsm/L | 5% 636 mOsm/L, 10% 1,250 mOsm/L | > 240 | 5% 636 mOsm/L, 10% 1,250 mOsm/L | 274 mOsm/L | 5% 309 mOsm/L, 10% 600 mOsm/L | in sterile water (mOsm/L); 3% 192, 6% 384, 12% 768; in normal saline (mOsm/L) : 3% 498, 6% 690, 12% 1074 | ||||||
| pH | 5.2-5.8 | 5.2-5.8 | 6.8 | 6.4-7.2 | 6.8 | 4.25 | 6.8 | 6.6 | ||||||
| IgG |
> 95% of 50 g/l | 38 mg/ml | ||||||||||||
| IgG subclasses | as in normal blood |
|
|
|
||||||||||
| IgA |
15.1 mg/mL | 20-50 mg/mL | < 3.7 mg/mL | < 10 mg/mL | < 3.7 mg/mL | 270 mg/mL | < 25 mg/mL | 720 mg/mL | < 0.05 mg/ml | < 0.05 mg/ml | 6 mg/ml | |||
| IgM |
6 mg/ml |
| Indications |
|
|
|
| substitutive therapy | primary
immunodeficiencies |
initial dose : 0.4-0.8 g/kg following doses : 0.2-0.8 g/kg |
every 2-4 weeks to keep basal IgG levels > 4-6 g/l |
| secondary
immunedeficiencies |
0.2-0.4 g/kg | every 3-4 weeks to keep basal IgG levels > 4-6 g/l | |
| prophylaxis in CLL |
400 mg/kg | every 3 weeks | |
| prophylaxis in MM |
400 mg/kg | every 4 weeks | |
| prophylaxis after surgery |
400 mg/kg | weekly up to 4 infsions or dimission from ICU (+ASA) | |
| AIDS |
0.2-0.4 g/kg | every 3-4 weeks | |
| immunomodulation | ITP |
0.8-1 g/kg OR 0.4 g/kg/day |
the first day, possibly repeating a second time
within 3 days OR for 2-5 days |
| Guillain
Barré
syndrome |
0.4 g/kg/day | for 3-7 days (5 consecutive days) | |
| multifocal
motor
neuropathy |
0.4 g/kg/day or 2 g/kg | for 5 consecutive days or 2-4 days | |
| Kawasaki
disease |
1.6-2 g/kg or 2 g/kg | in doses divided in 2-5 day, in association with
ASA. OR in single dose, in association with ASA |
|
| myasthenia
gravis |
0.4 g/kg/day | for 5 consecutive days in critical phases not well compensated by specific therapy; | |
| allogeneic
HSCT |
treatment of infections and prophylaxis of GvHD | 0.5 g/kg | every week since day 7 before HSCT to month 3 (every 2 days in the induction phase for a total of 10 doses; twice weekly in maintenance for a total of 8 doses; associate ganciclovir in both phases) |
| persistent deficiency in antibody production | 0.2-0.6 g/kg | every week and then every month until antibody levels return normal | |
|
|
|
|
|
| -cir- | -xi | -mab | abciximab |
| -lim- | -zu | -mab | daclizumab |

Side effects : hypophysitisin about 4% of patients due to CTLA-4 antigen expressed “ectopically” on pituitary endocrine cellsref

|
|
|
for |
|