New take on comparative immunology: relevance to immunotherapy

The trouble with translational medicine

Increasingly more reports in the literature are reflecting on the hurdles of effective translation from promising results of biomedical research into useful therapeutics. A recurrent theme is that good intentions are frustrated by extrinsic factors upon which 'translationalists' have little control. It is possible that the problem resides, at least in part, within the translational community itself, which has failed to prioritize the steps required to approach the problem systematically. Most importantly, there is disproportionate emphasis on bench-to-bedside efforts, rather than confronting a priori the need to increase the understanding of human pathophysiology. Thus, therapeutic concepts based on experimental conditions that may not and indeed often do not represent the nature of human genetics lead to drug development that is not sufficiently applicable to the human condition. The damage is then amplified when these ill-fated concepts are tested in clinical trials at great cost. The use of surrogate biomarkers that could allow early assessment of efficacy currently requires long-term assessment of clinical benefit. This can delay by years or decades essential feedback about clinical efficacy. Moreover, scant effort is applied to learning whether a drug has achieved its biological endpoint, or why it failed its clinical endpoint. Thus, the feedback loop is not only delayed, but is often uninformative. As a consequence, researchers continue to produce novel therapeutic candidates based on experimental models without the essential benefit of lessons learned from previous failures. Biomedical research will succeed when drug development is guided by experience gained through informative clinical trials with the purpose of not only testing the effectiveness of treatment but also providing mechanistic insights into the differences between expected and observed results. This can only be achieved through the courageous effort of the research community to change the way biomedical research is funded, published and rewarded.

Intravenous immunoglobulin-based immunotherapy: an arsenal of possibilities for patients and science

The use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) concentrated from pooled healthy donors' plasma has gained increasing popularity. IVIG therapy has become important as a replacement therapy in primary and acquired humoral immunodeficiencies, and it has been extended to autoimmune, neurodegenerative and inflammatory conditions and transplantation therapy. Recurrent pregnancy failure and cancer are rather new platforms, where IVIG has shown its beneficial effects. This manuscript is focused on these two off-labelled usages. The immunomodulatory mechanisms of IVIG therapy appear as a coordinated orchestration of different functions, resulting in a synergistic effect. Treatment monitoring and detailed molecular analyses reveal how such treatments may interfere with disease pathogenesis. These finding may foster the development of novel therapeutic and/or preventive strategies. Studying this field with bidirectional bench-to-bedside and bedside-to-bench approaches fit well into 'the two-way road' paradigm of translational medicine.

Translational medicine--doing it backwards

In recent years the concept of "translational medicine" has been advanced in an attempt to catalyze the medical applications of basic biomedical research. However, there has been little discussion about the readiness of scientists themselves to respond to what we believe is a required new approach to scientific discovery if this new concept is to bear fruit. The present paradigm of hypothesis-driven research poorly suits the needs of biomedical research unless efforts are spent in identifying clinically relevant hypotheses. The dominant funding system favors hypotheses born from model systems and not humans, bypassing the Baconian principle of relevant observations and experimentation before hypotheses. Here, we argue that that this attitude has born two unfortunate results: lack of sufficient rigor in selecting hypotheses relevant to human disease and limitations of most clinical studies to certain outcome parameters rather than expanding knowledge of human pathophysiology; an illogical approach to translational medicine. If we wish to remain true to our responsibility and duty of performing research relevant to human disease, we must begin to think about fundamental new approaches.

NIH is the nation's medical research agency - making important medical discoveries that improve health and save lives.

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability [1].

Turning laboratory findings into therapy: a marathon goal that has to be reached

The mission of translational research involves difficult tasks to be accomplished for its ultimate goal, i.e., the introduction of novel, effective therapeutic strategies in the clinic to diminish human suffering and cure life-threatening diseases. Translational research (also referred to as translational medicine) facilitates the translation of investment in biomedical research into successful medical treatment. This includes the transfer of diagnostic and therapeutic advances by proving their efficacy in large evidence-based trials. Through the study of humans novel insights about disease are brought back to the laboratory to identify new, observation-based strategies. This "two-way road" ("bench to bedside and bedside to bench") process includes formulating guidelines for drug development and principles for new therapeutic strategies; initiating clinical investigations that provide the biological basis for new therapies, and related clinical trials; defining therapeutic targets and clinical endpoints. It requires a systematic approach beginning with specimen sampling, patient data collection, laboratory investigations, data analysis, preclinical testing, clinical trials, treatment efficacy monitoring, and finally the evaluation of therapeutic result. The marathon well symbolizes the enormous efforts undertaken by clinicians, scientists, regulators, ethicists, patient advocates, drug developers, and others, coordinately attempting to overcome obstacles along this road toward the final "marathon goal in medicine".

Emerging concepts in biomarker discovery; the US-Japan Workshop on Immunological Molecular Markers in Oncology

Supported by the Office of International Affairs, National Cancer Institute (NCI), the "US-Japan Workshop on Immunological Biomarkers in Oncology" was held in March 2009. The workshop was related to a task force launched by the International Society for the Biological Therapy of Cancer (iSBTc) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify strategies for biomarker discovery and validation in the field of biotherapy. The effort will culminate on October 28th 2009 in the "iSBTc-FDA-NCI Workshop on Prognostic and Predictive Immunologic Biomarkers in Cancer", which will be held in Washington DC in association with the Annual Meeting. The purposes of the US-Japan workshop were a) to discuss novel approaches to enhance the discovery of predictive and/or prognostic markers in cancer immunotherapy; b) to define the state of the science in biomarker discovery and validation. The participation of Japanese and US scientists provided the opportunity to identify shared or discordant themes across the distinct immune genetic background and the diverse prevalence of disease between the two Nations. Converging concepts were identified: enhanced knowledge of interferon-related pathways was found to be central to the understanding of immune-mediated tissue-specific destruction (TSD) of which tumor rejection is a representative facet. Although the expression of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) likely mediates the inflammatory process leading to tumor rejection, it is insufficient by itself and the associated mechanisms need to be identified. It is likely that adaptive immune responses play a broader role in tumor rejection than those strictly related to their antigen-specificity; likely, their primary role is to trigger an acute and tissue-specific inflammatory response at the tumor site that leads to rejection upon recruitment of additional innate and adaptive immune mechanisms. Other candidate systemic and/or tissue-specific biomarkers were recognized that might be added to the list of known entities applicable in immunotherapy trials. The need for a systematic approach to biomarker discovery that takes advantage of powerful high-throughput technologies was recognized; it was clear from the current state of the science that immunotherapy is still in a discovery phase and only a few of the current biomarkers warrant extensive validation. It was, finally, clear that, while current technologies have almost limitless potential, inadequate study design, limited standardization and cross-validation among laboratories and suboptimal comparability of data remain major road blocks. The institution of an interactive consortium for high throughput molecular monitoring of clinical trials with voluntary participation might provide cost-effective solutions.