Nasal Administration of Anti-CD3 Monoclonal Antibody (Foralumab) Reduces Lung Inflammation and Blood Inflammatory Biomarkers in Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Patients: A Pilot Study

Intranasal delivery of thin-film freeze-dried monoclonal antibodies using a powder nasal spray system

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) administered intranasally as dry powders can be potentially applied for the treatment or pre-exposure prevention of viral infections in the upper respiratory tract. However, a method to transform the mAbs from liquid to dry powders suitable for intranasal administration and a device that can spray the dry powders to the desired region of the nasal cavity are needed to fully realize the potentials of the mAbs. Herein, we report that thin-film freeze-dried mAb powders can be sprayed into the posterior nasal cavity using Aptar Pharma's Unidose (UDS) Powder Nasal Spray System. AUG-3387, a human-derived mAb that neutralizes the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was used in the present study. First, we prepared thin-film freeze-dried AUG-3387 powders (i.e., TFF AUG-3387 powders) from liquid formulations containing different levels of mAbs. The TFF AUG-3387 powder with the highest solid content (i.e., TFF AUG-3387C) was then chosen for further characterization, including the evaluation of the plume geometry, spray pattern, and particle size distribution after the powder was sprayed using the UDS Powder Nasal Spray. Finally, the deposition patterns of the TFF AUG-3387C powder sprayed using the UDS Powder delivery system were studied using 3D-printed nasal replica casts based on the CT scans of an adult and a child. It is concluded that it is feasible to intranasally deliver mAbs as dry powders by transforming the mAbs into dry powders using thin-film freeze-drying and then spraying the powder using a powder nasal spray system.

Reconsidering the route of drug delivery in refractory multiple sclerosis: Toward a more effective drug accumulation in the central nervous system

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic demyelinating disease with different disease phenotypes. The current FDA-approved disease-modifying therapeutics (DMTs) cannot cure the disease, but only alleviate the disease progression. While the majority of patients respond well to treatment, some of them are suffering from rapid progression. Current drug delivery strategies include the oral, intravenous, subdermal, and intramuscular routes, so these drugs are delivered systemically, which is appropriate when the therapeutic targets are peripheral. However, the potential benefits may be diminished when these targets sequester behind the barriers of the central nervous system. Moreover, systemic drug administration is plagued with adverse effects, sometimes severe. In this context, it is prudent to consider other drug delivery strategies improving their accumulation in the brain, thus providing better prospects for patients with rapidly progressing disease course. These targeted drug delivery strategies may also reduce the severity of systemic adverse effects. Here, we discuss the possibilities and indications for reconsideration of drug delivery routes (especially for those "non-responding" patients) and the search for alternative drug delivery strategies. More targeted drug delivery strategies sometimes require quite invasive procedures, but the potential therapeutic benefits and reduction of adverse effects could outweigh the risks. We characterized the major FDA-approved DMTs focusing on their therapeutic mechanism and the potential benefits of improving the accumulation of these drugs in the brain.

Nasal administration of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody ameliorates disease in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

Emerging evidence suggests that dysregulation of neuroinflammation, particularly that orchestrated by microglia, plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Danger signals including dead neurons, dystrophic axons, phosphorylated tau, and amyloid plaques alter the functional phenotype of microglia from a homeostatic (M0) to a neurodegenerative or disease-associated phenotype, which in turn drives neuroinflammation and promotes disease. Thus, therapies that target microglia activation constitute a unique approach for treating AD. Here, we report that nasally administered anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody in the 3xTg AD mouse model reduced microglial activation and improved cognition independent of amyloid beta deposition. In addition, gene expression analysis demonstrated decreased oxidative stress, increased axogenesis and synaptic organization, and metabolic changes in the hippocampus and cortex of nasal anti-CD3 treated animals. The beneficial effect of nasal anti-CD3 was associated with the accumulation of T cells in the brain where they were in close contact with microglial cells. Taken together, our findings identify nasal anti-CD3 as a unique form of immunotherapy to treat Alzheimer's disease independent of amyloid beta targeting.

Nasal delivery as a strategy for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The upper respiratory tract is a major route of infection for COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases. Thus, it appears logical to exploit the nose as administration site to prevent, fight, or minimize infectious spread and treat the disease. Numerous nasal products addressing these aspects have been considered and developed for COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

This review gives a comprehensive overview of the different approaches involving nasal delivery, i.e., nasal vaccination, barrier products, and antiviral pharmacological treatments that have led to products on the market or under clinical evaluation, highlighting the peculiarities of the nose as application and absorption site and pointing at key aspects of nasal drug delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

From the analysis of nasal delivery strategies to prevent or fight COVID-19, it emerges that, especially for nasal immunization, formulations appear the same as originally designed for parenteral administration, leading to suboptimal results. On the other hand, mechanical barrier and antiviral products, designed to halt or treat the infection at early stage, have been proven effective but were rarely brought to the clinics. If supported by robust and targeted product development strategies, intranasal immunization and drug delivery can represent valid and sometimes superior alternatives to more conventional parenteral and oral medications.

Higher- versus Lower-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe to Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis

Rationale: Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objectives: To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and absolute risk difference per 1,000, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared with lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (absolute risk difference, 14 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% CI, 26 fewer to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty) and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (absolute risk difference, 11.6 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI, 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty). The effect of corticosteroids on nosocomial infections is uncertain (16.7 fewer infections per 1,000 [95% CI, 5.4 fewer to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions: Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

Nasal administration of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody modulates effector CD8+ T cell function and induces a regulatory response in T cells in human subjects

Background

Parenteral anti-CD3 Mab (OKT3) has been used to treat transplant rejection and parental administration of a humanized anti-CD3 Mab (Teplizumab) showed positive effects in diabetes. Nasal administration of anti-CD3 Mab has not been carried out in humans. Nasal anti-CD3 Mab suppresses autoimmune diseases and central nervous system (CNS) inflammation in animal models. We investigated the safety and immune effects of a fully humanized, previously uncharacterized nasal anti-CD3 Mab (Foralumab) in humans and its in vitro stimulatory properties.

Methods

In vitro, Foralumab were compared to UCHT1 anti-human CD3 mAb. For human administration, 27 healthy volunteers (9 per group) received nasal Foralumab or placebo at a dose of 10ug, 50ug, or 250ug daily for 5 days. Safety was assessed and immune parameters measured on day 1 (pre-treatment), 7, 14, and 30 by FACS and by scRNAseq.

Results

In vitro, Foralumab preferentially induced CD8+ T cell stimulation, reduced CD4+ T cell proliferation and lowered expression of IFNg, IL-17 and TNFa. Foralumab induced LAP, TIGIT, and KLRG1 immune checkpoint molecules on CD8+ and CD4+ T cells in a mechanism independent of CD8 T cells. In vivo, nasal Foralumab did not modulate CD3 from the T cell surface at any dose. Immune effects were primarily observed at the 50ug dose and consisted of reduction of CD8+ effector memory cells, an increase in naive CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, and reduced CD8+ T cell granzyme B and perforin expression. Differentially expressed genes observed by scRNAseq in CD8+ and CD4+ populations promoted survival and were anti-inflammatory. In the CD8+ TEMRA population there was induction of TIGIT, TGFB1 and KIR3DL2, indicative of a regulatory phenotype. In the memory CD4+ population, there was induction of CTLA4, KLRG1, and TGFB whereas there was an induction of TGF-B1 in naïve CD4+ T cells. In monocytes, there was induction of genes (HLA-DP, HLA-DQ) that promote a less inflammatory immune response. No side effects were observed, and no subjects developed human anti-mouse antibodies.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that nasal Foralumab is safe and immunologically active in humans and presents a new avenue for the treatment of autoimmune and CNS diseases.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

TriTECM: A tetrafunctional T-cell engaging antibody with built-in risk mitigation of cytokine release syndrome

Harnessing the innate power of T cells for therapeutic benefit has seen many shortcomings due to cytotoxicity in the past, but still remains a very attractive mechanism of action for immune-modulating biotherapeutics. With the intent of expanding the therapeutic window for T-cell targeting biotherapeutics, we present an attenuated trispecific T-cell engager (TCE) combined with an anti- interleukin 6 receptor (IL-6R) binding moiety in order to modulate cytokine activity (TriTECM). Overshooting cytokine release, culminating in cytokine release syndrome (CRS), is one of the severest adverse effects observed with T-cell immunotherapies, where the IL-6/IL-6R axis is known to play a pivotal role. By targeting two tumour-associated antigens, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), simultaneously with a bispecific two-in-one antibody, high tumour selectivity together with checkpoint inhibition was achieved. We generated tetrafunctional molecules that contained additional CD3- and IL-6R-binding modules. Ligand competition for both PD-L1 and IL-6R as well as inhibition of both EGF- and IL-6-mediated signalling pathways was observed. Furthermore, TriTECM molecules were able to activate T cells and trigger T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity through CD3-binding in an attenuated fashion. A decrease in pro-inflammatory cytokine interferon γ (IFNγ) after T-cell activation was observed for the TriTECM molecules compared to their respective controls lacking IL-6R binding, hinting at a successful attenuation and potential modulation via IL-6R. As IL-6 is a key player in cytokine release syndrome as well as being implicated in enhancing tumour progression, such molecule designs could reduce side effects and cytotoxicity observed with previous TCEs and widen their therapeutic windows.

Lymphocyte-Related Immunomodulatory Therapy with Siponimod (BAF-312) Improves Outcomes in Mice with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Modulators of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) have been proposed as a promising strategy for treating stroke. However, the detailed mechanisms and the potential translational value of S1PR modulators for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) therapy warrant exploration. Using collagenase VII-S-induced ICH in the left striatum of mice, we investigated the effects of siponimod on cellular and molecular immunoinflammatory responses in the hemorrhagic brain in the presence or absence of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibodies (Abs). We also assessed the severity of short- and long-term brain injury and evaluated the efficacy of siponimod in long-term neurologic function. Siponimod treatment significantly decreased brain lesion volume and brain water content on day 3 and the volume of the residual lesion and brain atrophy on day 28. It also inhibited neuronal degeneration on day 3 and improved long-term neurologic function. These protective effects may be associated with a reduction in the expression of lymphotactin (XCL1) and T-helper 1 (Th1)-type cytokines (interleukin 1β and interferon-γ). It may also be associated with inhibition of neutrophil and lymphocyte infiltration and alleviation of T lymphocyte activation in perihematomal tissues on day 3. However, siponimod did not affect the infiltration of natural killer cells (NK) or the activation of CD3-negative immunocytes in perihematomal tissues. Furthermore, it did not influence the activation or proliferation of microglia or astrocytes around the hematoma on day 3. Siponimod appears to have a profound impact on infiltration and activation of T lymphocytes after ICH. The effects of neutralized anti-CD3 Abs-induced T-lymphocyte tolerance on siponimod immunomodulation further confirmed that siponimod alleviated the cellular and molecular Th1 response in the hemorrhagic brain. This study provides preclinical evidence that encourages future investigation of immunomodulators, including siponimod, which target the lymphocyte-related immunoinflammatory reaction in ICH therapy.