Complement Activation-Related Pathophysiological Changes in Anesthetized Rats: Activator-Dependent Variations of Symptoms and Mediators of Pseudoallergy

Inhibition of acute complement responses towards bolus-injected nanoparticles using targeted short-circulating regulatory proteins

Effective inhibition of the complement system is needed to prevent the accelerated clearance of nanomaterials by complement cascade and inflammatory responses. Here we show that a fusion construct consisting of human complement receptor 2 (CR2) (which recognizes nanosurface-deposited complement 3 (C3)) and complement receptor 1 (CR1) (which blocks C3 convertases) inhibits complement activation with picomolar to low nanomolar efficacy on many types of nanomaterial. We demonstrate that only a small percentage of nanoparticles are randomly opsonized with C3 both in vitro and in vivo, and CR2-CR1 immediately homes in on this subpopulation. Despite rapid in vivo clearance, the co-injection of CR2-CR1 in rats, or its mouse orthologue CR2-Crry in mice, with superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles nearly completely blocks complement opsonization and unwanted granulocyte/monocyte uptake. Furthermore, the inhibitor completely prevents lethargy caused by bolus-injected nanoparticles, without inducing long-lasting complement suppression. These findings suggest the potential of the targeted complement regulators for clinical evaluation.

Lessons learned from immunological characterization of nanomaterials at the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory

Nanotechnology carriers have become common in pharmaceutical products because of their benefits to drug delivery, including reduced toxicities and improved efficacy of active pharmaceutical ingredients due to targeted delivery, prolonged circulation time, and controlled payload release. While available examples of reduced drug toxicity through formulation using a nanocarrier are encouraging, current data also demonstrate that nanoparticles may change a drug’s biodistribution and alter its toxicity profile. Moreover, individual components of nanoparticles and excipients commonly used in formulations are often not immunologically inert and contribute to the overall immune responses to nanotechnology-formulated products. Said immune responses may be beneficial or adverse depending on the indication, dose, dose regimen, and route of administration. Therefore, comprehensive toxicology studies are of paramount importance even when previously known drugs, components, and excipients are used in nanoformulations. Recent data also suggest that, despite decades of research directed at hiding nanocarriers from the immune recognition, the immune system’s inherent property of clearing particulate materials can be leveraged to improve the therapeutic efficacy of drugs formulated using nanoparticles. Herein, I review current knowledge about nanoparticles’ interaction with the immune system and how these interactions contribute to nanotechnology-formulated drug products’ safety and efficacy through the lens of over a decade of nanoparticle characterization at the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory.

Immunomodulatory properties of nanostructured systems for cancer therapy

Based on statistical data reported in 2020, cancer was responsible for approximately 10 million deaths. Furthermore, 17 million new cases were diagnosed worldwide. Nanomedicine and immunotherapy have shown satisfactory clinical results among all scientific and technological alternatives for the treatment of cancer patients. Immunotherapy-based treatments comprise the consideration of new alternatives to hinder neoplastic proliferation and to reduce adverse events in the body, thereby promoting immune destruction of diseased cells. Additionally, nanostructured systems have been proven to elicit specific immune responses that may enhance anti-tumor activity. A new generation of nanomedicines, based on biomimetic and bioinspired systems, has been proposed to target tumors by providing immunomodulatory features and by enabling recovery of human immune destruction capacity against cancer cells. This review provides an overview of the aspects and the mechanisms by which nanomedicines can be used to enhance clinical procedures using the immune modulatory responses of nanoparticles (NPs) in the host defense system. We initially outline the cancer statistics for conventional and new treatment approaches providing a brief description of the human host defense system and basic principles of NP interactions with monocytes, leukocytes, and dendritic cells for the modulation of antitumor immune responses. A report on different biomimetic and bioinspired systems is also presented here and their particularities in cancer treatments are addressed, highlighting their immunomodulatory properties. Finally, we propose future perspectives regarding this new therapeutic strategy, highlighting the main challenges for future use in clinical practice.

To PEGylate or not to PEGylate: Immunological properties of nanomedicine's most popular component, polyethylene glycol and its alternatives

Polyethylene glycol or PEG has a long history of use in medicine. Many conventional formulations utilize PEG as either an active ingredient or an excipient. PEG found its use in biotechnology therapeutics as a tool to slow down drug clearance and shield protein therapeutics from undesirable immunogenicity. Nanotechnology field applies PEG to create stealth drug carriers with prolonged circulation time and decreased recognition and clearance by the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS). Most nanomedicines approved for clinical use and experimental nanotherapeutics contain PEG. Among the most recent successful examples are two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines that are delivered by PEGylated lipid nanoparticles. The breadth of PEG use in a wide variety of over the counter (OTC) medications as well as in drug products and vaccines stimulated research which uncovered that PEG is not as immunologically inert as it was initially expected. Herein, we review the current understanding of PEG's immunological properties and discuss them in the context of synthesis, biodistribution, safety, efficacy, and characterization of PEGylated nanomedicines. We also review the current knowledge about immunological compatibility of other polymers that are being actively investigated as PEG alternatives.

Getting to the Core of It All: Nanocapsules to Mitigate Infusion Reactions Can Promote Hemostasis and Be a Platform for Intravenous Therapies

One of the significant challenges to translation of intravenously administered nanomaterials has been complement-mediated infusion reactions which can be lethal. Slow infusions can reduce infusion reactions, but slow infusions are not always possible in applications like controlling bleeding following trauma. Thus, avoiding complement activation and infusion responses is essential to manage bleeding. We identified nanocapsules based on polyurethane as candidates that did not activate C5a and explored their PEGylation and functionalization with the GRGDS peptide to create a new class of hemostatic nanomaterials. Using the clinically relevant rotational thromboelastography (ROTEM), we determined that nanocapsules promote faster clotting than controls and maintain the maximum clot firmness, which is critical for reducing bleeding. Excitingly, these polyurethane-based nanocapsules did not activate complement or the major pro-inflammatory cytokines. This work provides critical evidence for the role of modulating the core material in developing safer nanomedicines for intravenous applications.

Spotlight on the protein corona of liposomes

Although an established drug delivery platform, liposomes have not fulfilled their true potential. In the body, interactions of liposomes are mediated by the layer of plasma proteins adsorbed on the surface, the protein corona. The review aims to collect the data of the last decade on liposome protein corona, tracing the path from interactions of individual proteins to the effects mediated by the protein corona in vivo. It offers a classification of the approaches to exploitation of the protein corona-rather than elimination thereof-based on the bilayer composition-corona composition-molecular interactions-biological performance framework. The multitude of factors that affect each level of this relationship urge to the widest implementation of bioinformatics tools to predict the most effective liposome compositions relying on the data on protein corona. Supplementing the picture with new pieces of accurately reported experimental data will contribute to the accuracy and efficiency of the predictions. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The review focuses on liposomes as an established nanomedicine platform and analyzes the available data on how the protein corona formed on liposome surface in biological fluids affects performance of the liposomes. The review offers a rigorous account of existing literature and critical analysis of methodology currently applied to the assessment of liposome-plasma protein interactions. It introduces a classification of the approaches to exploitation of the protein corona and tailoring liposome carriers to advance the field of nanoparticulate drug delivery systems for the benefit of patients.

Complement-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to an amphotericin B-containing lipid complex (Abelcet) in pediatric patients and anesthetized rats: Benefits of slow infusion

Intravenous administration of lipid-based nanodrugs can cause hypersensitivity, also known as infusion reactions (IRs), that can be attenuated by slow infusion in adult patients. We studied the role of infusion rate and complement (C) activation in IRs in pediatric patients treated with Abelcet, and also in anesthetized rats. IRs were observed in 6 out of 10 (60%) patients who received Abelcet infusion in 4 h or less, while no patients who received the infusion in 6 h showed C activation or IRs. The rat model indicated an inverse relationship between infusion speed and Abelcet-induced hypotension, taken as an experimental endpoint of IRs, while the rise of C3a in blood, an index of C activation, directly correlated with hypotension. The results suggest that pediatric patients are more prone to produce IRs, and that the optimal infusion time of Abelcet may be much longer than the presently recommended 2 h.

The Critical Choice of Animal Models in Nanomedicine Safety Assessment: A Lesson Learned From Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers

Intravenous injection of nanopharmaceuticals can induce severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) resulting in anaphylactoid shock in a small percentage of patients, a phenomenon explicitly reproducible in pigs. However, there is a debate in the literature on whether the pig model of HSRs can be used as a safety test for the prediction of severe adverse reactions in humans. Given the importance of using appropriate animal models for toxicity/safety testing, the choice of the right species and model is a critical decision. In order to facilitate the decision process and to expand the relevant information regarding the pig or no pig dilemma, this review examines an ill-fated clinical development program conducted by Baxter Corporation in the United States 24 years ago, when HemeAssist, an αα (diaspirin) crosslinked hemoglobin-based O₂ carrier (HBOC) was tested in trauma patients. The study showed increased mortality in the treatment group relative to controls and had to be stopped. This disappointing result had far-reaching consequences and contributed to the setback in blood substitute research ever since. Importantly, the increased mortality of trauma patients was predicted in pig experiments conducted by US Army scientists, yet they were considered irrelevant to humans. Here we draw attention to that the underlying cause of hemoglobin-induced aggravation of hemorrhagic shock and severe HSRs have a common pathomechanism: cardiovascular distress due to vasoconstrictive effects of hemoglobin (Hb) and reactogenic nanomedicines, manifested, among others, in pulmonary hypertension. The main difference is that in the case of Hb this effect is due to NO-binding, while nanomedicines can trigger the release of proinflammatory mediators. Because of the higher sensitivity of cloven-hoof animals to this kind of cardiopulmonary distress compared to rodents, these reactions can be better reproduced in pigs than in murine or rat models. When deciding on the battery of tests and the appropriate models to identify the potential hazard for nanomedicine-induced severe HSR, the pros and cons of the various species must be considered carefully.

Human Clinical Relevance of the Porcine Model of Pseudoallergic Infusion Reactions

Pigs provide a highly sensitive animal model for pseudoallergic infusion reactions, which are mild-to-severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) that arise following intravenous administration of certain nanoparticulate drugs (nanomedicines) and other macromolecular structures. This model has been used in research for three decades and was also proposed by regulatory bodies for preclinical assessment of the risk of HSRs in the clinical stages of nano-drug development. However, there are views challenging the human relevance of the model and its utility in preclinical safety evaluation of nanomedicines. The argument challenging the model refers to the “global response” of pulmonary intravascular macrophages (PIM cells) in the lung of pigs, preventing the distinction of reactogenic from non-reactogenic particles, therefore overestimating the risk of HSRs relative to its occurrence in the normal human population. The goal of this review is to present the large body of experimental and clinical evidence negating the “global response” claim, while also showing the concordance of symptoms caused by different reactogenic nanoparticles in pigs and hypersensitive man. Contrary to the model’s demotion, we propose that the above features, together with the high reproducibility of quantifiable physiological endpoints, validate the porcine “complement activation-related pseudoallergy” (CARPA) model for safety evaluations. However, it needs to be kept in mind that the model is a disease model in the context of hypersensitivity to certain nanomedicines. Rather than toxicity screening, its main purpose is specific identification of HSR hazard, also enabling studies on the mechanism and mitigation of potentially serious HSRs.