mRNA-LNP COVID-19 Vaccine Lipids Induce Complement Activation and Production of Proinflammatory Cytokines: Mechanisms, Effects of Complement Inhibitors, and Relevance to Adverse Reactions

A small fraction of people vaccinated with mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP)-based COVID-19 vaccines display acute or subacute inflammatory symptoms whose mechanism has not been clarified to date. To better understand the molecular mechanism of these adverse events (AEs), here, we analyzed in vitro the vaccine-induced induction and interrelations of the following two major inflammatory processes: complement (C) activation and release of proinflammatory cytokines. Incubation of Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty and Moderna's Spikevax with 75% human serum led to significant increases in C5a, sC5b-9, and Bb but not C4d, indicating C activation mainly via the alternative pathway. Control PEGylated liposomes (Doxebo) also induced C activation, but, on a weight basis, it was ~5 times less effective than that of Comirnaty. Viral or synthetic naked mRNAs had no C-activating effects. In peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) cultures supplemented with 20% autologous serum, besides C activation, Comirnaty induced the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines in the following order: IL-1α < IFN-γ < IL-1β < TNF-α < IL-6 < IL-8. Heat-inactivation of C in serum prevented a rise in IL-1α, IL-1β, and TNF-α, suggesting C-dependence of these cytokines' induction, although the C5 blocker Soliris and C1 inhibitor Berinert, which effectively inhibited C activation in both systems, did not suppress the release of any cytokines. These findings suggest that the inflammatory AEs of mRNA-LNP vaccines are due, at least in part, to stimulation of both arms of the innate immune system, whereupon C activation may be causally involved in the induction of some, but not all, inflammatory cytokines. Thus, the pharmacological attenuation of inflammatory AEs may not be achieved via monotherapy with the tested C inhibitors; efficacy may require combination therapy with different C inhibitors and/or other anti-inflammatory agents.

Angioedema. Interdisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the Polish Dermatological Society (PTD) and Polish Society of Allergology (PTA)

Angioedema is a non-inflammatory oedema of the subcutaneous tissue and/or mucosal membranes. It most commonly coexists with urticaria wheals and is considered to be a deep form of urticaria. Less commonly, it occurs in isolation and can take two basic forms: acquired angioedema and hereditary angioedema. Currently, there are 4 defined types of acquired angioedema and 7 types of hereditary angioedema. Treatment of angioedema depends on its form and etiological factors. Especially the genetic form, i.e. hereditary angioedema, is a considerable challenge for medical specialists, particularly dermatologists and allergists.

New Treatments for Hereditary Angioedema

Hereditary angioedema is characterized by severe, episodic edema of the subcutaneous and mucosal tissue. The disease carries significant morbidity and mortality due to involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and upper airway. Recent advances in the treatment of hereditary angioedema include new techniques used to isolate and purify human-derived C1 inhibitor, the production of a recombinant form of C1 inhibitor, and the development of drugs that target the kallikrein-kinin pathway. This paper reviews the mechanisms, efficacy, and adverse reactions associated with these medications.

C1 Esterase Inhibitor (Berinert) for ACE Inhibitor-Induced Angioedema: Two Case Reports

OBJECTIVE

To describe 2 cases of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-induced angioedema treated with C1 esterase inhibitor (human) [Berinert].

SUMMARY

Case 1 is a 60-year-old Caucasian male with angioedema from lisinopril. He was initially treated with a conventional regimen of an antihistamine, methylprednisolone, epinephrine, and fresh frozen plasma. When symptoms did not resolve, intravenous C1 peptide esterase inhibitor (C1INH) was administered, with clinical improvement. Four hours later, symptoms returned and the patient underwent emergency tracheostomy. Case 2 is a 64-year-old Caucasian male who presented with angioedema due to enalapril. In the emergency department, he received conventional treatment. Endotracheal tube placement was unsuccessful. While the patient was undergoing intubation in the operating room, intravenous C1INH was administered resulting in quick improvement of symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Angioedema from ACEI occurs at an incidence of 0.7%. Conventional treatment may be of limited benefit due to the mechanism of the reaction. C1INHs, which are indicated for hereditary angioedema, have been utilized in treating ACEI-induced angioedema. According to the Naranjo algorithm scale, the patient in case 1 experienced angioedema that is probably related to lisinopril. C1INH was administered intravenously when symptoms progressed, despite conventional treatment. In case 2, the patient experienced angioedema, which is possibly related to enalapril, and was treated with C1INH.

CONCLUSION

C1INH (human) was a successful addition to the traditional management of 2 patients with angioedema due to ACEI.

Phase II study results of a replacement therapy for hereditary angioedema with subcutaneous C1-inhibitor concentrate

BACKGROUND

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) due to C1 inhibitor deficiency manifests as recurrent swelling attacks that can be disabling and sometimes fatal. Long-term prophylaxis with twice-weekly intravenous injections of plasma-derived C1-inhibitor (pdC1-INH) has been established as an effective treatment. Subcutaneous (SC) administration of pdC1-INH has not been studied in patients with HAE.

METHODS

This open-label, dose-ranging, crossover study (COMPACT Phase II) was conducted in 18 patients with type I or II HAE who received two of twice-weekly 1500, 3000, or 6000 IU SC doses of highly concentrated volume-reduced CSL830 for 4 weeks each. The mean trough plasma levels of C1-INH functional activity, C1-INH and C4 antigen levels during Week 4, and overall safety and tolerability were evaluated. The primary outcome was model-derived steady-state trough C1-INH functional activity.

RESULTS

After SC CSL830 administration, a dose-dependent increase in trough functional C1-INH activity was observed. C1-INH and C4 levels both increased. The two highest dose groups (3000 and 6000 IU) achieved constant C1-INH activity levels above 40% values, a threshold that was assumed to provide clinical protection against angioedema attacks. Compared with intravenous injection, pdC1-INH SC injection with CSL830 showed a lower peak-to-trough ratio and more consistent exposures. All doses were well tolerated. Mild-to-moderate local site reactions were noted with pain and swelling being the most common adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous volume-reduced CSL830 was well tolerated and led to a dose-dependent increase in physiologically relevant functional C1-INH plasma levels. A clinical outcome study of SC CSL830 in patients with HAE warrants further investigation.

Plasma-derived C1-INH for managing hereditary angioedema in pediatric patients: A systematic review

Presently, medications approved for children with Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) are extremely limited. This is especially the case for children under 12 years of age. For this reason we reviewed and summarized the data on treatment of children with HAE. Available data indicate that plasma derived C1-inhibitor is a safe, effective treatment option for HAE in pediatric patients, including those below 12 years of age. Other therapies are also appear safe for the under 12 year of age, but less data are available. Importantly, home-based treatment of HAE in this age group appears to be safe and effective and can improve quality of life. These findings support current HAE consensus guidelines which strongly recommend the use of plasma derived C1-inhibitor as a first-line treatment in children and encourage home and self-treatment.

On-demand therapy for hereditary angioedema

Consensus guidelines on hereditary angioedema (HAE) recommend that all patients have access to on-demand treatment of acute attacks. A recent patientcentric guideline recommended that at least 2 on-demand therapies be available because patients often have heterogeneous responses to different medications. Self-administration of therapeutic agents, or administration under supervision by a health care provider in the home setting, is the preferred treatment approach. Future studies are needed to show the benefits of acute on-demand therapies at improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HAE.