High throughput identification of human monoclonal antibodies and heavy-chain-only antibodies to treat snakebite

Snakebite envenoming is a priority Neglected Tropical Disease that causes an estimated 81,000-135,000 fatalities each year. The development of a new generation of safer, affordable, and accessible antivenom therapies is urgently needed. With this goal in mind, rigorous characterisation of the specific toxins in snake venom is key to generating novel therapies for snakebite. Monoclonal antibodies directed against venom toxins are emerging as potentially strong candidates in the development of new snakebite diagnostics and treatment. Venoms comprise many different toxins of which several are responsible for their pathological effects. Due to the large variability of venoms within and between species, formulations of combinations of human antibodies are proposed as the next generation antivenoms. Here a high-throughput screening method employing antibody-based ligand fishing of venom toxins in 384 filter-well plate format has been developed to determine the antibody target/s The approach uses Protein G beads for antibody capture followed by exposure to a full venom or purified toxins to bind their respective ligand toxin(s). This is followed by a washing/centrifugation step to remove non-binding toxins and an in-well tryptic digest. Finally, peptides from each well are analysed by nanoLC-MS/MS and subsequent Mascot database searching to identify the bound toxin/s for each antibody under investigation. The approach was successfully validated to rapidly screen antibodies sourced from hybridomas, derived from venom-immunised mice expressing either regular human antibodies or heavy-chain-only human antibodies (HCAbs)

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer : large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectom

Erratum to “Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy:Unravelling differences in failure to rescue (vol 49, pg 974, 2023)

The publisher regrets that when the article was published the following collaboration authors from the “TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group” appeared incorrectly in the main author list due to a technical error: Writing Committee, Joos Heisterkamp, Fatih Polat, Jeroen Schouten, Pritam Singh, Study collaborators. This has now been corrected. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused