No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundSnake envenomation is a serious public health threat in the rural areas of Asian and African countries. To date, the only proven treatment for snake envenomation is antivenom therapy. Cross-neutralization of heterologous venoms by antivenom raised against venoms of closely related species has been reported. The present study examined the cross neutralizing potential of a newly developed polyvalent antivenom, termed Neuro Polyvalent Snake Antivenom (NPAV). NPAV was produced by immunization against 4 Thai elapid venoms.Principal Findings In vitro neutralization study using mice showed that NPAV was able to neutralize effectively the lethality of venoms of most common Asiatic cobras (Naja spp.), Ophiophagus hannah and kraits (Bungarus spp.) from Southeast Asia, but only moderately to weakly effective against venoms of Naja from India subcontinent and Africa. Studies with several venoms showed that the in vivo neutralization potency of the NPAV was comparable to the in vitro neutralization potency. NPAV could also fully protect against N. sputatrix venom-induced cardio-respiratory depressant and neuromuscular blocking effects in anesthetized rats, demonstrating that the NPAV could neutralize most of the major lethal toxins in the Naja venom.Conclusions/SignificanceThe newly developed polyvalent antivenom NPAV may find potential application in the treatment of elapid bites in Southeast Asia, especially Malaysia, a neighboring nation of Thailand. Nevertheless, the applicability of NPAV in the treatment of cobra and krait envenomations in Southeast Asian victims needs to be confirmed by clinical trials. The cross-neutralization results may contribute to the design of broad-spectrum polyvalent antivenom.

Snake envenomation has been estimated to affect 1.8 million people annually with about 94,000 deaths mostly in poor tropical countries. Specific antivenoms are the only rational and effective therapy for these cases. Efforts are being made to produce effective, affordable and sufficient antivenoms for these victims. The immunization process, which has rarely been described in detail, is one step that needs to be rigorously studied and improved especially with regard to the production of polyspecific antisera. The polyspecific nature of therapeutic antivenom could obviate the need to identify the culprit snake species. The aim of this study was to produce potent polyspecific antisera against 3 medically important vipers of Thailand and its neighboring countries, namely Cryptelytrops albolabris "White lipped pit viper" (CA), Calleoselasma rhodostoma “Malayan pit viper” (CR), and Daboia siamensis “Russell’s viper” (DS). Four horses were immunized with a mixture of the 3 viper venoms using the ‘low dose, low volume multi-site’ immunization protocol. The antisera showed rapid rise in ELISA titers against the 3 venoms and reached plateau at about the 8th week post-immunization. The in vivo neutralization potency (P) of the antisera against CA, CR and DS venoms was 10.40, 2.42 and 0.76 mg/ml, respectively and was much higher than the minimal potency limits set by Queen Soavabha Memorial Institute (QSMI). The corresponding potency values for the QSMI monospecific antisera against CA, CR and DS venoms were 7.28, 3.12 and 1.50 mg/ml, respectively. The polyspecific antisera also effectively neutralized the procoagulant, hemorrhagic, necrotic and nephrotoxic activities of the viper venoms. This effective immunization protocol should be useful in the production of potent polyspecific antisera against snake venoms, and equine antisera against tetanus, diphtheria or rabies.

Cross neutralisation of venoms by antivenom raised against closely-related species has been well documented. The spectrum of paraspecific protection of antivenom raised against Asiatic Naja and Bungarus (krait) venoms, however, has not been fully investigated. In this study, we examined the cross neutralisation of venoms from common Southeast Asian cobras and kraits by two widely used polyvalent antivenoms produced in India: Vins Polyvalent Antivenom (VPAV) and Bharat Polyvalent Antivenom (BPAV), using both in vitro and in vivo mouse protection assays. BPAV was only moderately effective against venoms of N. kaouthia (Thailand) and N. sumatrana, and either very weakly effective or totally ineffective against the other cobra and krait venoms. VPAV, on the other hand, neutralised effectively all the Southeast Asian Naja venoms tested, as well as N. naja, B. candidus and Ophiophagus hannah venoms, but the potency ranges from effective to weakly effective. In an in vivo rodent model, VPAV also neutralised the lethality of venoms from Asiatic Naja and B. candidus. In anesthetised rat studies, both antivenoms effectively protected against the N. kaouthia venom-induced cardio-respiratory depressant and neuromuscular blocking effects. Overall, our results suggest that VPAV could be used as alternative antivenom for the treatment of elapid envenomation in Southeast Asian regions including Malaysia, Thailand and certain regions of Indonesia.