Cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2) plays an important role in human physiology and the pathophysiology of different diseases, including neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and cancer. Several classes of CB2 receptor ligands, including 2-oxoquinoline derivatives, have been previously reported. We report the synthesis and results of in vitro receptor binding of a focused library of new fluorinated 2-oxoquinoline CB2 ligands. Twelve compounds, 13-16 18, 19, 21-24, 27, and 28 were synthesized in good yields in multiple steps. Human U87 glioma cells expressing either hCB1 (control) or hCB2 were generated via lentiviral transduction. In vitro competitive binding assay was performed using [3H]CP-55,940 in U87hCB1 and U87hCB2 cells. Inhibition constant (Ki) values of compounds 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 28 for CB2 were >10000, 2.8, 5.0, 2.4, 22, 0.8, 1.4, >10000, 486, 58, 620, and 2400 nM, respectively, and those for CB1 were >10000 nM. Preliminary in vitro results suggest that six of these compounds may be useful for therapy of neuropathic pain, neuroinflammatory diseases and immune disorders. In addition, compound 19, with its subnanomolar Ki value, could be radiolabeled with 18F and explored for PET imaging of CB2 expression.

Purpose: Donor T cells directed to hematopoietic minor histocompatibility antigens (mHag) are appealing tools for adoptive immunotherapy of hematological malignancies after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Toward the development of a convenient strategy for ex vivo generation of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II^restricted mHag-specific T cells, we evaluated the feasibility of rebuilding mHag-specific T cell functions in donor-derived recall antigen-specific T cells via T cell receptor (TCR) transfer. Experimental Design: TCR a-and h-chains of an HLA-DPB1*0401^restricted T-cell clone recognizing a multiple myeloma-associated mHag were retrovirally transferred into a tetanus toxoid (TT)^specific clone derived from the original stem cell donor. TCR double-transduced cells were compared with the parent mHag-and TT-specific clones for antigen specificity, cytokine secretion, and cytotoxic activity and were analyzed for their in vitro expansion capacity in a TT-or mHag-specific fashion. Results: mHag-TCR^transduced TT-specific cells displayed both TT and mHag specificity. Similar to the parent cells, they secreted Th-1cytokines and exerted significant cytotoxic activity against TT-pulsed or mHag + target cells, including multiple myeloma cells. A 4-week expansion of TCR-transduced cells via the TT-specificTCR had no negative influence on the mHag-specific cytotoxic activity and resulted in 10-to 100-fold better cell yields as compared with mHagspecific expansion. Conclusions: HLA class II^restricted, mHag-specific effector functions can be successfully reconstructed in donor-derived TT-specific T cells via TCR transfer. Effective expansion of these T cells via TT-specificTCRs illustrate the suitability of this strategy for ex vivo expansion and possibly for in vivo TT-specific reboosting of HLA class II^restricted immunotherapeutic T cells.

Background: BCD-022 is a trastuzumab biosimilar which was shown to be equivalent to reference trastuzumab in a wide panel of physicochemical studies as well as preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter phase III clinical trial was conducted to comparatively assess efficacy and safety of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab in combination with paclitaxel used as the therapy of metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer. Pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity were also studied. Methods: Patients with no previous treatment for metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to BCD-022 or reference trastuzumab and were treated with trastuzumab + paclitaxel. Therapy continued for 6 cycles of therapy (every 3 weeks), until progression of the disease or unbearable toxicity. Primary study endpoint was overall response rate. Study goal was to prove equivalent efficacy of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab. Equivalence margins for 95% CI for difference in overall response rates were set at [− 20%; 20%]. Results: In total 225 patients were enrolled into the study, 115 in BCD-022 arm and 110 in reference trastuzumab arm. Overall response rate was 49.6% in BCD-022 arm and 43.6% in reference trastuzumab arm. Limits of 95% CI for difference of overall response rates between arms were [(− 8.05)-19.89%], thus, they lied within predetermined equivalence margins [− 20%; 20%]. Profile of adverse events was similar between groups (any AEs were reported in 93.81% of patients in BCD-022 arm and 94.55% of patients in reference arm). No unexpected adverse reactions were reported throughout the study. No statistically significant differences regarding antibody occurrence rate (either BAb or NAb) was found between BCD-022 (n = 3; 2.65%) and comparator (n = 4; 3.64%). Both drug products are characterized with low occurrence rate and short life of anti-trastuzumab antibodies. Pharmacokinetics assessment after 1st and 6th study drug injection also demonstrated equivalent PK parameters by all outcome measures: AUC 0-504 , С mах , Т max , T 1/2. Analysis of C trough did not reveal any significant inter-group differences as well.

BCD-020 is a proposed rituximab biosimilar, which has shown high similarity to rituximab in quality and nonclinical studies in vitro and in vivo.International multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of BCD-020 and reference rituximab in adult (older than 18 years) patients with indolent lymphomas (follicular lymphoma grade 1-2, splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and nodal marginal zone lymphoma). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity were also studied.Patients with no previous biologic treatment for lymphoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BCD-020 or comparator 375 mg/m 2 for 4 weeks.Primary study outcome was day 50 overall response rate defined as complete or partial remission. Equivalence range was −20% to 20% for 95% CI for overall response rates difference. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity.One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled, 89 in BCD-020 arm and 85 in comparator arm. The overall response rate was 44.71% in BCD-020 arm and 41.89% in comparator arm. Limits of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of overall response rates between arms were (−12.62%-18.24%) showing equivalent efficacy.Sixty-one (68.54%) and 59 (69.41%) patients had at least one adverse event in BCD-020 arm or comparator arm, respectively. No unexpected adverse reactions were reported.Antidrug antibodies with no neutralizing activity were detected in two patients in comparator arm on day 14 further declining below detection threshold.Rituximab concentrations had equivalent pattern after intravenous administration of both drugs. Both drugs caused depletion of B-cells without significant influence on other blood cell lineages.In this study, we showed equivalent efficacy of BCD-020 and reference rituximab when used in patients with CD20-positive indolent lymphomas. We also confirmed pharmacokinetic equivalence of BCD-020 and reference rituximab. Safety profile,

Recent cancer immunotherapy breakthroughs have fundamentally changed oncology and revived the fading hope for a cancer cure. The immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) became an indispensable tool for the treatment of many malignant tumors. Alongside ICI, the application of oncolytic viruses in clinical trials is demonstrating encouraging outcomes. Dozens of combinations of oncolytic viruses with conventional radiotherapy and chemotherapy are widely used or studied, but it seems quite complicated to highlight the most effective combinations. Our review summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating oncolytic viruses with or without genetic alterations in combination with immune checkpoint blockade, cytokines, antigens and other oncolytic viruses as well. This review is focused on the efficacy and safety of virotherapy and the most promising combinations based on the published clinical data, rather than presenting all oncolytic virus variations, which are discussed in comprehensive literature reviews. We briefly revise the research landscape of oncolytic viruses and discuss future perspectives in virus immunotherapy, in order to provide an insight for novel strategies of cancer treatment.