Immunoreactivity and neutralization efficacy of Pakistani Viper Antivenom (PVAV) against venoms of Saw-scaled Vipers (Echis carinatus subspp.) and Western Russell's Vipers (Daboia russelii) from the Indian subcontinent.

Snakebite envenoming (SBE) is a priority Neglected Tropical Disease listed by the World Health Organization. South Asia is heavily affected, and virtually all countries in the region import polyvalent antivenom products from India for clinical use. The imported antivenoms, however, have suboptimal effectiveness due to geographical venom variation. Recently, a domestic bivalent product, named Pakistani Viper Antivenom (PVAV) has been developed specifically for Pakistani vipers, Echis carinatus sochureki and Daboia russelii. As a bivalent viperid antivenom, it is unknown yet if PVAV exhibits higher immunological binding and neutralization activities against viper venoms from distant locales compared with polyvalent antivenoms manufactured in India. This study thus examined the preclinical efficacy of PVAV against venoms of Western Russell's viper and Saw-scaled viper subspecies from selected locales in the Indian subcontinent. PVAV generally outperformed the commonly used VINS polyvalent antivenom (VPAV, manufactured in India) in binding toward venoms, and showed superior or comparable neutralization efficacy against the venom procoagulant and hemorrhagic effects of Saw-scaled vipers as well as Russell's Vipers from Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Based on normalized potency values, PVAV is far more potent than VPAV in neutralizing the lethality of all viper venoms, except that of the Indian Russell's Viper. The study shows conserved antigenicity of toxins responsible for major toxicity across these viper venoms, and suggests the feasible production of a viper-specific antivenom with higher potency and broader geographical utility for the region.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.