Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Antivenom preclinical efficacy testing against Asian snakes and their availability in Asia: A systematic review

  • Sutinee Soopairin ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sutinee Soopairin, Chanthawat Patikorn

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    ⨯
  • Chanthawat Patikorn ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sutinee Soopairin, Chanthawat Patikorn

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    ⨯
  • Suthira Taychakhoonavudh

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    suthira.t@pharm.chula.ac.th

    Affiliation Department of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Cross-neutralizing strategy has been applied to improve access to antivenoms, a key to reducing mortality and disability of snakebite envenoming. However, preclinical studies have been conducted to identify antivenoms’ cross-neutralizing ability when clinical studies may not be considered ethical. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and summarize scattered evidence regarding the preclinical efficacy of antivenoms against Asian snakes.

Methodology/Principle findings

In this systematic review, we searched for articles published until May 30, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Preclinical studies that reported the available antivenoms’ neutralizing ability against Asian snake lethality were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation’s risk of bias tool and the adapted the Animal Research Reporting In Vivo Experiments guidelines. The availability of effective antivenoms against Asian snakes was analyzed by comparing data from included studies with snakebite-information and data platforms developed by the World Health Organization. Fifty-two studies were included. Most studies assessed the antivenom efficacy against snakes from Southeast Asia (58%), followed by South Asia (35%) and East Asia (19%). Twenty-two (49%) medically important snakes had antivenom(s) with confirmed neutralizing ability. Situation analyses of the availability of effective antivenoms in Asia demonstrated that locally produced antivenoms did not cover all medically important snakes in each country. Among countries without local antivenom production, preclinical studies were conducted only in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. Risk of bias assessment was limited in some domains because of unreported data.

Conclusions/Significance

Cross-neutralizing of antivenoms against some medically important snakes in Asia was confirmed. This strategy may improve access to geographically effective antivenoms and bypass investment in novel antivenom development, especially in countries without local antivenom production. A database should be developed to aid the development of a snakebite-information system.

Citation: Soopairin S, Patikorn C, Taychakhoonavudh S (2023) Antivenom preclinical efficacy testing against Asian snakes and their availability in Asia: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723

Editor: Karen de Morais-Zani, Instituto Butantan, BRAZIL

Received: April 22, 2023; Accepted: July 4, 2023; Published: July 19, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Soopairin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors would like to gratefully thank the scholarship provided to Miss Sutinee Soopairin from the Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, to commemorate the 72nd anniversary of his Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Snakebite envenoming is a neglected public health issue with high morbidity, disability, and mortality rates. Up to 1.8 million cases of envenoming are reported each year, and these cause up to 92,000 deaths annually. Mostly, this neglected issue shows with effect in the rural areas of low to middle-income countries that have insufficient financial support for patients suffering from snakebite envenoming. South Asia offers the highest rate of snakebite envenoming incidents, followed by Southeast Asia [1]. Despite its acute life-threatening symptoms, snakebite envenoming may also cause long-term complications leading to productivity loss. Moreover, snakebite envenoming is associated with higher disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) than those associated with other neglected tropical diseases such as dengue. Despite its higher burdens, snakebite envenoming receives fewer funds per DALY [2]. For example, the estimated economic burden of antivenoms is up to 13.8 million United States dollars in Sri Lanka and 2.5 billion in seven South East Asia countries [3–5]. Snakebite envenoming is a neglected tropical disease, although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to halve snakebite-related deaths and disability by 2030 [6].

Antivenoms are the only effective treatment for snakebite envenoming that can reduce morbidity, disability, and mortality rates from this public health problem [7]. However, access to antivenoms has become an issue owing to their cost. This leads to unaffordability, and a shift to traditional treatment, which can result in reduced antivenom production and budget attenuation, increased antivenom prices, or halted antivenom production [8, 9]. To solve the problems of this neglected tropical disease, antivenom accessibility enhancement is a critical factor that can improve patient outcomes. Local or imported antivenoms with proven cross-neutralizing ability—the ability to neutralize against the toxic effects from the venom of different snake species, have not been included in the immunizing venom mixture, mainly those closely related species—are used as an alternative treatment if the specific antivenoms are unavailable [10–12]. Therefore, the use of antivenoms with proven cross-neutralization between antivenoms and snake venoms is a strategy for improving antivenom accessibility.

Most antivenoms available in the market had been registered without prior clinical studies in humans, while only a few were conducted. According to the WHO guidelines, neutralization of a lethal activity of antivenoms against snake venoms is an essential preclinical assay required in antivenom efficacy assessment, especially before use in humans and new geographical regions [13]. Hence, many preclinical studies have assessed the efficacy of antivenoms. However, the preclinical evidence of antivenom efficacy against each snake species in Asia—which accounts for a high incidence and death rates from snakebite envenoming—remains scattered [1].

Therefore, this study aimed to identify, review, and summarize the information about cross-neutralization and neutralization between available antivenoms and snake venoms in Asia, as reported in preclinical studies. Our results can be applied in the regulatory guidance for antivenom, where complete clinical studies may not be ethically applicable. This may serve as an initial step towards ensuring equal access to antivenoms across Asia.

Methods

This study consisted of two parts. Part A was a systematic review summarizing cross-neutralization and neutralization data of antivenoms against Asian snakes and entailing a database search for a list of available antivenoms in Asia. Part B was an analysis of the availability of effective antivenoms in Asia.

Part A: Systematic review conducted to retrieve cross-neutralization and neutralization data of antivenoms against Asian snakes

The systematic review methods were conducted following the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [14, 15]. The PRISMA checklist is provided in the S1 Table. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022284543) [16].

Search strategy and eligibility criteria.

Electronic bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, were used to search for published articles related to cross-neutralization and neutralization between antivenoms and snake venoms. The search terms used in this review were ((Antivenom OR Antivenin OR Antivenene OR Anti-venom) AND Snake* AND Neutrali*), which were adjusted to match each database’s search strategy. All search terms were developed by SS under the supervision of CP and ST. An entire search strategy with results was provided in the S2 Table. The authors initially searched for published articles from inception until May 30, 2022. References searching was conducted to obtain some other related articles that were not included in the search. Grey literature was not searched in this review.

The inclusion criteria were preclinical studies conducted following the WHO guidelines using murine subjects, demonstrating in vivo cross-neutralizing activity and/or neutralizing ability of available antivenoms against the lethal activity of snake venoms originating from Asia. Case studies, cross-over studies, studies in other species apart from murine, in vitro, ex vivo, and in sillico studies were excluded. Studies using antivenoms not commercially available, such as experimental antivenoms and human IgG antibodies, were also excluded. Moreover, studies reporting only parameters indicating neutralization of toxic effects of snake venoms other than that of lethality were also excluded since they were supplementary preclinical assays [13]. No restrictions were placed on language.

Study selection and data extraction.

The titles and abstracts of the studies were identified and independently screened by two reviewers (SS and CP). The full texts of all relevant studies were retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by the two reviewers. Any discrepancies between both reviewers were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (ST).

A standardized and pre-piloted data extraction form was used to independently extract data from the included studies using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for Mac (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) by two reviewers (SS and CP). Discrepancies between both reviewers were resolved through discussion with the third reviewer (ST). The extracted information included study details, snake information, antivenom information, parameters indicating neutralization of lethality between antivenoms and snake venoms, and information for assessing the risk of bias.

Quality assessment.

The two reviewers (SS and CP) independently conducted a risk of bias assessment of the included studies using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation’s (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool for animal studies [17]. The SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies contains 10 domains related to selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases. Moreover, an adapted Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, a guideline for reporting an in vivo experiment, was applied in the reporting quality assessment of the included studies in four domains: experiment set up, animals, procedure, and reported results [18].

Data synthesis.

Extracted data were qualitatively synthesized using content analysis to summarize the included studies’ methodological characteristics. The summary revealed how well the preclinical studies assessing available antivenom-neutralizing efficacy against the lethality of Asian snake venoms had been conducted.

Extracted parameters indicating neutralization of lethal activity between available antivenoms and Asian snake venoms, such as median lethal dose (LD50), the amount of snake venoms that were intravenously or intraperitoneally injected, causing the deaths of 50% of mice in a group after 24–48 hours, were summarized. Median effective dose (ED50), the volume of antivenom that could protect 50% of mice intravenously or intraperitoneally injected with a challenge dose of snake venom (multiples of LD50 of venom), and potency of neutralization capacity (amount of snake venom in the mass unit that was neutralized per unit volume of antivenom) from each study, were summarized and presented. The cross-neutralizing and neutralizing abilities against medically important venomous snakes were demonstrated in a heat map to depict the efficacy of available antivenoms with the capability to neutralize the lethality of snake venoms in Asia [19]. Moreover, we reported the neutralizing ability against sea snakes and sea kraits, which are recognized by the WHO guidelines as snakes with potent venoms causing morbidity, disability, or death [19].

Part B: Analysis of effective antivenom availability in Asia.

To gain insights into antivenom availability in Asia, data from the first part were combined with a list of available antivenoms from snakebite-information and data platforms, a new snakebite database developed by the WHO [20]. The authors identified Asian medically important venomous snakes based on the WHO guidelines [13]. Medically important venomous snakes were categorized into two categories. First, category one medically important venomous snakes (highest medical importance) were defined as those highly venomous snakes which were widespread in areas with large human populations and caused numerous snake bites, resulting in high morbidity, disability, or mortality. Second, category two medically important venomous snakes were defined as highly venomous snakes that can cause morbidity, disability, or death. Still, they were poorly known species or not a common cause of bites [13]. Next, we compared a list of available antivenoms with a list of medically important venomous snakes to analyze the situation of the availability of effective antivenoms against medically important venomous snakes in Asia. We summarized several medically venomous snakes in Asia from studies that reported antivenom cross-neutralizing and neutralizing abilities.

Then, we sorted the results by country of origin of the venom samples used in the experiments, as reported in the included studies, because antivenoms were applied to snakes originating in a different country. Those countries were sorted into different regions, Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, as listed in the WHO guidelines [19]. According to the WHO guidelines, countries listed in Central Asia consisted of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Mongolia. In contrast, East Asia consists of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), and The Republic of Korea (South Korea). Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka were listed in the South Asia region. Lastly, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam were listed in the Southeast Asia region [19].

Results

Study selection

A total of 4,284 articles were identified from four electronic databases using a discreet search strategy. A total of 2,586 duplicated articles were removed. The titles and abstracts of 1,698 articles were screened, and 426 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. One study was identified from citation searching. Eventually, 52 eligible articles were included, as shown in Fig 1. No studies were retrieved from reference searching.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Study selection flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.g001

Study characteristics

Snake species found in Asia were assessed to study antivenoms’ cross-neutralizing and neutralizing abilities against them, as summarized in the S3 Table. According to 52 included studies, snakes found in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and East Asia were tested in 30 studies (58%) [21–50], 18 (35%) [40–42, 51–65], and ten (19%) [24, 27, 30, 44, 66–71], respectively. However, no studies were found to assess snakes found in Central Asia. Thirty studies related to snakes found in Southeast Asia were mainly conducted on venomous snakes from Thailand [21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36–41, 43–47], and Malaysia [24–28, 34–37, 40–42, 48, 49]. Concurrently, all studies related to snakes from South Asia were conducted on venomous snakes found in India (10 studies) [40, 41, 52–56, 59, 60, 62], and Sri Lanka (nine studies) [40–42, 51, 52, 57, 62, 64, 65].

Regarding the snake family, 32 studies (62%) included antivenom cross-neutralizing and neutralizing abilities against snakes in the Elapidae family and 24 (46%) in the Viperidae family. Four (8%) studies were conducted on sea snakes in Asia [35, 44, 48, 49]. While one study (2%) was conducted on sea krait in Asia [50]. The most frequently tested snake venom was Naja kaouthia (10 from 52 studies [19%]) [32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 59, 60]. Among polyvalent antivenoms from Asia assessed in the included articles, the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute (QSMI), Thailand, was the most frequently tested polyvalent antivenoms, which were reported in seven (13%) studies [33–36, 41, 70, 72]. In contrast, a cobra antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, was the most frequently tested monovalent antivenom, which was reported in ten (19%) studies [32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 44, 46, 47, 53, 63].

Neutralizing and cross-neutralizing abilities of available antivenoms against the lethality of medically important venomous snakes in Asia from preclinical studies

All neutralizing and cross-neutralizing abilities of antivenoms against the lethality of medically important venomous snakes in Asia from the included preclinical studies are summarized in Table 1. The neutralizing and cross-neutralizing abilities differed among antivenoms and varied between snake venoms. More details of the strength of these abilities, such as ED50, are reported in the S4 Table. ED50 is a median effective dose of antivenoms that reflects the preclinical efficacy of antivenoms. Units of ED50 were differently applied across the included studies. Microliter (μL) was used as a unit of ED50 in 40 studies (77%). Moreover, the LD50 value used for deriving ED50 differs in each experiment, even for the same snake species. Thereby, a meta-analysis of ED50 cannot be performed in our study.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Neutralizing and cross-neutralizing abilities of available antivenoms against the lethality of medically important venomous snakes in Asia according to preclinical evidence.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.t001

According to 45 medically important venomous snakes found in Asia identified by the WHO, the authors found that only 22 (49%) medically important venomous snakes were tested and confirmed with neutralizing ability of antivenoms against their lethality. Furthermore, the ineffectiveness of antivenoms against six (13%) medically important venomous snakes was found.

Medically important elapids of Asia.

No medically important elapids in Central Asia were tested in the included studies.

As demonstrated in Table 1, Bungarus multicinctus (many-banded krait), found in China, was tested against its specific antivenom, B. multicinctus antivenin, from Shanghai Serum Bio-technology Co. Ltd. in two studies. These studies reported the ED50 in different units; one showed the ED50 value of 1.65 μL, while another showed a value of 17.68 μg/g [67, 68]. This antivenom was also tested against B. multicinctus found in Taiwan, exhibiting neutralizing ability with the ED50 value of 4.13 μL. A neurobivalent antivenom from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, was tested against B. multicinctus found in China and Taiwan, providing the ED50 value of 8.92 μL and 33.39 μL, respectively [67].

The lethality of Naja atra (Chinese cobra) found in China is not cross-neutralized by B. multicinctus antivenin from Shanghai Serum Bio-technology Co. Ltd., China, providing the ED50 value at > 800 μg/g [68]. Moreover, the lethality of N. atra found in Taiwan was neutralized by the neurobivalent antivenom from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, exhibiting the ED50 value of 101.82 mg/g, ranging from 86.97–119.17 mg/g. It is cross-neutralized by a neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, resulting in the ED50 value of 9.70 mg/g, ranging from 9.28–11.35 mg/g, and cross-neutralized by a refined earth tiger snake antivenom from the Institute of Vaccines and Biological Substances (IVAC), Vietnam, with the ED50 value of 17.41 mg/g, ranging from 14.87–20.38 mg/g [70]. However, a Daboia siamensis monovalent antivenom from the Center for Disease Control, Taiwan, was ineffective against the lethality of N. atra found in Taiwan [70].

For South Asian snakes, Bungarus caeruleus (common krait) found in India lethality was neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India, resulting in the ED50 value at 26.17 μL, ranging from 19.36–35.37 μL [59]. The lethality of B. caeruleus in India was also neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, providing the ED50 value of 17.14 μL [62]. In contrast, the lethality of B. caeruleus found in Sri Lanka was neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd. and snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited from India, exhibiting ED50 value of 3.92 μL and 2.93 μL, respectively [65]. Moreover, the lethality of B. caeruleus found in Pakistan can be neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, providing the ED50 value of 16.53 μL [62].

Bungarus sindanus (Sind krait) found in India lethality was cross-neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India, exhibiting the ED50 value of 5.43 μL, ranging from 4.34–6.51 μL [59]. In contrast, B. sindanus from Pakistan can be cross-neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, providing the ED50 value of 13.29 μL [58].

For N. kaouthia (monocled cobra) found in India, its lethality was cross-neutralized by snake antivenin I.P. (Asia) from Haffkine Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd., India, snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, with ED50 value of 112.66 ± 5.11 mg/g, 92.68 ± 4.68 mg/g, and 76.38 ± 3.48 mg/g, respectively [60]. However, the lethality of N. kaouthia found in India was not cross-neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India [59]. However, the lethality of N. kaouthia in Bangladesh was cross-neutralized by snake antivenin I.P. (Asia) from Haffkine Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd., India, snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, with ED50 value of 137.23 ± 4.42 mg/g, 97.28 ± 2.46 mg/g, and 94.62 ± 4.52 mg/g, respectively [60].

For Naja naja (Indian cobra) found in India, its lethality can be neutralized by its specific antivenoms; snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India [53], snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India [53, 55, 59], and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India with various degrees of effectiveness [40]. However, snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India, showed ineffectiveness against the lethality of N. naja inhibited in different areas of India [55]. Furthermore, another study found that snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India was ineffective against the lethality of N. naja found in India [40]. Indian N. naja lethality can also be cross-neutralized by the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 156.57 μL and 200 μL in two experiments [41]. The lethality of N. naja in Pakistan was cross-neutralized by the neurobivalent antivenom from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, and cobra antivenin from QSMI, Thailand in which reported with the ED50 values of 75 μL, 32.77 μL, and 18 μL, respectively [63]. Moreover, the lethality of N. naja found in Sri Lanka can be neutralized by snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India with various degrees of effectiveness [40, 51, 64, 65]. In contrast, the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand can cross-neutralize the lethality of N. naja found in Sri Lanka with the ED50 values of 89.88 μL and 100.00 μL in two experiments [41]. Nevertheless, a study on snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, showed ineffective against N. naja from Sri Lanka [40].

In Southeast Asia, the lethality of Bungarus candidus (Malayan krait) found in Thailand was cross-neutralized by banded krait antivenin from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 319.70 μL, ranging from 251.80–406.00 μL [45]. The lethality of B. candidus found in Java Island, Indonesia, was cross-neutralized by serum anti bisa ular (SABU) polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia, with the ED50 value of 111.25 μL and the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 5.56 μL [33]. The lethality of B. candidus found in Malaysia can be neutralized by the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, providing the ED50 value of 13.91 μL [41].

For N. kaouthia (monocled cobra), studies confirmed that Thai N. kaouthia lethality could be neutralized by its specific monovalent antivenom, cobra antivenin [32, 34, 41, 44, 46, 47], and its specific polyvalent antivenom, the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, with various degrees of effectiveness [34, 36]. The lethality of N. kaouthia from Malaysia can be neutralized by cobra antivenin and the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, with the ED50 value of 78.29 μL and 70.68 μL, respectively [34]. In addition, another study reported that both antivenoms could neutralize against N. kaouthia found in Malaysia with a similar ED50 value of 150 μL [41]. These two antivenoms can also cross-neutralize against the lethality of N. kaouthia found in Vietnam with the ED50 value of 120.86 μL and 89.89 μL [34]. Moreover, snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India, can be cross-neutralized against the lethality of N. kaouthia venom found in Thailand and Malaysia, reporting ED50 values of 75 μL and 70.7 μL, ranging from 68.5–82.1 μL and 64.1–92.3 μL, respectively [40]. Conversely, another antivenom developed in India, snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, can only cross-neutralize against the lethality of N. kaouthia venom found in Thailand with the ED50 value of 55.6 μL, ranging from 36.6–84.5 μL. It was ineffective against the lethality of N. kaouthia venom from Malaysia [40].

For Naja philippinensis (Philippine cobra) found in the Philippines, it was found that its specific antivenom, monovalent (Naja philippinensis) cobra antivenin from Biologicals Manufacturing Division (Research Institute for Tropical Medicine), Philippines, can neutralize its lethality, resulting in the ED50 value of 44.94 μL, ranging from 20.6–69.23 μL [22]. Moreover, this antivenom can cross-neutralize against the lethality of Naja samarensis, providing the ED50 value of 120.86 μL, ranging from 104.79–139.40 μL [22].

For Naja siamensis (Indo-Chinese spitting cobra) in Thailand, cobra antivenin from QSMI can cross-neutralize against its lethality with the ED50 value of 91.6 μL, ranging from 66.2–126.8 μL [46].

Naja sputatrix (Javan spitting cobra) found in Indonesia can be neutralized by its specific antivenom, SABU polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia, with the ED50 value of 111.25 μL [33]. It can be cross-neutralized by the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI exhibiting the ED50 value of 50 μL [33, 36], similar to N. sputatrix found in Malaysia reporting the ED50 value of 136.72 μL [72].

Lastly, Naja sumatrana (Equatorial spitting cobra) found in Sumatra Island, Indonesia, can be cross-neutralized by SABU polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia, with the ED50 value of 156.57 μL, and the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand with the ED50 value of 55.63 μL [33]. This is the same with N. sumatrana found in Malaysia, which can also be cross-neutralized by the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, and exhibits the ED50 value of 25 μL [36]. Additionally, two antivenoms from India, snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., were cross-neutralized against the lethality of N. sumatrana in Malaysia, with the ED50 value of 150 μL and 39.1 μL, ranging from 37.1–164.2 μL and 32–47.9 μL, respectively [40].

Medically important venomous vipers of Asia.

No medically important venomous vipers in Central Asia were found being tested in the included studies. However, these true and pit vipers from East, South, and Southeast Asia were tested in the included studies as outlined in Table 1.

Medically important true vipers of Asia. In South Asia, three medically important venomous snakes in the Viperidae family were tested in the included studies. There were studies confirmed preclinical efficacy of snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited [56], snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd. [54], and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd. [52]. These are specific antivenoms against Daboia russelii (Russell’s viper) found in India which can neutralize its lethality. While the lethality of D. russelii found in Sri Lanka can be neutralized by snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, with the median effective ratio (ER50) value of 1.24 mg/mL [65]. It can also be neutralized by polyvalent antivenoms from India, snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd. with the ER50 value of 2.33 mg/mL [57], and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd. with various degrees of effectiveness [52, 57, 64, 65]. The hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, can also neutralize the lethality of D. russelii in Sri Lanka with the ED50 value of 7.52 μL, ranging from 3.53–15.30 μL [42]. Moreover, D. russelii from Bangladesh can be neutralized by snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd. and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India with the ER50 value < 1.50 mg/mL [57]. These two antivenoms can also neutralize the lethality of D. russelii found in Pakistan, exhibiting the ER50 value of 2.66 mg/mL and 1.86 mg/mL [57, 61].

Echis carinatus (saw-scaled viper) found in India can be neutralized against lethality by its specific antivenom, including snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India [56], and snake venom antiserum I.P. from Premium Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd., India [59]. In contrast, the lethality of E. carinatus found in Sri Lanka was neutralized by snake venom antiserum (polyvalent) from Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, India, and snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd. India with ER50 value reported at 2.82 mg/mL and 2.79 mg/mL [65]. Moreover, it was found that the lethality of E. carinatus found in Pakistan cannot be cross-neutralized by the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand [42].

Lastly, in Southeast Asia, Daboia siamensis (Eastern Russell’s viper) found in Myanmar can be cross-neutralized by the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom with the ED50 value of 35.36 μL [37], and Russell’s viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand, resulting with the ED50 of 60 μL, ranging from 40.58–88.70 μL [30]. D. siamensis found in Thailand had specific antivenoms, the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom and Russell’s viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand, which were neutralized against its lethality through various ED50 values [29, 30, 37, 39]. However, SABU polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia was ineffective against both lethality of D. siamensis from Thailand and Indonesia [29]. In contrast, Russell’s viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand can be cross-neutralized against the lethality of D. siamensis from Thailand and Indonesia with the ED50 value of 9.5 μL and 6.64 μL, respectively [29].

Medically important pit vipers of Asia. In East Asia, Deinagkistrodon acutus (sharp-nosed pit viper) found in China was tested against Agkistrodon acutus antivenin from Shanghai Serum Bio-technology Co Ltd. and monovalent antivenin snorkel viper from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan exhibiting the ED50 value of 32 μL and 5 μL, respectively [66]. Taiwanese D. acutus was tested against A. acutus antivenin from Shanghai Serum Bio-technology Co Ltd. and monovalent antivenin snorkel viper from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, exhibited the ED50 value of 6.88 μL and 2.78 μL, respectively [66]. The results showed that both antivenoms could neutralize the lethality of both D. acutus in China and Taiwan.

Regarding South Asia pit vipers, Hypnale hypnale (hump-nosed pit viper) lethality found in Sri Lanka can be cross-neutralized by snake venom antiserum I.P. (Asia) from VINS Bioproducts Ltd., India [64]. Its lethality can be cross-neutralized by the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI with the ED50 value of 41.53 μL, ranging from 20.4–88.4 μL [42], and Malayan pit viper antivenin from QSMI with the ED50 value of 70.71 μL, ranging from 33.7–148.4 μL [42].

For Southeast Asia pit vipers, Calloselasma rhodostoma (Malayan pit viper) found in Java Island, Indonesia, was neutralized by its specific polyvalent antivenom, SABU polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia [33]. It can be neutralized by the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 18.75 μL and 11.2 μL reported in two studies [33, 37]. The lethality of C. rhodostoma found in Malaysia can also be neutralized by the hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 22.47 μL [37, 42], and Malayan pit viper antivenin from QSMI with the ED50 value of 41.53 μL, ranging from 20.4–88.4 μL [42].

Trimeresurus albolabris (white-lipped green pit viper) found in Thailand had a specific antivenom, green pit viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand, where its efficacy against the lethality of this snake species in two studies had been confirmed with the ED50 value of 10.95 μL and 14 μL [25, 43].

For the lethality of Trimeresurus erythrurus (red-tailed green pit viper) found in Myanmar, it can be cross-neutralized by anti-viper (Russell’s viper) from Myanmar Pharmaceutical Factory, Myanmar, resulting in the ED50 value of 125 μL [23], and green pit viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand providing the ED50 value of 75 μL [23].

The lethality of Trimeresurus insularis (white-lipped island pit viper) found in Indonesia can also be cross-neutralized by green pit viper antivenin from QSMI, Thailand, with the ED50 value of 13.78 μL, ranging from 8.7–21.8 μL [31], and SABU polivalen (Bio Save) from PT Bio Farma (Persero), Indonesia resulting in the ED50 value of 145.9 μL, ranging from 129.12–164.97 μl [31].

Sea snakes and sea kraits of Asia.

Sea snakes of Asia. Besides medically important venomous snakes, sea snakes in Asia, Hydrophis spp., were also tested against antivenoms. Hydrophis schistosus (beaked sea snake) found in Malaysia was cross-neutralized by the neurobivalent antivenom from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, cobra antivenin, and the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with ED50 values of 141.36 μL, 89.89 μL, and 100 μL, respectively [35]. Malaysian H. schistosus was also tested and cross-neutralized by the sea snake antivenom from CSL Ltd., Australia, with the ED50 value of 13.91 μL [49].

Hydrophis curtus (Shaw’s sea snake) found in Malaysia was also cross-neutralized by the neurobivalent antivenom from the National Institute of Preventive Medicine, Taiwan, cobra antivenin, and the neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, with ED50 values of 200 μL, 89.89 μL, and 125 μL, respectively [35]. Malaysian H. curtus was also cross-neutralized by the sea snake antivenom from CSL Ltd., Australia, with the ED50 value of 9.87 μL, ranging from 7.98–12.21 μL [48].

Lastly, the lethality of Hydrophis hardwickii (spine-bellied sea snake) found in Japan was tested against cobra antivenin from QSMI, which showed ED50 values of 91.8 μL, 118.3 μL, and 128.5 μL [44].

Sea krait of Asia. Indonesian sea krait, Laticauda colubrina (yellow-lipped sea krait), was tested against the sea snake antivenom from CSL Ltd., Australia, and showed cross-neutralizing efficacy with the ED50 value of 8.84 μL, ranging from 6.76–11.54 μL [50].

Quality assessment

The risk of bias from the included studies is assessed and presented in S5 Table. For selection bias, no information regarding allocation sequence generation and concealment was mentioned in any studies leading to the unclear risk of bias. At the same time, baseline characteristics were not reported in one study (2%), leading to the unclear risk of bias [44]. However, 51 studies stated baseline characteristics that caused no risk of bias in this domain. Regarding performance bias, random housing, caregiver blinding, and investigator blinding were not stated in the included studies leading to the unclear risk of bias. Random outcomes assessment and outcome assessor blinding were also not mentioned in any included preclinical studies resulting in the unclear risk of detection bias. Incomplete outcome data had not been addressed in all included studies, leading to the unclear risk of attrition bias. For reporting bias, no selective outcome reporting was reported in any included studies resulting in no risk of reporting bias. Lastly, all included studies were free of other problems that could result in a high risk of bias which caused no risk of other biases.

Assessment of reported data from 52 studies using reporting guidelines for in vivo neutralization of the lethality of antivenom assessment is performed and reported in S6 Table. In the experiment setup section, 47 (90%) studies had reported the antivenom batch numbers [21–37, 40–46, 49–56, 58–72]. Thirty-one (60%) studies reported the total protein concentration of antivenoms [22–33, 37, 40, 41, 48, 50, 52–56, 58–60, 64, 65, 67–69, 71]. Four (8%) studies provided no information regarding the origin of some snake venoms used in the studies [37, 40, 41, 72]. The ethical statement was not mentioned in six (13%) studies [43–47, 51].

In the animal section, the source of animals, mouse strains, and mouse weight were mentioned in 36, 49, and 49 studies, respectively. In contrast, husbandry information was not mentioned in any included studies.

In the procedure section, the numbers of LD50 used in the experiment, route of administration, and pre-incubation process were informed in all studies. Multiples of LD50 used in the experiment are between 2.5 to 8 folds which shows the details of each factor. For the route of administration, intravenous (90%) [21–37, 39–59, 61–67, 69, 72] and intraperitoneal (10%) [38, 60, 68, 70, 71] routes were used. The number of mice per group and experiment length were mentioned in 49 (94%) [21–39, 41–51, 53–60, 62–72] and 50 (96%) studies [21–42, 44, 46–72]. Nevertheless, the total number of mice used in each experiment was not provided in any studies.

In the reported results section, no group outcomes and adverse events were mentioned in any studies. Forty-nine (94%) studies mentioned a statistical method used in the ED50 calculation [21, 22, 24–37, 39–52, 54–72]. Probit analysis, a statistical method, was mainly used (79%) [22, 24–37, 40–42, 47–52, 54–67, 69, 71, 72]. The description of statistical analysis was reported in 28 (54%) studies. ED50 units were differently applied among the included studies. In most studies, 40 (77%) out of 52 used a microliter (μL) for the ED50 unit. However, units are varied among the rest of the studies, such as milligram per milliliter (mg/mL) (6%), microliter per gram (μg/g) (4%), milligram per gram (mg/g) (6%), milligram (mg) (4%), or milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) (2%).

Situation of effective antivenom availability in each country in Asia

Summaries of the availability of local antivenom production and studies assessing the efficacy of antivenoms in each country in Asia are shown in Fig 2. There are 12 countries in Asia with local antivenom production. Among countries with no local antivenom production, the authors found only three countries where the efficacy of antivenoms had been assessed, namely Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. In countries with local antivenom production, studies assessing antivenom efficacy were found in 10 countries except for South Korea and Uzbekistan.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Heat map of local antivenom production availability and studies assessing preclinical efficacy of antivenoms.

Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.g002

To focus more on details on each country in Asia, Table 2 demonstrates the availability of specific antivenoms against medically important venomous snakes in each country in Asia and shows Asian snakes with preclinical studies that confirmed antivenoms with cross-neutralizing or neutralizing ability against their lethality.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Availability of specific antivenoms against categories one and two medically important venomous snakes in each country in Asia and available studies that confirmed antivenom cross-neutralizing or neutralizing ability against their lethality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.t002

East Asia countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have local specific antivenoms against all category one medically important venomous snakes in their countries. In comparison, Hong Kong and North Korea have no local specific antivenoms against category one medically important venomous snakes, and no studies have been found confirming antivenoms with cross-neutralizing or neutralizing ability. In addition, China has local specific antivenoms against only three (42.86%) category one medically important venomous snakes and one (6.25%) of category two medically important venomous snakes. However, some studies were found to confirm antivenom efficacy against medically important venomous snakes with no local specific antivenoms found.

India and Pakistan are the only two countries in South Asia that can produce local antivenoms. However, the availability of local antivenoms has covered category one medically important venomous snakes at 66.67% in their countries.

For other countries in South Asia without local antivenom production, it has been confirmed that there are antivenoms that can cross-neutralize against the lethality of category one medically important venomous snakes in their countries. For example, it was found that there are available antivenoms with cross-neutralizing ability against all (100%) category one medically important venomous snakes in Sri Lanka. No specific antivenom was developed against category two medically important venomous snakes in South Asia. However, studies confirming antivenom efficacy against them were conducted in Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka.

Among countries in Southeast Asia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Lao PDR were the countries without local antivenom production. However, studies confirming antivenom cross-neutralizing ability were found for Malaysia’s four (100%) category one medically important venomous snakes. However, no studies in Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, and Lao PDR confirmed antivenom efficacy.

Thailand produced local antivenoms against five (83%) out of seven in category one medically important venomous snakes, which was the highest among countries in Southeast Asia. For category two medically important venomous snakes, only Thailand and Indonesia can produce specific antivenoms against two and one category two medically important venomous snakes, respectively. Additionally, studies confirming efficacy against category two medically important venomous snakes were found only in Malaysia among the countries with no local antivenom production.

Discussion

Snakebite envenoming is a neglected tropical disease with an issue of access to effective treatment. Therefore, imported antivenoms can be used as an alternative treatment in countries with no local antivenom production. Nonetheless, to confirm its effectiveness, antivenom efficacy must be assessed before use in designated areas. This is because snake venoms are different within and between species due to geographic variation, which can lead to varying strengths of antivenom-neutralizing ability [73].

As demonstrated in the results, neuro-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, can cross-neutralize against the lethality of many medically important venomous snakes with no specific antivenoms within the Elapidae family. For example, N. atra in Taiwan, N. naja in Sri Lanka, B. candidus in Indonesia (Java Island) and Malaysia, N. kaouthia in Malaysia, N. sputatrix in Malaysia, and N. sumatrana in Indonesia (Sumatra). Consistently, hemato-polyvalent snake antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, can cross-neutralize against the lethality of snakes in Asia without specific antivenoms in Viperidae family, which are D. russelii in Sri Lanka, H. hypnale in Sri Lanka, C. rhodostoma in Malaysia, and D. siamensis in Myanmar. It showed that polyvalent antivenoms may cross-neutralize against different snake species within a similar family and in other regions.

Regarding monovalent antivenoms, they can cross-neutralize against snakes with a similar genus from different areas. For instance, a cobra (N. kaouthia) antivenom from QSMI, Thailand, has a cross-neutralizing ability against the lethality of N. kaouthia in Malaysia and N. siamensis in Thailand. Furthermore, local monovalent antivenoms can cross-neutralize against the lethality of snakes with a similar genus in their countries, such as monovalent (N. philippinensis) cobra antivenin from Biologicals Manufacturing Division, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Malaysia, can cross-neutralize against the lethality of N. samarensis in the Philippines. However, no studies confirm neutralizing ability against lethality for more than 50% of medically important venomous snakes in Asia. This result showed a lack of information on this public health issue following a previous systematic review of antivenom preclinical efficacy in sub-Saharan Africa [18]. Surprisingly, a polyvalent snake antivenom from India, in which N. naja venom was included in the immunizing mixture in the development process, cannot neutralize the lethality of N. naja in Maharashtra, Southwest India. This finding supports that the quality of antivenoms is also an issue for this neglected tropical disease.

Regarding the risk of bias assessment, the limited reported data in the included studies caused an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Those data should be provided to help assess the risk of bias in the study design. Regarding the information reported in the included studies, some studies included in this systematic review did not report on snake origins. Reporting on the snake origin being tested in the experiment is crucial since there is geographical variation among snake venoms. Most studies did not report the total number of mice used in the experiment. This information can be used to evaluate the appropriate use of animals in which the regulatory requirement of 3Rs suggests that a minimal number of animals should be used, usually three to five groups of animals consisting of at least four per group [74]. For husbandry information, it is likely that detailed information, such as technical and customary to individual animal research facilities, is provided in the animal use protocols for ethics approval applied to the respective bodies. Therefore, ethical clearance should be provided in such studies involving the use of laboratory animals. However, out of the 52 studies analyzed, it was found that six (12%) did not present any ethical statement. Control groups were not directly displayed in some included studies, but it is compulsory and well-known to perform a test in control groups for in vivo neutralization studies without reporting them. The numbers of LD50 used in each experiment were different. Moreover, metrics of ED50 were used differently across the included studies, which limited the authors in a meta-analysis performed by a previous systematic review of antivenom preclinical efficacy in sub-Saharan Africa [18]. It shows that universal guidelines for antivenom efficacy assessment should be optimized and globally applied for the standardization of antivenom. According to the WHO guidelines [13], it is recommended that ED50 should be expressed in three units: mg of venom neutralized by mL of antivenom, μL of antivenom required to neutralize the challenge dose of venom used, and μL of antivenom required for 1 mg of venom neutralizing. For the description of statistical analysis, it was reported in some studies. However, it can be referred to the earlier studies or established methods that can also be found in the included studies.

Due to ethical issues, it was challenging to perform clinical trials to assess antivenom efficacy in human participants [75]. According to the previous systematic review by Abouyannis M, et al. [76], only 43 clinical trials of snake antivenoms were conducted worldwide in the past 60 years, while only 22 clinical trials were performed in Asia. Additionally, results reported in the clinical trials were heterogeneous. Some measured outcomes in clinical trials were not valid. Therefore, guidance for conducting and reporting outcomes in clinical trials for snakebite envenoming was essential [76]. In contrast, the WHO developed a valid and reliable guideline to conduct preclinical studies regarding the assessment of antivenom efficacy [13]. Outcomes reported in preclinical studies, such as ED50, were universal, as demonstrated in the results of this study that conducting method was based on the WHO guideline. This confirmed that preclinical studies should be performed to ensure the efficacy of antivenoms in case clinical trials are not applicable. However, preclinical studies may not reflect the real-world context in human envenoming. According to the included studies, mice were intravenously or intraperitoneally injected with a preincubated venom-antivenom mixture which does not reflect the real-world context. Moreover, adverse events cannot be assessed in this design of the preclinical studies, consistent with the results where the adverse events were not reported in any included studies. Therefore, real-world evidence of antivenom effectiveness and safety in humans should be encouraged for further development to fulfill the snakebite-information system in the clinical aspect.

According to the antivenom availability situation demonstrated in the results, each country has different problems. Countries with local antivenoms have specific antivenoms but do not cover all medically important venomous snakes in their countries. Few studies from countries with no local antivenom production assessed the efficacy of antivenoms. This may imply that snakebite envenoming and the issue of access to effective antivenoms were not prioritized in these countries. There should be collaboration in Asia on this public health issue, for instance, collective policy suggestions providing guidelines for countries either with or without local antivenom production and a target product profile development for snake antivenoms in Asia.

Moreover, a snakebite database is crucial and remains unavailable [12]. This study is the first step in snakebite-information system development, especially in Asia. Nevertheless, this information system should be continuously updated to enable users, such as healthcare professionals, to search for effective antivenom neutralized against the toxic effects of snake venoms. In addition, despite the availability of antivenoms, the affordability, accessibility, and acceptability of antivenoms are also issues in snakebite envenoming. Snakebite victims may be unable to afford antivenoms and other supportive treatments, even utilizing traditional medicine that could be ineffective [9]. Further investigations on these dimensions are required.

In summary, access to effective antivenoms is an issue for this neglected tropical disease. Improvement of access to effective antivenoms is the key to solving snakebite envenoming. In countries with no local antivenom production, antivenom with confirmed cross-neutralizing ability can be used as an alternative treatment where new antivenom development is limited. To confirm antivenom efficacy, clinical trials are limited due to ethical issues. Thus, non-clinical studies should be performed to ensure antivenom efficacy. In countries with local antivenom production, some antivenoms were ineffective against snake venoms in the immunizing mixture. The efficacy of these available antivenoms also requires assessment. Hence, regulatory guidelines in Asia should be developed, which could elucidate what antivenom should be developed, how to produce antivenoms with assured quality, and what parameters should be reported to assure the reliability and validity of methods and outcomes.

This review had several limitations. First, only available antivenoms were included, while the new-generation antivenoms awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration via cross-neutralizing and neutralizing ability assessment were not included. Second, studies on antivenoms’ cross-neutralizing and neutralizing abilities against toxic effects other than lethality were excluded because the neutralization of toxic effects other than lethality was supplementary preclinical assays [13]. However, other toxic effects from snake venoms such as neurotoxic and hemorrhagic activities can cause serious, often lifelong, morbidity and disability [77, 78]. Therefore, further investigations are encouraged to summarize the preclinical efficacy of antivenoms against these toxic effects. Third, only Asian snakes were included. These limitations necessitate the periodic update of this review. Fourth, preclinical studies are not required to be published for antivenom registration. Thus, in-house experiments could not be included in this review. Lastly, the comparison of antivenom efficacy by solely comparing the ED50 values is limited because the ED50 values are heterogenous and many variables affect the ED50 values such as different challenge lethal doses and routes of injection. The amount of venom injected per bite can also affect the efficacy of antivenoms, however, this parameter is not commonly reported in the included studies and it varies depending on the species, size, and geographical origins of snakes, as well as the number of fangs that penetrated the skin [11]. Further investigations are required where snakebite envenoming is an issue to develop more exhaustive databases to solve this neglected tropical disease and achieve the goal of halving the disability and mortality from snakebite envenoming according to the WHO’s roadmap [6].

Conclusion

Cross-neutralizing ability against the lethality of Asian snake venom was confirmed. This strategy can help improve equal access to geographically effective antivenoms, improving the snakebite envenoming patient outcomes. It may also bypass the investment in new antivenom development, especially in countries without local antivenom production. This study provides data for a snakebite-information system, which is still lacking. Nevertheless, studies confirming antivenom effectiveness against the lethality of some medically important venomous snakes are unavailable. Thus, the development of more databases should be encouraged.

Supporting information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Search strategies of each database from inception to May 30th 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Study characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Results of antivenom neutralization against snake venom lethality from the included preclinical studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s004

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Risk of bias assessment using Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation’s (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool for animal studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s005

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Assessment of reporting guideline for in vivo neutralization of lethality of antivenom assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s006

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Excluded studies with reasons from the search in this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288723.s007

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Kasturiratne A, Wickremasinghe Ar Fau—de Silva N, de Silva N Fau—Gunawardena NK, et al. The global burden of snakebite: a literature analysis and modelling based on regional estimates of envenoming and deaths. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e218. pmid:18986210
  2. 2. Habib AG, Brown NI. The snakebite problem and antivenom crisis from a health-economic perspective. Toxicon. 2018(1879–3150 (Electronic)). pmid:29782952
  3. 3. Patikorn C, Leelavanich D, Ismail AK, et al. Global systematic review of cost of illness and economic evaluation studies associated with snakebite. J Glob Health. 2020;10(2):020415. pmid:33312499
  4. 4. Kasturiratne A, Pathmeswaran A, Wickremasinghe AR, et al. The socio-economic burden of snakebite in Sri Lanka. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):e0005647. pmid:28683119
  5. 5. Patikorn C, Blessmann J, Nwe MT, et al. Estimating economic and disease burden of snakebite in ASEAN countries using a decision analytic model. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2022;16(9):e0010775. pmid:36170270
  6. 6. Chippaux JP. Snakebite envenomation turns again into a neglected tropical disease! J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2017;23(1678–9199 (Print)):38. pmid:28804495
  7. 7. Alirol E, Lechevalier P, Zamatto F, et al. Antivenoms for Snakebite Envenoming: What Is in the Research Pipeline? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(9):e0003896. pmid:26355744
  8. 8. (WHO) WHO. Control of neglected tropical diseases 2020 [cited 2021 Aug]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/control-of-neglected-tropical-diseases/snakebite-envenoming/antivenoms.
  9. 9. Brown NI. Consequences of neglect: analysis of the sub-Saharan African snake antivenom market and the global context. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(6):e1670. pmid:22679521
  10. 10. Sivaganabalan R, Ismail AK, Salleh M, et al. Guideline on the Management of Snakebites. 2017.
  11. 11. Regional Office for South-East Asia WHO. Guidelines for the management of snakebites 2016 [cited 2021 12 Aug]. 2nd edition:[Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/249547.
  12. 12. Patikorn C, Ismail AK, Abidin SAZ, et al. Situation of snakebite, antivenom market and access to antivenoms in ASEAN countries. BMJ global health. 2022;7(3):e007639. pmid:35296460
  13. 13. (WHO) WHO. Annex 5 WHO Guidelines on production, control and regulation of snake antivenom immunoglobulins 2017 [cited 2021 Aug]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/snake-antivenom-immunoglobulins-annex-5-trs-no-1004.
  14. 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
  15. 15. Higgins J, Lasserson T, Chandler J, et al. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane: London, Version 24 February 2021.
  16. 16. Soopairin S, Patikorn C, Taychakhoonavudh S. Antivenom cross-neutralization and neutralization: a systematic review of non-clinical studies in Asia region. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews.Registered Jan 2022 [Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=284543.
  17. 17. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:43. pmid:24667063
  18. 18. Ainsworth SA-O, Menzies SA-O, Casewell NA-O, et al. An analysis of preclinical efficacy testing of antivenoms for sub-Saharan Africa: Inadequate independent scrutiny and poor-quality reporting are barriers to improving snakebite treatment and management. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(8):e0008579. pmid:32817682
  19. 19. Bon C, Burnouf T, Gutiérrez J, et al. WHO Guidelines for the Production, Control and Regulations of Snake Antivenoms Immunoglobulins. Technical Report Series 930. 2010.
  20. 20. (WHO) WHO. Snakebite information and Data platform 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/control-of-neglected-tropical-diseases/snakebite-envenoming/snakebite-information-and-data-platform/overview#tab=tab_1.
  21. 21. Chanhome L, Khow O, Reamtong O, et al. Biochemical and proteomic analyses of venom from a new pit viper, Protobothrops kelomohy. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases. 2022;28:14. pmid:35432492
  22. 22. Tan CH, Palasuberniam P, Blanco FB, et al. Immunoreactivity and neutralization capacity of Philippine cobra antivenom against Naja philippinensis and Naja samarensis venoms. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2021;115(1):78–84. pmid:32945886
  23. 23. Yee KT, Maw LZ, Kyaw AM, et al. Evaluation of the cross-neutralization capacity of Thai green pit viper antivenom against venom of Myanmar green pit viper. Toxicon. 2020;177:41–5. pmid:32056833
  24. 24. Tan KY, Ng TS, Bourges A, et al. Geographical variations in king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) venom from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and China: On venom lethality, antivenom immunoreactivity and in vivo neutralization. Acta Tropica. 2020;203. pmid:31862461
  25. 25. Liew JL, Tan NH, Tan CH. Proteomics and preclinical antivenom neutralization of the mangrove pit viper (Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus, Malaysia) and white-lipped pit viper (Trimeresurus albolabris, Thailand) venoms. Acta Tropica. 2020;209. pmid:32442435
  26. 26. Lee LP, Tan KY, Tan CH. Toxicity and cross-neutralization of snake venoms from two lesser-known arboreal pit vipers in Southeast Asia: Trimeresurus wiroti and Trimeresurus puniceus. Toxicon. 2020;185:91–6. pmid:32585219
  27. 27. Hia YL, Tan KY, Tan CH. Comparative venom proteomics of banded krait (Bungarus fasciatus) from five geographical locales: Correlation of venom lethality, immunoreactivity and antivenom neutralization. Acta Tropica. 2020;207. pmid:32278639
  28. 28. Tan CH, Tan KY, Ng TS, et al. Venomics of trimeresurus (Popeia) nebularis, the cameron highlands pit viper from Malaysia: Insights into venom proteome, toxicity and neutralization of antivenom. Toxins. 2019;11(2).
  29. 29. Lingam TMC, Tan KY, Tan CH. Thai Russell’s viper monospecific antivenom is immunoreactive and effective in neutralizing the venom of Daboia siamensis from Java, Indonesia. Toxicon. 2019;168:95–7. pmid:31254600
  30. 30. Chaisakul J, Alsolaiss J, Charoenpitakchai M, et al. Evaluation of the geographical utility of Eastern Russell’s viper (Daboia siamensis) antivenom from Thailand and an assessment of its protective effects against venom-induced nephrotoxicity. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019;13(10). pmid:31644526
  31. 31. Tan CH, Liew JL, Tan NH, et al. Cross reactivity and lethality neutralization of venoms of Indonesian Trimeresurus complex species by Thai Green Pit Viper Antivenom. Toxicon. 2017;140:32–7. pmid:29051104
  32. 32. Tan KY, Tan CH, Fung SY, et al. Neutralization of the principal toxins from the venoms of thai naja kaouthia and malaysian hydrophis schistosus: Insights into toxin-specific neutralization by two different antivenoms. Toxins. 2016;8(4). pmid:27023606
  33. 33. Tan CH, Liew JL, Tan KY, et al. Assessing SABU (Serum Anti Bisa Ular), the sole Indonesian antivenom: A proteomic analysis and neutralization efficacy study. Scientific reports. 2016;6:37299. pmid:27869134
  34. 34. Tan KY, Tan CH, Fung SY, et al. Venomics, lethality and neutralization of Naja kaouthia (monocled cobra) venoms from three different geographical regions of Southeast Asia. Journal of Proteomics. 2015;120:105–25. pmid:25748141
  35. 35. Tan CH, Tan NH, Tan KY, et al. Antivenom cross-neutralization of the venoms of Hydrophis schistosus and Hydrophis curtus, two common sea snakes in Malaysian waters. Toxins. 2015;7(2):572–81.
  36. 36. Leong PK, Fung SY, Tan CH, et al. Immunological cross-reactivity and neutralization of the principal toxins of Naja sumatrana and related cobra venoms by a Thai polyvalent antivenom (Neuro Polyvalent Snake Antivenom). Acta Tropica. 2015;149:86–93. pmid:26026717
  37. 37. Leong PK, Tan CH, Sim SM, et al. Cross neutralization of common Southeast Asian viperid venoms by a Thai polyvalent snake antivenom (Hemato Polyvalent Snake Antivenom). Acta Tropica. 2014;132(1):7–14. pmid:24384454
  38. 38. Danpaiboon W, Reamtong O, Sookrung N, et al. Ophiophagus hannah venom: Proteome, components bound by Naja kaouthia antivenin and neutralization by n. kaouthia neurotoxin-specific human ScFv. Toxins. 2014;6(5):1526–58.
  39. 39. Pakmanee N, Noiphrom J, Kay A, et al. Comparative abilities of IgG and F(ab ’)(2) monovalent antivenoms to neutralize lethality, phospholipase A(2), and coagulant activities induced by Daboia siamensis venom and their anticomplementary activity. Scienceasia. 2013;39(2):160–6.
  40. 40. Leong PK, Tan NH, Fung SY, et al. Cross neutralisation of Southeast Asian cobra and krait venoms by Indian polyvalent antivenoms. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2012;106(12):731–7. pmid:23062608
  41. 41. Leong PK, Sim SM, Fung SY, et al. Cross neutralization of afro-asian cobra and asian krait venoms by a thai polyvalent snake antivenom (neuro polyvalent snake antivenom). PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;6(6). pmid:22679522
  42. 42. Tan CH, Leong PK, Fung SY, et al. Cross neutralization of Hypnale hypnale (hump-nosed pit viper) venom by polyvalent and monovalent Malayan pit viper antivenoms in vitro and in a rodent model. Acta Tropica. 2011;117(2):119–24. pmid:21073851
  43. 43. Chanhome L, Khow O, Omori-Satoh T, et al. Capacity of Thai green pit viper antivenom to neutralize the venoms of Thai Trimeresurus snakes and comparison of biological activities of these venoms. Journal of natural toxins. 2002;11(3):251–9. pmid:12182545
  44. 44. Khow O, Chanhome L, Omori-Satoh T, et al. Effectiveness of Thai cobra (Naja kaouthia) antivenom against sea snake (Lapemis hardwickii) venom: verification by affinity purified F(AB’)2 fragments. J Nat Toxins. 2001;10(3):249–53. pmid:11491464
  45. 45. Chanhome L, Wongtongkam N, Khow O, et al. Genus specific neutralization of Bungarus snake venoms by Thai Red Cross banded krait antivenom. Journal of Natural Toxins. 1999;8(1):135–40. pmid:10091133
  46. 46. Khow O, Pakmanee N, Chanhome L, et al. Cross-neutralization of Thai cobra (Naja kaouthia) and spitting cobra (Naja siamensis) venoms by Thai cobra antivenom. Toxicon. 1997;35(11):1649–51. pmid:9428112
  47. 47. Sells PG, Jones RG, Laing GD, et al. Experimental evaluation of ovine antisera to Thai cobra (Naja kaouthia) venom and its alpha-neurotoxin. Toxicon. 1994;32(12):1657–65. pmid:7725333
  48. 48. Tan CH, Tan KY, Ng TS, et al. Venom Proteome of Spine-Bellied Sea Snake (Hydrophis curtus) from Penang, Malaysia: Toxicity Correlation, Immunoprofiling and Cross-Neutralization by Sea Snake Antivenom. Toxins (Basel). 2018;11(1). pmid:30583590
  49. 49. Tan CH, Tan KY, Tan NH. Revisiting Notechis scutatus venom: on shotgun proteomics and neutralization by the "bivalent" Sea Snake Antivenom. J Proteomics. 2016;144:33–8. pmid:27282922
  50. 50. Tan CH, Wong KY, Tan KY, et al. Venom proteome of the yellow-lipped sea krait, Laticauda colubrina from Bali: Insights into subvenomic diversity, venom antigenicity and cross-neutralization by antivenom. J Proteomics. 2017;166:48–58. pmid:28688916
  51. 51. Wong KY, Tan KY, Tan NH, et al. Elucidating the Venom Diversity in Sri Lankan Spectacled Cobra (Naja naja) through De Novo Venom Gland Transcriptomics, Venom Proteomics and Toxicity Neutralization. Toxins. 2021;13(8):30. pmid:34437429
  52. 52. Faisal T, Tan KY, Tan NH, et al. Proteomics, toxicity and antivenom neutralization of Sri Lankan and Indian Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii) venoms. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases. 2021;27:15. pmid:33995514
  53. 53. Attarde S, Khochare S, Iyer A, et al. Venomics of the Enigmatic Andaman Cobra (Naja sagittifera) and the Preclinical Failure of Indian Antivenoms in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2021;12:16. pmid:34759827
  54. 54. Laxme RRS, Khochare S, Attarde S, et al. Biogeographic venom variation in Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii) and the preclinical inefficacy of antivenom therapy in snakebite hotspots. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2021;15(3).
  55. 55. Laxme RRS, Attarde S, Khochare S, et al. Biogeographical venom variation in the Indian spectacled cobra (Naja naja) underscores the pressing need for pan-India efficacious snakebite therapy. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2021;15(2).
  56. 56. Choraria A, Somasundaram R, Gautam M, et al. Experimental antivenoms from chickens and rabbits and their comparison with commercially available equine antivenom against the venoms of Daboia russelii and Echis carinatus snakes. Toxin Reviews. 2020.
  57. 57. Pla D, Sanz L, Quesada-Bernat S, et al. Phylovenomics of Daboia russelii across the Indian subcontinent. Bioactivities and comparative in vivo neutralization and in vitro third-generation antivenomics of antivenoms against venoms from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Journal of Proteomics. 2019;207.
  58. 58. Oh AMF, Tan CH, Tan KY, et al. Venom proteome of Bungarus sindanus (Sind krait) from Pakistan and in vivo cross-neutralization of toxicity using an Indian polyvalent antivenom. Journal of Proteomics. 2019;193:243–54. pmid:30385415
  59. 59. Laxme RRS, Khochare S, de Souza HF, et al. Beyond the ’big four’: Venom profiling of the medically important yet neglected Indian snakes reveals disturbing antivenom deficiencies. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019;13(12).
  60. 60. Deka A, Abu Reza M, Hoque KMF, et al. Comparative analysis of Naja kaouthia venom from North-East India and Bangladesh and its cross reactivity with Indian polyvalent antivenoms. Toxicon. 2019;164:31–43. pmid:30953661
  61. 61. Faisal T, Tan KY, Sim SM, et al. Proteomics, functional characterization and antivenom neutralization of the venom of Pakistani Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii) from the wild. Journal of Proteomics. 2018;183:1–13. pmid:29729992
  62. 62. Oh AMF, Tan CH, Ariaranee GC, et al. Venomics of Bungarus caeruleus (Indian krait): Comparable venom profiles, variable immunoreactivities among specimens from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. Journal of Proteomics. 2017;164:1–18. pmid:28476572
  63. 63. Wong KY, Tan CH, Tan NH. Venom and purified toxins of the spectacled cobra (Naja naja) from Pakistan: Insights into toxicity and antivenom neutralization. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2016;94(6):1392–9. pmid:27022154
  64. 64. Villalta M, Sánchez A, Herrera M, et al. Development of a new polyspecific antivenom for snakebite envenoming in Sri Lanka: Analysis of its preclinical efficacy as compared to a currently available antivenom. Toxicon. 2016;122:152–9. pmid:27720977
  65. 65. Maduwage K, Silva A, O’Leary MA, et al. Efficacy of Indian polyvalent snake antivenoms against Sri Lankan snake venoms: lethality studies or clinically focussed in vitro studies. Scientific reports. 2016;6:26778. pmid:27231196
  66. 66. Tan KY, Shamsuddin NN, Tan CH. Sharp-nosed Pit Viper (Deinagkistrodon acutus) from Taiwan and China: A comparative study on venom toxicity and neutralization by two specific antivenoms across the Strait. Acta Trop. 2022;232:106495. pmid:35504314
  67. 67. Oh AMF, Tan KY, Tan NH, et al. Proteomics and neutralization of Bungarus multicinctus (Many-banded Krait) venom: Intra-specific comparisons between specimens from China and Taiwan. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part—C: Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2021;247. pmid:33910092
  68. 68. Lin B, Zhang JR, Lu HJ, et al. Immunoreactivity and neutralization study of chinese bungarus multicinctus antivenin and lab-prepared anti-bungarotoxin antisera towards purified bungarotoxins and snake venoms. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2020;14(11):1–19. pmid:33253321
  69. 69. Tan KY, Tan NH, Tan CH. Venom proteomics and antivenom neutralization for the Chinese eastern Russell’s viper, Daboia siamensis from Guangxi and Taiwan. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):8545. pmid:29867131
  70. 70. Liu BS, Wu WG, Lin MH, et al. Identification of immunoreactive peptides of toxins to simultaneously assess the neutralization potency of antivenoms against neurotoxicity and cytotoxicity of Naja atra venom. Toxins. 2018;10(1).
  71. 71. Sanz L, Quesada-Bernat S, Chen PY, et al. Translational Venomics: Third-Generation Antivenomics of Anti-Siamese Russell’s Viper, Daboia siamensis, Antivenom Manufactured in Taiwan CDC’s Vaccine Center. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018;3(2). pmid:30274462
  72. 72. Yap MK, Tan NH, Sim SM, et al. The Effect of a Polyvalent Antivenom on the Serum Venom Antigen Levels of Naja sputatrix (Javan Spitting Cobra) Venom in Experimentally Envenomed Rabbits. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;117(4):274–9. pmid:25819552
  73. 73. Casewell NR, Jackson TNW, Laustsen AH, et al. Causes and Consequences of Snake Venom Variation. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2020;41(8):570–81. pmid:32564899
  74. 74. (EMA) EMA. Guideline on the principles of regulatory acceptance of 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) testing approaches. 2016 [2022 Oct 5]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/regulatory-acceptance-3r-replacement-reduction-refinement-testing-approaches-scientific-guideline.
  75. 75. Williams DJ, Habib AG, Warrell DA. Clinical studies of the effectiveness and safety of antivenoms. Toxicon. 2018;150:1–10. pmid:29746978
  76. 76. Abouyannis M, Aggarwal D, Lalloo DG, et al. Clinical outcomes and outcome measurement tools reported in randomised controlled trials of treatment for snakebite envenoming: A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(8):e0009589. pmid:34339410
  77. 77. Waiddyanatha S, Silva AA-O, Siribaddana SA-O, et al. Long-term Effects of Snake Envenoming. LID—10.3390/toxins11040193 LID—193. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11(4):193. pmid:30935096
  78. 78. Del Brutto OH, Del Brutto VJ. Neurological complications of venomous snake bites: a review. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;125(6):363–72. pmid:21999367