Antithymocyte immunoglobulin (equine) 100mg/5ml solution for infusion vials
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 7 · Randomised trials: 1 · 1974–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Knoedler L, Niederegger T, Schaschinger T, et al.
2025
- Tissue Scaffolds
- Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation
- Biopolymers
BackgroundVascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) joins skin, muscle, bone, nerve, and vessels into a single graft that is both highly immunogenic and mechanically complex. Biopolymers, natural or synthetic, can provide structural scaffolding, localized drug release, and immune modulation. Although widely explored in solid-organ transplantation, their utility in VCA is poorly defined. We therefore conducted a systematic review to consolidate current evidence and map translational priorities.MethodsAdhering to PRISMA 2020 and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251039845), we searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar through April 2025. Original studies evaluating biopolymers in any VCA-relevant setting (in vitro, animal, or clinical) were eligible. Clinical quality was judged with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pre-clinical studies with the SYRCLE tool. Given methodological heterogeneity, findings were narratively synthesized.ResultsEleven studies published between 2014 and 2024 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Collectively, they demonstrate that biopolymers, ranging from decellularized limb and auricular scaffolds to collagen-hydroxyapatite or polycaprolactone bone substitutes, hyaluronic-acid-functionalized vascular grafts, chitosan- or alginate-based drug-eluting coatings, and extracellular-matrix (ECM) sheets delivering cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4-immunoglobulin (CTLA4-Ig) with or without rapamycin, consistently enhance vascularization, support multi-tissue regeneration, and preserve mechanical integrity across diverse VCA models. Immunologically, polymer platforms bias host responses toward tolerance: in a murine hind-limb model, ECM combined with CTLA4-Ig and rapamycin extended graft survival to 72 days while promoting pro-regenerative macrophage polarization. Drug-delivery applications also proved effective; calcium-alginate coatings prolonged vancomycin release for up to 50 days in vitro, highlighting the potential for infection control during graft integration. Notwithstanding these benefits, chitosan scaffolds displayed inadequate load-bearing capacity, and heterogeneity in species, graft types, follow-up intervals, and outcome metrics limited direct comparison and impeded meta-analysis.ConclusionBiopolymers emerge as potential adaptable platforms that merge mechanical support with finely tuned immune regulation in VCA. Successful translation will depend on tissue-specific material optimization, standardized immunological endpoints, and multicenter studies that replicate clinical complexity. Drawing on lessons from solid-organ transplantation and fostering collaboration among immunologists, biomaterial scientists, and surgeons will be pivotal to moving these technologies from bench to bedside in VCA.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Cabri G, Bhatti SFM, Hemeryck LY, et al.
2026
- Epilepsy
- Disease Models, Animal
- Dog Diseases
J. Alimonti, T. Ball, K. Fowke
The Journal of general virology, 2003
J. Finke, C. Schmoor, W. Bethge, et al.
The Lancet. Haematology, 2017
S. Shalapour, Xue-jia Lin, Ingmar N. Bastian, et al.
Nature, 2017
E. Buchbinder, F. Hodi
The Journal of clinical investigation, 2015
F. Sánchez-Madrid, A. Krensky, C. Ware, et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1982
J. V. Van Wauwe, J. De Mey, J. Goossens
Journal of immunology, 1980
N. Weng, Bruce L. Levine, Carl H. June, et al.
The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1996
D. Taub, S. Turcovski-Corrales, M. Key, et al.
Journal of immunology, 1996
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.