A survey of applications of biological products for drug interference of immunogenicity assays

Mitigating target interference challenges in bridging immunogenicity assay to detect anti-tocilizumab antibodies

Aim: An assay to detect anti-tocilizumab antibodies in the presence of high levels of circulating target and drug is needed for immunogenicity assessment in comparative clinical studies.Methods: An assay was developed and validated using a combination of blocking agents and dilutions to overcome target interference challenges.Results: No false-positive signal was detected in serum samples spiked with 350-500 ng/ml of IL-6 receptor. As low as 50 ng/ml of positive control antibodies could be detected in the presence of either 500 ng/ml of IL-6 or 250 μg/ml of the drug product. Assay also demonstrated high sensitivity, selectivity and precision.Conclusion: A robust, easy to perform immunogenicity assay was developed and validated for detecting anti-tocilizumab antibodies.

Phase IB Study of GITR Agonist Antibody TRX518 Singly and in Combination with Gemcitabine, Pembrolizumab or Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose: TRX518 is a monoclonal antibody engaging the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related protein (GITR). This open-label, phase I study (TRX518-003) evaluated the safety and efficacy of repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and combination with gemcitabine, pembrolizumab or nivolumab in advanced solid tumors. Experimental Design: TRX518 monotherapy was dose-escalated (Part A) and expanded (Part B) up to 4 mg/kg load, 1 mg/kg Q3W. Parts C-E included dose-escalation (2mg/kg and 4 mg/kg loading followed by 1mg/kg) and dose-expansion (4mg/kg load) phases with gemcitabine (Part C), pembrolizumab (Part D) or nivolumab (Part E). Primary endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and pharmacokinetics. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and pharmacodynamics. Results:109 patients received TRX518: 43 (Parts A+B), 30 (Part C), 26 (Part D), and 10 (Part E) respectively. 67% of patients in Parts D+E had received prior anti-PD(L)1 or anti-CTLA-4. No DLTs, treatment-related SAEs and/or G4/5 AEs were observed with TRX518 monotherapy. In Parts C-E, no DLTs were observed, although TRX518-related SAEs were reported in 3.3% (Part C) and 10.0% (Part E) respectively. Objective response rate was 3.2%, 3.8%, 4% and 12.5% in Parts A+B, C, D and E respectively. TRX518 affected peripheral and intratumoral regulatory T cells (Tregs) with different kinetics depending on the combination regimen. Responses with TRX518 monotherapy+anti-PD1 combination were associated with intratumoral Treg reductions and CD8 increases and activation after treatment. Conclusions:TRX518 showed an acceptable safety profile with pharmacodynamic activity. Repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination resulted in limited clinical responses associated with immune activation.

Immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327, and its reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim

This study, FKB327‐003, is a phase 3, open‐label extension (OLE) study comparing the long‐term immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327 (F), with the reference product (RP).

Methods

In the OLE, patients completing 24 weeks of an initial randomized, double‐blind (DB) study (Period 1) with clinical response and no safety concerns were rerandomized to F or RP, so that two‐thirds of patients remained on the same treatment and one‐third switched to the alternate treatment for weeks 24 through 54 (OLE weeks 0‐30; Period 2), then all received F through week 100 (OLE week 76; Period 3). Treatment sequences were F‐F‐F (no switch), RP‐F‐F and RP‐RP‐F (single switch), and F‐RP‐F (double switch). Patients who entered the OLE study were evaluated for immunogenicity across switching sequences.

Results

The proportion of patients with positive antidrug antibody (ADA) status at the end of Period 1 was 61.7% and 60.0% for F and RP, respectively. The proportion of patients with positive ADA status did not increase throughout Period 1, and was similar for F and RP at all time points. At the end of Period 3, the proportion of patients with positive ADA status was lower in all treatment sequences, at 51.1%, 54.4%, 48.1%, and 42.5% for F‐F‐F, F‐RP‐F, RP‐F‐F, and RP‐RP‐F, respectively.

Conclusion

The RP and F showed comparable immunogenicity characteristics after long‐term administration. Development of ADAs with the RP and F was similar, and was not impacted by switching and double switching between F and RP treatment.

The Molecular Mechanisms That Underlie the Immune Biology of Anti-drug Antibody Formation Following Treatment With Monoclonal Antibodies

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a crucial asset for human health and modern medicine, however, the repeated administration of mAbs can be highly immunogenic. Drug immunogenicity manifests in the generation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and some mAbs show immunogenicity in up to 70% of patients. ADAs can alter a drug's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, reducing drug efficacy. In more severe cases, ADAs can neutralize the drug's therapeutic effects or cause severe adverse events to the patient. While some contributing factors to ADA formation are known, the molecular mechanisms of how therapeutic mAbs elicit ADAs are not completely clear. Accurate ADA detection is necessary to provide clinicians with sufficient information for patient monitoring and clinical intervention. However, ADA assays present unique challenges because both the analyte and antigen are antibodies, so most assays are cumbersome, costly, time consuming, and lack standardization. This review will discuss aspects related to ADA formation following mAb drug administration. First, we will provide an overview of the prevalence of ADA formation and the available diagnostic tools for their detection. Next, we will review studies that support possible molecular mechanisms causing the formation of ADA. Finally, we will summarize recent approaches used to decrease the propensity of mAbs to induce ADAs.

Regulatory and strategic considerations for addressing immunogenicity and related responses in biopharmaceutical development programs

The last three decades have seen the biotherapeutic drug market evolve from promising concept to market dominance in a range of clinical indications. This growth has been spurred by the success of established drug classes like monoclonal antibodies, but also by the introduction of biosimilars, and more recently, multiple novel cell and gene therapies. Biotherapeutic drug development presents many unique challenges, but unintended immune responses are among the most common reasons for program attrition. Anti-drug antibodies can impact the safety and efficacy of drug products, and related immune responses, like the cytokine release syndrome that occurred in the infamous TGN-1412 clinical trial, can be challenging to predict with nonclinical models. For this reason, it is important that development programs proceed with a scientifically grounded and measured approach to these responses. This process begins at the discovery stage with the application of “quality by design,” continues into the clinic with the development of quality assays and management strategies, and culminates in the effective presentation of this information in regulatory documents. This review provides an overview of some of the key strategic and regulatory considerations for biotherapeutics as they pertain to immunogenicity and related responses.

Analysis of regulatory guidance on antidrug antibody testing for therapeutic protein products

Therapeutic proteins have the potential to induce unwanted immune responses. The potential impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and efficacy are well established. Here, we analyze key aspects of current US FDA and EMA guidelines on the development and validation of antidrug antibody assays. Although FDA and EMA guidance documents are in harmony on most points, EMA allows greater leeway for scientific judgement, while FDA recommends specific approaches that may not be appropriate in some situations. Many white papers suggest approaches different from the guidance documents, however, these can conflict with each other and are themselves only scientifically valid in certain situations. Here, we indicate when alternatives to guidance may be needed and what those approaches might be.

Development and Utility of an ELISA Method for Sensitive and Specific Detection of IgE Antidrug Antibodies

Biologics can potentially induce unwanted immune responses, leading to formation of antidrug antibodies (ADA) of various affinity, isotypes, and subclasses. Among them, antigen and drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies have been reported to have potential correlation with hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis in particular. Recent regulatory guidance on immunogenicity testing has recommended the measurement of antigen-specific IgE antibodies for biologics with a reported high risk of anaphylaxis using assays with sensitivities in the high pg/mL to low ng/mL range. Nevertheless, IgE ADA remains challenging to detect due to their being the least abundant isotype in blood serum samples and the potential for interference in the bioanalytical methods due to high levels of endogenous immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) ADA, not to mention the nonspecific total serum IgE antibodies. Another challenge in developing IgE ADA assays is the need to create a surrogate drug-specific IgE antibody positive control to monitor the performance of the assay for the intended use. In this case study, utilizing a human IgE antidrug antibody positive control and a human IgE receptor as capture, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method was developed for the measurement of IgE ADA, meeting the regulatory expectations, with excellent assay sensitivity, selectivity, specificity, and tolerance towards potential interference in serum samples. This assay format could be readily adapted and implemented to assess drug-specific IgE antibodies in the event of drug-related anaphylaxis in clinical and in nonclinical development programs.

Compatibility of immunogenicity guidance by the EMA and the US FDA

The guidelines for immunogenicity studies by the European Medicines Agency and the US FDA are based on different legislations and regulatory philosophies. In spite of the different background, the main guidelines are compatible on the scientific level, especially for new innovative therapeutic protein products. The importance of sensitive and drug-tolerant antidrug antibody assays and multidisciplinary approach to development and assessment are highlighted by both agencies. The main differences are in the field of biosimilars. The nonclinical in vivo immunogenicity studies are seen more useful by the FDA than by the European Medicines Agency. The draft FDA guidance on interchangeability will complicate global biosimilar development by requiring clinical switch studies with US sourced reference product.

Immunogenicity of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced tumors

Background

Pembrolizumab is a potent, humanized, monoclonal anti–programmed death 1 antibody that has demonstrated effective antitumor activity and acceptable safety in multiple tumor types. Therapeutic biologics can result in the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs), which may alter drug clearance and neutralize target binding, potentially reducing drug efficacy; such immunogenicity may also result in infusion reactions, anaphylaxis, and immune complex disorders. Pembrolizumab immunogenicity and its impact on exposure, safety, and efficacy was assessed in this study.

Patients and methods

Pembrolizumab immunogenicity was assessed in 3655 patients with advanced or metastatic cancer treated in 12 clinical studies. Patients with melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma were treated with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 200 mg every 3 weeks. An additional study involving 496 patients with stage III melanoma treated with 200 mg adjuvant pembrolizumab every 3 weeks after complete resection was analyzed separately.

Results

Of 3655 patients, 2000 were evaluable for immunogenicity analysis, 36 (1.8%) were treatment-emergent (TE) ADA-positive; 9 (0.5%) of these TE-positive patients had antibodies with neutralizing capacity. The presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs did not impact pembrolizumab exposure, nor did pembrolizumab immunogenicity affect the incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) or infusion-related reactions. There was no clear relationship between the presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs and changes in tumor size across treatment regimens. Of the 496 patients treated with pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy, 495 were evaluable, 17 (3.4%) were TE ADA–positive; none had neutralizing antibodies.

Conclusions

The incidence of TE (neutralizing positive) ADAs against pembrolizumab was low in patients with advanced tumors. Furthermore, immunogenicity did not appear to have any clinically relevant effects on the exposure, safety, or efficacy of pembrolizumab.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01295827 (February 15, 2011), NCT01704287 (October 11, 2012), NCT01866319 (May 31, 2013), NCT01905657 (July 23, 2013), NCT02142738 (May 20, 2014), NCT01848834 (May 8, 2013), NCT02255097 (October 2, 2014), NCT02460198 (June 2, 2015), NCT01953692 (October 1, 2013), NCT02453594 (May 25, 2015), NCT02256436 (October 3, 2014), NCT02335424 (January 9, 2015), NCT02362594 (February 13, 2015).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0663-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Monoclonal Antibodies and Fc-Fusion Proteins for Pediatric Use: Dosing, Immunogenicity, and Modeling and Simulation in Data Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration

The experience with the use of monoclonal antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins (mAb/Fc) in the pediatric population is limited. The objective of this study is to review those factors impacting the clinical efficacy and product safety of mAb/Fc products in pediatric patients during drug development. We reviewed the list of biologic products in the US Food and Drug Administration's Purple Book as of March 2018 with a focus on mAb/Fc products that are indicated for use in both adults and pediatric patients. Of 68 mAb/Fc products in the Purple Book (excluding biosimilars), 20 products have approved indications in both adults and children. Thirteen products had concurrent approval for both adult and pediatric populations. The sample size of pediatric studies generally ranged from approximately 2% to 70% of the sample size of adult studies with the same indication. In general, pediatric dosing regimens were found to be more based on body weight and weight tiered than the regimens for adults. Modeling and simulation techniques comprised mainly population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models. A review of the immunogenicity incidence did not reveal any notable difference in the 5 products having data on both pediatric and adult patients. In conclusion, most of the mAb/Fc products have a different weight-based dosing regimen for pediatric patients versus adults. An understanding of the comparative experience in drug development for mAb/Fc products between adult and pediatric patients coupled with the application of advanced modeling and simulation methods should assist future development of new mAb/Fc products for pediatric patients.

Individualized Dosing of Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies-a Changing Treatment Paradigm?

The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was an important medical milestone. MAbs have been demonstrated as safe and efficacious treatments of IBD. However, a large percentage of patients either fail to respond initially or lose response to therapy after a period of treatment. Although there are factors associated with poor treatment outcomes in IBD, one cause for treatment failure may be low mAb exposure. Consequently, gastroenterologists have begun using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to guide dose adjustment. However, while beneficial, TDM does not provide sufficient information to effectively adjust doses. The pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of mAbs are complex, with numerous factors impacting on mAb PK and PD. The concept of dashboard-guided dosing based on Bayesian PK models allows physicians to combine TDM with factors influencing mAb PK to individualize therapy more effectively. One issue with TDM has been the slow turnaround of assay results, either necessitating an additional clinic visit for a sample or reacting to TDM results at a subsequent, rather than the current, dose. New point-of-care (POC) assays for mAbs are being developed that would potentially allow physicians to determine drug concentration quickly. However, work remains to understand how to determine what target exposure is needed for an individual patient, and whether the combination of POC assays and dashboards presents a safe approach with substantial outcome benefit over the current standard of care.

Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Antibodies: Monitoring Antidrug Antibodies in a Clinical Context

One of the factors that may impact drug levels of therapeutic antibodies in patients is immunogenicity, with potential loss of efficacy. Nowadays, many immunogenicity assays are available for testing antidrug antibodies (ADA). In this article, we discuss different types of immunogenicity assays and their clinical relevance in terms of drug tolerance, relation with pharmacokinetics (PK), neutralizing antibodies, potential adverse events associated with ADA, and prediction of ADA production. Drug-tolerant assays can provide insight into the process of immunogenicity, but for clinical management, these assays do not necessarily outperform drug-sensitive assays. The usefulness of any ADA assay for clinical decision making will be larger when drug concentrations are also measured, and this is true, in particular, for drug-tolerant assays.

Collaborative study using common samples to evaluate the performance of anti-drug antibody assays constructed by different companies

This study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays constructed by each participating company using common samples including ADA, drug and human serum. The ADA assays constructed by each company showed good sensitivity and precision for evaluation of ADA. Cut points for screening and confirmatory assays and assay selectivity were determined by various calculation methods. In evaluations of blind ADA samples, nearly similar results were obtained by the study companies in determinations of whether samples were positive or negative except at the lowest sample concentration (5 ng/mL). In measurement of drug tolerance, for almost samples containing ADA and drugs, more positive results were obtained in assays using acid dissociation compared to those without acid dissociation. Overall, the performance of ADA assays constructed by the 10 companies participating in this study was acceptable in terms of sensitivity and reproducibility for detection and evaluation of immunogenicity in both patients and healthy subjects. On the other hand, based on results for samples containing ADA and drugs, validity of results for ADA assays conducted without acid dissociation was less meaningful and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, acid dissociation was confirmed to be useful for improving drug tolerance.

Reporting, Visualization, and Modeling of Immunogenicity Data to Assess Its Impact on Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies

The rapidly increasing number of therapeutic biologics in development has led to a growing recognition of the need for improvements in immunogenicity assessment. Published data are often inadequate to assess the impact of an antidrug antibody (ADA) on pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy, and enable a fully informed decision about patient management in the event of ADA development. The recent introduction of detailed regulatory guidance for industry should help address many past inadequacies in immunogenicity assessment. Nonetheless, careful analysis of gathered data and clear reporting of results are critical to a full understanding of the clinical relevance of ADAs, but have not been widely considered in published literature to date. Here, we review visualization and modeling of immunogenicity data. We present several relatively simple visualization techniques that can provide preliminary information about the kinetics and magnitude of ADA responses, and their impact on pharmacokinetics and clinical endpoints for a given therapeutic protein. We focus on individual sample- and patient-level data, which can be used to build a picture of any trends, thereby guiding analysis of the overall study population. We also discuss methods for modeling ADA data to investigate the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety.

Understanding the Supersensitive Anti-Drug Antibody Assay: Unexpected High Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence and Its Clinical Relevance

Numbers of biotherapeutic products in development have increased over past decade. Despite providing significant benefits to patients with unmet needs, almost all protein-based biotherapeutics could induce unwanted immunogenicity, which result in a loss of efficacy and/or increase the risk of adverse reactions, such as infusion reactions, anaphylaxis, and even life-threatening response to endogenous proteins. Recognizing these possibilities, regulatory agencies request that immunogenicity be assessed as part of the approval process for biotherapeutics. Great efforts have been made to reduce drug immunogenicity through protein engineering. Accordingly the immunogenicity incidence has been reduced from around 80% in murine derived products to 0–10% in fully human products. However, recent improvements in immunogenicity assays have led to unexpectedly high immunogenicity rates, even in fully human products, leading to new challenges in assessing immunogenicity and its clinical relevance. These new immunogenicity assays are becoming supersensitive and able to detect more of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) than with earlier assays. This paper intends to review and discuss our understanding of the supersensitive ADA assay and the unexpected high ADA incidence and its potential clinical relevance.

Development of Immunocapture-LC/MS Assay for Simultaneous ADA Isotyping and Semiquantitation

Therapeutic proteins and peptides have potential to elicit immune responses resulting in anti-drug antibodies that can pose problems for both patient safety and product efficacy. During drug development immunogenicity is usually examined by risk-based approach along with specific strategies for developing “fit-for-purpose” bioanalytical approaches. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and electrochemiluminescence immunoassays are the most widely used platform for ADA detection due to their high sensitivity and throughput. During the past decade, LC/MS has emerged as a promising technology for quantitation of biotherapeutics and protein biomarkers in biological matrices, mainly owing to its high specificity, selectivity, multiplexing, and wide dynamic range. In fully taking these advantages, we describe here an immunocapture-LC/MS methodology for simultaneous isotyping and semiquantitation of ADA in human plasma. Briefly, ADA and/or drug-ADA complex is captured by biotinylated drug or anti-drug Ab, immobilized on streptavidin magnetic beads, and separated from human plasma by a magnet. ADA is then released from the beads and subjected to trypsin digestion followed by LC/MS detection of specific universal peptides for each ADA isotype. The LC/MS data are analyzed using cut-point and calibration curve. The proof-of-concept of this methodology is demonstrated by detecting preexisting ADA in human plasma.

Evaluating and Reporting the Immunogenicity Impacts for Biological Products--a Clinical Pharmacology Perspective

Immunogenicity assessment is important for biological products due to potential impacts of immunogenicity on safety and efficacy. We reviewed the prescribing information and the FDA's clinical pharmacology review of 121 approved biological products for evaluating and reporting of immunogenicity data. Of the 121 products, 89% (n = 108) reported the incidence of immunogenicity and 49% (n = 59) reported immunogenicity impact on efficacy. However, only 26% (n = 31) reported whether the immunogenicity affected pharmacokinetics. A subset of 16 products reported effects of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) on both systemic clearance and efficacy; 8 of 16 products had increased systemic clearance coinciding with reduced efficacy, and 6 of 16 products had no changes in either clearance or efficacy. Factors contributing to infrequent reporting of the ADA effect on exposure and methods for determining the effect of ADA on exposure are summarized. Measuring ADA and drug concentrations concurrently over time enables the evaluation of ADA impact on pharmacokinetics. Within-subject comparison of concentration data (before vs. after ADA formation) is a useful alternative to between-subject (ADA+ vs. ADA-) comparison when sample size is limited or when the majority of subjects developed ADA. The biological complexity of immune responses presents challenges to quantifying the ADA impact on pharmacokinetics using model-based methods. Our findings support that pharmacokinetic exposure is more sensitive than efficacy endpoints for evaluating ADA effects. A decrease in drug concentration due to formation of ADA during treatment can serve as an early indicator for potential reduced efficacy occurring at a later time.

Standardizing terms, definitions and concepts for describing and interpreting unwanted immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: recommendations of the Innovative Medicines Initiative ABIRISK consortium

Biopharmaceuticals (BPs) represent a rapidly growing class of approved and investigational drug therapies that is contributing significantly to advancing treatment in multiple disease areas, including inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, genetic deficiencies and cancer. Unfortunately, unwanted immunogenic responses to BPs, in particular those affecting clinical safety or efficacy, remain among the most common negative effects associated with this important class of drugs. To manage and reduce risk of unwanted immunogenicity, diverse communities of clinicians, pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists are involved in: interpretation and management of clinical and biological outcomes of BP immunogenicity, improvement of methods for describing, predicting and mitigating immunogenicity risk and elucidation of underlying causes. Collaboration and alignment of efforts across these communities is made difficult due to lack of agreement on concepts, practices and standardized terms and definitions related to immunogenicity. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI; http://www.imi-europe.org), ABIRISK consortium [Anti-Biopharmaceutical (BP) Immunization Prediction and Clinical Relevance to Reduce the Risk; http://www.abirisk.eu] was formed by leading clinicians, academic scientists and EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) members to elucidate underlying causes, improve methods for immunogenicity prediction and mitigation and establish common definitions around terms and concepts related to immunogenicity. These efforts are expected to facilitate broader collaborations and lead to new guidelines for managing immunogenicity. To support alignment, an overview of concepts behind the set of key terms and definitions adopted to date by ABIRISK is provided herein along with a link to access and download the ABIRISK terms and definitions and provide comments (http://www.abirisk.eu/index_t_and_d.asp).

Heterogeneous and homogeneous immunoassays for drug analysis

Immunoassays are very useful techniques to perform screening and semi-quantitative analysis of hundreds of different xenobiotics. Small sample volumes are required and pretreatment is usually unnecessary (e.g., homogeneous immunoassays). Fully automated and high-throughput systems are available, which help physicians to take timely decisions. However, immunoassays do suffer from interference from both endogenous and exogenous factors that limit their application in quantitative analysis. These assays use different labels (e.g., colorimetric, fluorescent, chemiluminescent or electrochemiluminescent) and different methods for generating and measuring signals, but the basic principles are usually similar. This review outlines the practical aspects of immunoassays in bioanalysis and describes their application in clinical chemistry for xenobiotic analysis, namely medicines and drugs of abuse.

Strategic characterization of anti-drug antibody responses for the assessment of clinical relevance and impact

All therapeutic proteins have the potential to induce anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Clinically relevant ADA can impact efficacy and/or safety of a biological therapeutic. Immunogenicity assessment strategy evaluates binding and neutralizing ADA, and the need for additional characterization (e.g., epitope, titer and so on) is determined using a risk-based approach. The choice of characterization assays depends on the type, application and immunogenicity of the therapeutic. ADA characterization can impact the interpretation of the risk profile of a given therapeutic, and offers insight into opportunities for risk mitigation and management. This article describes common ADA characterization methods. Strategic assessment and characterization of clinically relevant ADA are discussed, in order to support clinical options for safe and effective patient care and disease management.

Assessment and reporting of the clinical immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins and peptides-harmonized terminology and tactical recommendations

Immunogenicity is a significant concern for biologic drugs as it can affect both safety and efficacy. To date, the descriptions of product immunogenicity have varied not only due to different degrees of understanding of product immunogenicity at the time of licensing but also due to an evolving lexicon that has generated some confusion in the field. In recent years, there has been growing consensus regarding the data needed to assess product immunogenicity. Harmonization of the strategy for the elucidation of product immunogenicity by drug developers, as well as the use of defined common terminology, can benefit medical practitioners, health regulatory agencies, and ultimately the patients. Clearly, understanding the incidence, kinetics and magnitude of anti-drug antibody (ADA), its neutralizing ability, cross-reactivity with endogenous molecules or other marketed biologic drugs, and related clinical impact may enhance clinical management of patients treated with biologic drugs. To that end, the authors present terms and definitions for describing and analyzing clinical immunogenicity data and suggest approaches to data presentation, emphasizing associations of ADA development with pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety that are necessary to assess the clinical relevance of immunogenicity.

Application and challenges in using LC–MS assays for absolute quantitative analysis of therapeutic proteins in drug discovery

As more protein therapeutics enter the drug-discovery pipeline, the traditional ligand-binding assay (LBA) faces additional challenges to meet the rapid and diverse bioanalytical needs in the early drug-discovery stage. The high specificity and sensitivity afforded by LC–MS, along with its rapid method development, is proving invaluable for the analysis of protein therapeutics in support of drug discovery. LC–MS not only serves as a quantitative tool to complement LBA in drug discovery, it also provides structural details at a molecular level, which are used to address issues that cannot be resolved using LBA alone. This review will describe the key benefits and applications, as well as the techniques and challenges for applying LC–MS to support protein quantification in drug discovery.

Immunogenicity and PK/PD evaluation in biotherapeutic drug development: scientific considerations for bioanalytical methods and data analysis

With the advent of novel technologies, considerable advances have been made in the evaluation of the relationship between PK and PD. Ligand-binding assays have been the primary assay format supporting PK and immunogenicity assessments. Critical and in-depth characterizations of the ligand-binding assay of interest can provide valuable understanding of the limitations, for interpreting PK/PD and immunogenicity results. This review illustrates key challenges with regard to understanding the relationship between anti-drug antibody and PK/PD, including confounding factors associated with the development and validation of ligand-binding assays, mechanisms by which anti-drug antibody impacts PK/PD, factors to consider during data analyses and interpretation, and a perspective on integrating immunogenicity data into the well-established quantitative modeling approach. Through recognizing these challenges, we propose some opportunities for improvements in the development and validation of fit-for-purpose bioanalytical methods.

Statistical and bioanalytical considerations for establishing a depletion criterion for specificity testing during immunogenicity assessment of a biotherapeutic

Immunogenicity assessment of fully human monoclonal antibody-based biotherapeutics requires sensitive and specific ligand binding assays. One of the components of specificity is the depletion of signal by a relevant biotherapeutic that is commonly based on an arbitrary depletion criterion of inhibition of the original response or reduction of the signal below the screening assay cut point (ACP). Hence, there is a need to develop a statistically derived physiologically relevant specificity criterion. We illustrate an optimization approach to determine the concentration of biotherapeutic required for the specificity evaluation. Naïve donor sample sets with and without circulating drug and antitherapeutic/drug antibody (ADA) were prepared. Next, a depletion cut point (DCP) using naïve and ADA-containing donor sets with the optimized biotherapeutic concentration was evaluated. A statistically derived design of experiment was used to establish a validated DCP. A reliable DCP requires naïve (no ADA) donors treated only with an optimized concentration of biotherapeutic. The additional DCPs generated using two distinct concentrations of ADA-spiked sample sets led to a physiologically irrelevant criterion that was not necessarily representative of real-time samples. This increased the risk of false positives or negatives. In this study, well-defined bioanalytical and statistical methods were employed to validate a DCP to confirm the presence of biotherapeutic specific ADA in human serum samples. A physiologically relevant and effective strategy to confirm specificity in immune reactive samples, especially those that are close to the ACP, is proposed through this study.

Development of a biosensor-based immunogenicity assay capable of blocking soluble drug target interference

As with other protein therapeutics, trebananib (AMG 386), an investigational peptide Fc-fusion protein ("peptibody") that inhibits angiogenesis by neutralizing the interaction of angiopoietin-1 (Ang1) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang2) with the Tie2 receptor, has the potential to trigger an immune response in cancer patients treated with the therapeutic. An electrochemiluminescence bridging anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay that was utilized to support early-phase clinical trials in the development of trebananib was found to lack adequate sensitivity and drug tolerance in later-phase clinical studies when higher doses of trebananib were administered. Therefore, we developed a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) immunoassay method utilizing a secondary confirmatory detector antibody (goat anti-human IgG F[ab']2) known to cross-react with human IgG and IgM to better assess the potential impact of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicity of trebananib. The SPR method was more sensitive than the electrochemiluminescence bridging assay because of signal amplification from the confirmatory binding of the detector antibody; drug tolerance was improved since antibody binding avidity does not affect detection on this platform. Despite the inability of the confirmatory detector antibody to bind angiopoietins in protein-free buffer, false-positive ADA results were generated from patient serum samples containing Ang1 and Ang2 through an apparently specific binding between the angiopoietins and the confirmatory detector antibody, likely mediated by the interaction of the angiopoietins with serum immunoglobulins. Addition to the sample diluent of a human antibody that specifically binds to Ang1 and Ang2 with high affinity resulted in a complete block of angiopoietin interference without affecting ADA detection. This biosensor-based assay provides a reliable method for assessing immunogenicity in phase 3 clinical trials.

Assessing immunogenicity of biosimilar therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: regulatory and bioanalytical considerations

This article reflects on methodological limitations for interpretation of relative immunogenicity of biosimilar and reference therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, in emphasizing the relevance of correlation of bioanalytical signals with appropriate clinical end points, and the possible need for post-marketing observational studies to indicate the impact of detected differences in anti-drug antibody incidence and magnitude on sustainability of treatment benefit. Given the current uncertainty regarding the longer term clinical impact of undesirable immunogenicity for reference products, there can be no predefined margin for an acceptable difference based on incidence and magnitude of detected anti-drug antibodies. Any detected differences should be assessed in relation to clinical parameters; and the designation of biosimilarity made with reference to the similarity demonstrated in the directly comparative quality, nonclinical and clinical evaluations. Application of this ‘totality of evidence’ approach is illustrated for infliximab and adalimumab.

Immunogenicity of anti-TNF biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis

Currently, five anti-TNF biologic agents are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, golimumab and certolizumab pegol. Formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) has been associated with all five agents. In the case of adalimumab and infliximab, immunogenicity is strongly linked to subtherapeutic serum drug levels and a lack of clinical response, but for the other three agents, data on immunogenicity are scarce, suggesting that further research would be valuable. Low ADA levels might not influence the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy, whereas high ADA levels impair treatment efficacy by considerably reducing unbound drug levels. Immunogenicity is not only an issue in patients treated with anti-TNF biologic agents; the immunogenicity of other therapeutic proteins, such as factor VIII and interferons, is well known and has been investigated for many years. The results of such studies suggest that investigations to determine the optimal treatment regimen (drug dosing, treatment schedule and co-medication) required to minimize the likelihood of ADA formation might be an effective and practical way to deal with the immunogenicity of anti-TNF biologic agents for RA.