Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling for bispecific antibodies: challenges and opportunities

Clinical Pharmacology Strategies for Bispecific Antibody Development: Learnings from FDA-Approved Bispecific Antibodies in Oncology

Bispecific antibodies, by enabling the targeting of more than one disease-associated antigen or engaging immune effector cells, have both advantages and challenges compared with a combination of two different biological products. As of December 2023, there are 11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved BsAb products on the market. Among these, 9 have been approved for oncology indications, and 8 of these are CD3 T-cell engagers. Clinical pharmacology strategies, including dose-related strategies, are critical for bispecific antibody development. This analysis reviewed clinical studies of all approved bispecific antibodies in oncology and identified dose-related perspectives to support clinical dose optimization and regulatory approvals, particularly in the context of the Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus: (1) starting doses and dose ranges in first-in-human studies; (2) dose strategies including step-up doses or full doses for recommended phase 2 doses or dose level(s) used for registrational intent; (3) restarting therapy after dose delay; (4) considerations for the introduction of subcutaneous doses; (5) body weight vs. flat dosing strategy; and (6) management of immunogenicity. The learnings arising from this review are intended to inform successful strategies for future bispecific antibody development.

Pharmacokinetic models for first-in-human dose selection of immune-activating products in oncology

Pharmacokinetic (PK) models are increasingly submitted to the FDA to support first-in-human (FIH) dose selection of immune-oncology products. To examine whether a simple PK modeling (SPM) using clearance for scaling was acceptable for dose estimation, FIH(SPM) doses were computed and compared to doses that were safely administered to patients. We concluded that the SPM approach is acceptable in FIH dose estimation, but the variables should be carefully selected for CD3 constructs. For CD3 constructs, use of 60 kg BWh, a clearance exponent of 0.75, and a targeted plasma concentration based on relevant and/or sensitive activity assays was an acceptable approach for FIH dose selection; use of 0.85 as the scaling factor is questionable at this time as it resulted in a FIH dose that was too close to the AHD for one product (7%). Immune activating mAbs were not sensitive to changes in the clearance exponent (0.75-0.85) or body weight (60-70 kg). For PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs, using products' in vitro EC50 in the model resulted in suboptimal FIH doses and clinical data of closely related products informed FIH dose selection. PK models submitted by sponsors were diverse in methods, assumptions, and variables, and the resulting FIH doses were not always optimal.