Anti-rituximab antibodies demonstrate neutralizing capacity, associate with lower circulating drug levels and earlier relapse in lupus

Towards Personalized Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, incurable, multisystem, inflammatory disease characterized by synovitis and extra-articular features. Although several advanced therapies targeting inflammatory mechanisms underlying the disease are available, no advanced therapy is universally effective. Therefore, a ceiling of treatment response is currently accepted where no advanced therapy is superior to another. The current challenge for medical research is the discovery and integration of predictive markers of drug response that can be used to personalize medicine so that the patient is started on "the right drug at the right time". This review article summarizes our current understanding of predicting response to anti-rheumatic drugs in RA, obstacles impeding the development of personalized medicine approaches and future research priorities to overcome these barriers.

Predictors and prognostic factors influencing outcomes of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Anti-C20 monoclonal antibodies (MAb), such as rituximab, are commonly used for the treatment of patients with severe or refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but clinical outcomes are highly variable. We aimed to provide an update of a systematic review of predictive and prognostic factors of anti-CD20 MAb treatment in SLE.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify predictive and prognostic factors of clinical response following treatment with anti-CD20 therapies in SLE patients. Studies examining rituximab published prior to 2015 were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Collaboration (RoB2) tool for RCTs and the Quality In Prognosis Studies Tool (QUIPS) for cohort studies. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was undertaken and quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

From 850 studies identified, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. A further 8 studies were identified and included through search updates. There were two post-hoc analyses of RCTs of rituximab, one RCT of ocrelizumab and one of obinutuzumab; and 16 cohort studies examining rituximab treatment. The overall QoE was low or very low. There was wide heterogeneity in definitions of clinical disease activity and outcome measures, non-standardized laboratory cut-offs, failure to account for confounders and multiple subgroup analyses of differing outcomes. B cell depletion as well as novel biomarkers, such as S100 proteins, FCGR genotype, anti-vimentin and anti-drug antibodies showed some evidence of prognostic value but QoE was limited due to moderate to high risk of bias, early phase of investigation and imprecision of results.

CONCLUSION

There has been no validation of previously identified prognostic factors to guide outcome in anti-CD20 treated lupus patients. Hypothesis-driven studies of several novel markers however, demonstrate prognostic value and require replication and validation to support their use in routine clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020220339.

Cross-Reactivity of Antibodies to Rituximab with Other Therapeutic Anti-CD20 Antibodies

One reason for a lack of response to rituximab as well as infusion-related anaphylactic adverse events is the development of antidrug Abs to rituximab. Besides rituximab, a number of other therapeutic Abs targeting CD20 are nowadays available as alternatives. In this study, we investigated the potential cross-reactivity of (human) anti-rituximab Abs to three other anti-CD20 mAbs: ofatumumab, obinutuzumab, and ocrelizumab. In 25 cases of anti-rituximab Abs, cross-reactivity was examined using both direct binding assays and inhibition immunoassays. Although no cross-reactivity was observed to ofatumumab or obinutuzumab, 8 of 25 samples also showed reactivity toward ocrelizumab in at least one of the two assays. Furthermore, in three cases of anti-ocrelizumab Abs, cross-reactivity to rituximab was observed in an inhibition immunoassay, albeit not in a direct binding assay. Our results suggest that obinutuzumab or ofatumumab are safe anti-CD20 alternatives in case of the presence of anti-rituximab Abs. It is advisable to proceed cautiously if switching from rituximab to ocrelizumab (or vice versa) is considered in case these alternatives may not be available.

A mechanistic marker-based screening tool to predict clinical immunogenicity of biologics

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of therapeutic proteins are undermined by immunogenicity driven by anti-drug antibodies. Immunogenicity risk assessment is critically necessary during drug development, but current methods lack predictive power and mechanistic insight into antigen uptake and processing leading to immune response. A key mechanistic step in T-cell-dependent immune responses is the migration of mature dendritic cells to T-cell areas of lymphoid compartments, and this phenomenon is most pronounced in the immune response toward subcutaneously delivered proteins.

METHODS

The migratory potential of monocyte-derived dendritic cells is proposed to be a mechanistic marker for immunogenicity screening. Following exposure to therapeutic protein in vitro, dendritic cells are analyzed for changes in activation markers (CD40 and IL-12) in combination with levels of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 to represent migratory potential. Then a transwell assay captures the intensity of dendritic cell migration in the presence of a gradient of therapeutic protein and chemokine ligands.

RESULTS

Here, we show that an increased ability of the therapeutic protein to induce dendritic cell migration along a gradient of chemokine CCL21 and CXCL12 predicts higher immunogenic potential. Expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 on human monocyte-derived dendritic cells, in combination with activation markers CD40 and IL-12, strongly correlates with clinical anti-drug antibody incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanistic understanding of processes driving immunogenicity led to the development of a predictive tool for immunogenicity risk assessment of therapeutic proteins. These predictive markers could be adapted for immunogenicity screening of other biological modalities.

Anti-rituximab antibodies in patients with refractory autoimmune nodopathy with anti-neurofascin-155 antibody

Background

Recent studies have reported that similar to other IgG4 autoimmune diseases, such as muscle-specific kinase antibody-associated myasthenia gravis, most anti-neurofascin-155 (anti-NF155) nodopathies respond well to rituximab treatment, regardless of the dosage. However, there are still a few patients for which rituximab is ineffective for unknown reasons. Currently, there are no studies on the mechanism of ineffective treatment with rituximab.

Methods

A 33-year-old Chinese man presenting with numbness, tremor, and muscle weakness for 4 years was recruited for this study. Anti-NF155 antibodies were identified by cell-based assay and confirmed by immunofluorescence assay on teased fibers. The anti-NF155 immunoglobulin (IgG) subclasses were also detected by immunofluorescence assay. Anti-rituximab antibodies (ARAs) were quantitatively analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and peripheral B cell counts were determined by flow cytometry.

Results

The patient exhibited anti-NF155 IgG4-antibody positivity. After the first round of rituximab infusion, the patient showed stratified outcomes with improvements in numbness, muscle weakness and ambulation. However, after three rounds of rituximab infusion, the patient’s symptoms deteriorated, and the numbness, tremor and muscle weakness returned. No obvious improvement was found after plasma exchange and another round of rituximab treatment. 14 days after the last treatment with rituximab, ARAs were detected. And the titers gradually decreased on day 28 and 60 but remained higher than normal. Peripheral CD19+ B cell counts were less than 1% within the 2-month period following the final rituximab administration.

Conclusions

In this study, ARAs presented in a patient with anti-NF155 nodopathy undergoing rituximab treatment and showed an unfavorable impact on rituximab efficacy. This is the first case to report the occurrence of ARAs in patients with anti-NF155 antibodies. We suggest that ARAs should be tested early during the initial intervention, especially in patients who respond poorly to rituximab treatment. In addition, we believe it is necessary to investigate the association between ARAs and B cell counts, their effect on clinical efficacy, and their potential adverse reactions in a larger cohort of patients with anti-NF155 nodopathy.