Follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation for IVF: a controlled, assessor-blind Phase 3 safety trial

RESEARCH QUESTION

To evaluate the immunogenicity of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation.

DESIGN

Controlled, assessor-blind trial in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients undergoing repeated cycles of ovarian stimulation (cycles 2 and 3), following initial stimulation with follitropin delta or follitropin alfa (cycle 1) in a preceding randomized trial. In cycles 2 and 3, 513 and 188 women, respectively, were treated as randomized in cycle 1, with dosing based on ovarian response in the previous cycle.

RESULTS

The incidence of treatment-induced anti-FSH antibodies with follitropin delta was 0.8% and 1.1% in cycles 2 and 3, respectively, which was similar to the incidence in cycle 1 (1.1%). No antibodies were of neutralizing capacity. Women with pre-existing anti-FSH antibodies were safely treated with follitropin delta without boosting an immune response. Treatment with follitropin delta and follitropin alfa gave similar outcomes for mean number of oocytes retrieved (9.2 versus 8.6 [cycle 2]; 8.3 versus 8.9 [cycle 3]), ongoing pregnancy (27.8% versus 25.7%; 27.4% versus 28.0%) and live birth rates (27.4% versus 25.3%; 26.3% versus 26.9%). The presence of anti-FSH antibodies did not affect the ovarian response.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial demonstrated the low immunogenicity potential of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation, and confirmed the appropriateness of the follitropin delta dosing regimen in repeated cycles, with documented efficacy and safety.

Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: influence of aggregation

The elicitation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against biotherapeutics can have detrimental effects on drug safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics. The immunogenicity of biotherapeutics is, therefore, an important issue. There is evidence that protein aggregation can result in enhanced immunogenicity; however, the precise immunological and biochemical mechanisms responsible are poorly defined. In the context of biotherapeutic drug development and safety assessment, understanding the mechanisms underlying aggregate immunogenicity is of considerable interest. This review provides an overview of the phenomenon of protein aggregation, the production of unwanted aggregates during bioprocessing, and how the immune response to aggregated protein differs from that provoked by non-aggregated protein. Of particular interest is the nature of the interaction of aggregates with the immune system and how subsequent ADA responses are induced. Pathways considered here include 'classical' activation of the immune system involving antigen presenting cells and, alternatively, the breakdown of B-cell tolerance. Additionally, methods available to screen for aggregation and immunogenicity will be described. With an increased understanding of aggregation-enhanced immune responses, it may be possible to develop improved manufacturing and screening processes to avoid, or at least reduce, the problems associated with ADA.

An assessment of biological potency and molecular characteristics of different innovator and noninnovator interferon-beta products

Approved innovator products and their noninnovator "copy" versions are likely to vary in their quality, eg, physicochemical characteristics and biological activity, with important implications for clinical efficacy and safety. Therefore, it is important to study and thoroughly evaluate the noninnovator products in comparison with approved products at the preclinical and clinical stages. We have obtained 4 noninnovator interferon (IFN)-β-1a products currently marketed in Latin America and Iran and compared these with approved IFN-β-1a products (Avonex and Rebif) obtained from the same geographical regions with respect to biological potency, estimated by in vitro bioassays, and molecular characteristics, assessed by immunoblotting and high-performance liquid chromatography. In this article, we present our data showing that the noninnovator IFN-β-1a products can vary considerably in their biological potency. In addition, we showed that all IFN-β-1a products formulated with human serum albumin contained variable amounts of higher-molecular-weight aggregates of IFN-β-1a and adducts with human serum albumin, these being more prevalent in 2 noninnovator IFN-β-1a products where biological potency was reduced compared with approved IFN-β-1a products. Additionally, significant lot-to-lot variability was observed for one of the noninnovator products. Taken together, the results of this study highlight the need for not only thorough in vitro characterization, but also preclinical and clinical assessment to ensure patient safety and efficacy.

Unwanted immunogenicity: lessons learned and future challenges

All biological therapeutics have the potential to induce an immune response in recipients of these products. Elicitation of an immune response can result in variable clinical impact, ranging from benign to severe adverse effects, a diminution in clinical efficacy or, in some cases, hypersensitivity or allergic reactions. Consequently, assessment of unwanted immunogenicity is an important element of the data required for regulatory submission for product approval. However, issues relating to immunogenicity occur throughout the life-cycle of a biotherapeutic and need to be considered appropriately when introducing any product change(s). Evaluation of immunogenicity of a product requires a well-considered strategy and a panel of appropriately validated (or ‘fit-for-purpose’) assays for antibody detection and characterization in clinical samples. An overview of the bioanalytical methods that are currently being used for assessment of immunogenicity of biotherapeutics and the guidance available along with some of the challenges facing the industry are discussed in this review.

Immunogenicity of biologically-derived therapeutics: assessment and interpretation of nonclinical safety studies

An evaluation of potential antibody formation to biologic therapeutics during the course of nonclinical safety studies and its impact on the toxicity profile is expected under current regulatory guidance and is accepted standard practice. However, approaches for incorporating this information in the interpretation of nonclinical safety studies are not clearly established. Described here are the immunological basis of anti-drug antibody formation to biopharmaceuticals (immunogenicity) in laboratory animals, and approaches for generating and interpreting immunogenicity data from nonclinical safety studies of biotechnology-derived therapeutics to support their progression to clinical evaluation. We subscribe that immunogenicity testing strategies should be adapted to the specific needs of each therapeutic development program, and data generated from such analyses should be integrated with available clinical and anatomic pathology, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data to properly interpret nonclinical studies.