Re-thinking the current paradigm for clinical immunogenicity assessment: an update from the discussion in the European Bioanalysis Forum

Immunogenicity regulatory guidance and industry recommendations have evolved over the last two decades since unexpected immune reactions were first reported with erythropoietin. Since then, the guidelines and practices for immunogenicity have stemmed from a reaction to a high-risk molecule causing significant clinical impact. Similar thinking is often applied to all biotherapeutic drugs, even when a well-defined risk assessment suggests otherwise. In recent years, the current testing paradigm for immunogenicity has been challenged with more informative approaches being proposed. In a Focus Workshop held by the European Bioanalysis Forum in September 2023, the current immunogenicity testing paradigm was challenged based on the experience and learning of 20+ years of immunogenicity strategies. The workshop recommendations proposed a new paradigm, challenging the value of multiple tiers depending on the immunogenicity risk assessment based on context of use and moving toward treating immunogenicity as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for the drug. Such rethinking ultimately results in the appropriate and efficient focusing of resources on immunogenicity testing strategies that benefit patients most, moving to a new paradigm where implementation of appropriate and truly informative immunogenicity testing strategies, depending on the context-of-use, become the norm .

Signal-to-noise ratio to assess magnitude, kinetics and impact on pharmacokinetics of the immune response to an adalimumab biosimilar

Background: The antidrug antibody (ADA) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio was explored as a novel immunogenicity measure to evaluate the immune response of healthy subjects to a single dose of GP2017, an adalimumab biosimilar. Methodology/results: Bioanalytical methods used for the analysis of ADA S/N ratios and ADA titers were validated for sensitivity, precision and drug interference. ADA S/N ratios strongly correlated with ADA titers. Correlations between ADA area under the curve and ADAmax and pharmacokinetics (PK) were stronger for ADA S/N ratio than for ADA titers. Conclusion: ADA S/N ratio allowed for a more sensitive evaluation of the magnitude and kinetics of the immune response, was better correlated with adalimumab PK and was superior to ADA titers in assessing the impact of the immune response on PK.

A systematic examination of anti-drug antibody titer estimation: Applied recommendations

Biologic drugs (therapeutic proteins or peptides) have become one of the most important therapeutic modalities over the past few decades. Drug-induced immunogenicity is a significant concern as it may affect safety, tolerability, and efficacy. With more sensitive and drug-tolerant screening assays in use today, reliable estimation of anti-drug-antibody (ADA) titer has become more important for understanding clinically relevant ADA levels. Titer is commonly defined as the dilution factor resulting in an assay signal equal to a pre-specified cut point factor. Given its influence on the resulting titer precision, the choice of a titer cut point factor warrants careful consideration. In this paper, we discuss the theoretical dilution model, investigate how titer variability depends on the cut point factor and propose a standardized cut point factor to increase precision of titer estimates. Additionally, we demonstrate that non-linear regression-based titer estimation provides both improved precision and implementation efficiency relative to commonly used estimation approaches.

Anti-drug Antibody Magnitude and Clinical Relevance Using Signal to Noise (S/N): Bococizumab Case Study

Historically, the biopharmaceutical industry has used titer to characterize the magnitude of an anti-drug antibody (ADA) response. While reporting levels of antibodies in terms of titer is generally understood and accepted by regulatory and medical communities, titer values are inherently variable given the multiple serial dilutions and reporting a value either directly before or interpolated at the assay cut point on the lower plateau of the assay curve range. Using S/N is an appealing alternative approach to titer as it simplifies analysis with less dilutions, significantly reducing testing, time, and resources and provides a more precise value potentially differentiating low-level ADA responses. Current bridging electrochemiluminescence (ECL) ADA assays using Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform are also significantly more sensitive and drug tolerant with wider assay ranges compared to historic ELISA platforms; therefore, ADA response based on S/N may help differentiate and identify those ADA samples that are more likely to be clinically relevant. Bococizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which reduces plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Bococizumab was discontinued during Phase 3 clinical development based in part on the high rate of ADA and wide variation in LDL cholesterol responses among patients. The impact of anti-bococizumab antibodies on pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints was originally assessed using titer. Retrospective analysis of anti-bococizumab ADA responses using S/N ratios illustrates that S/N is an acceptable alternative to titer for characterizing the magnitude of ADA response and interpretation of clinically relevant ADA.

Assessment of the Immunogenicity Potential for Oligonucleotide-Based Drugs

Therapeutic oligonucleotides (ONs) have characteristics of both small molecules and biologics. Although safety assessment of ONs largely follows guidelines established for small molecules, the unique characteristics of ONs often require incorporation of concepts from the safety assessment of biologics. The assessment of immunogenicity for ON therapeutics is one area where the approach is distinct from either established small molecule or biologic platforms. Information regarding immunogenicity of ONs is limited, but indicates that administration of ONs can result in antidrug antibody formation. In this study, we summarize the collective experience of the Oligonucleotide Safety Working Group in designing the immunogenicity assessment appropriate for this class of therapeutic, including advice on assay development, clinical monitoring, and evaluation of the impact of immunogenicity on exposure, efficacy, and safety of therapeutic ONs.

Comparison of Titer and Signal to Noise (S/N) for Determination of Anti-drug Antibody Magnitude Using Clinical Data from an Industry Consortium

During biotherapeutic drug development, immunogenicity is evaluated by measuring anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). The presence and magnitude of ADA responses is assessed using a multi-tier workflow where samples are screened, confirmed, and titered. Recent reports suggest that the assay signal to noise ratio (S/N) obtained during the screening tier correlates well with titer. To determine whether S/N could more broadly replace titer, anonymized ADA data from a consortium of sponsors was collected and analyzed. Datasets from clinical programs with therapeutics of varying immunogenicity risk levels (low to high), common ADA assay platforms (ELISA and MSD) and formats (bridging, direct, solid-phase extraction with acid dissociation), and titration approaches (endpoint and interpolated) were included in the analysis. A statistically significant correlation between S/N and titer was observed in all datasets, with a strong correlation (Spearman’s r > 0.8) in 11 out of 15 assays (73%). For assays with available data, conclusions regarding ADA impact on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were similar using S/N or titer. Subject ADA kinetic profiles were also comparable using the two measurements. Determination of antibody boosting in patients with pre-existing responses could be accomplished using similar approaches for titer and S/N. Investigation of factors that impacted the accuracy of ADA magnitude measurements revealed advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. In general, S/N had superior precision and ability to detect potentially low affinity/avidity responses compared to titer. This analysis indicates that S/N could serve as an equivalent and in some cases preferable alternative to titer for assessing ADA magnitude and evaluation of impact on clinical responses.

Graphical Abstract

Immunogenicity of erenumab: A pooled analysis of six placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions

BACKGROUND

Immunogenicity of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody developed for migraine prevention, has been evaluated throughout clinical development.

METHODS

Integrated post hoc analysis assessing immunogenicity of erenumab across six clinical trials in patients with episodic and chronic migraine (N = 2985). Anti-erenumab antibody incidence and potential impact on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety were evaluated in short-term (double-blind treatment phase 12-24 weeks) and long-term (double-blind treatment phase plus extensions of up to 5 years) analyses.

RESULTS

Anti-erenumab binding antibody incidence was low with few patients developing neutralizing antibodies. Antibody responses were mostly transient with low magnitude. Binding antibodies developed as early as 2-4 weeks after the first dose; the majority developed within the first 6 months and very few after the first year. Serum concentrations of erenumab in antibody-positive patients were generally lower than, but within the range of, antibody-negative patients. There was no impact of anti-erenumab antibodies on erenumab efficacy or safety with no differences between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients in change in monthly migraine days or adverse event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis showed that immunogenicity had no meaningful clinical impact on efficacy or safety of erenumab in patients with migraine.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952574; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02483585; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02174861; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02630459; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03812224.

Clinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment for a Fusion Protein

This document highlights some relevant factors in the assessment of immunogenicity risk of fusion protein therapeutics. Our aim is to highlight specific risks associated with this type of molecule, while also aligning with general risk assessment factors, through a hypothetical case study, where the therapeutic molecule of interest is a Receptor-Fc Fusion protein (RFF) expressed within a typical manufacturing process in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells (CHO). Given that the components are comprised of endogenous sequences, the risk of developing an ADA response to this molecule is generally considered to be low. However, the consequences of such an immune response may be more severe, specifically, if there is cross reactivity with the endogenous receptor, inducing cell lysis, or if any ADA act as an agonist to trigger receptor signaling. The risk factors described below are not meant to provide a comprehensive list, but rather a framework for factors that should be considered. Immunogenicity risk is difficult to quantify and relies on a comprehensive analysis of both product and patient-related factors. The goal is not necessarily to quantify risk, but rather to demonstrate an understanding of factors that may pose a risk, implement a strategy to minimize risk factors and then align overall risk with a bioanalytical immunogenicity monitoring strategy. The consequences resulting from unexpected outcome will likely depend on severity and impact on patient safety. An immunogenicity risk assessment is an ongoing and continuous process throughout clinical development with the goal of maximizing the safety of patients.

Confirmatory cut point has limited ability to make accurate classifications in immunogenicity assays

Aim: Competitive inhibition with excess unlabeled drug is used to confirm the presence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) in study samples. We evaluated specific and nonspecific responses from both drug-naive and drug-treated subjects to identify conditions required by the confirmatory assay to make accurate ADA classifications. Results: Nonspecific signal measured in drug-naive samples used to determine assay cut points was uniformly low and close to the screening cut point. Confirmatory assays performed on incurred study samples with nonspecific responses significantly above the level observed during cut point determination resulted in incorrect ADA classifications. Conclusion: Intensity of confirmatory response should be proportional to the screening response and therefore, to ensure accurate ADA classifications, the confirmatory responses cannot be considered as independent but need to be evaluated in relation to the screening responses.

Early Adalimumab and Anti-Adalimumab Antibody Levels for Prediction of Primary Nonresponse in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients

This study aimed at exploring the concentration‐effect relationship of adalimumab and early adalimumab and anti‐adalimumab antibody (AAA) levels in predicting primary nonresponse in a real‐world pilot cohort of patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Thirty‐one patients were included. The Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score improved with increasing adalimumab trough level at week 12 and reached a major improvement with levels between 8 and 12 μg/mL. Moreover, weeks 4 and 2 adalimumab levels below 4.28 and 3.37 μg/mL were predictive of primary nonresponse (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.89, 0.88; P = 0.0003, P = 0.034, respectively). Week 4 AAA signal‐to‐noise levels were significantly higher among primary nonresponders, and the cutoff for primary nonresponse prediction was above 5.31 (AUC = 0.81; P = 0.004). Adalimumab trough levels in a range of 8–12 μg/mL are optimum to reach major improvement, and lower adalimumab with higher AAA levels at the early stage (week 4) predict primary nonresponse by supporting proactive monitoring to optimize adalimumab therapy.

Anti-drug Antibody Assay Validation: Improved Reporting of the Assay Selectivity via Simpler Positive Control Recovery Data Analysis

Anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay selectivity is evaluated during assay validation to assess the potential for individual matrices to interfere with detection of ADA. While current EMA and FDA guideline documents suggest comparative analysis with and without matrix, they do not provide specific recommendations on the acceptance criteria such as an acceptable percent positive control (PC) recovery range or positive rate. Industry has adopted an approach where recovery of PC spiked sample is expected to fall within ± 20% (80 to 120%) vs. that for the PC material spiked in negative control matrix or assay buffer. Here, it is proposed that ADA assay selectivity evaluated using a qualitative assessment of PC recovery vs. a PK-like quantitative method may be more appropriate. The PC recovery test should focus on the reliability of the method to detect the low PC level in individual samples and avoid false-negative ADA reporting. Therefore, it is proposed that assessment of high PC level as well as the assessment of quantitative percent recovery (within ± 20%) should not be included in the test. The recovery test may be viewed as acceptable should a pre-selected number of individual samples (for example at least 8 or 9 out of 10) prepared at the low PC concentration of the assay score as ADA positive.

2018 White Paper on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis: focus on flow cytometry, gene therapy, cut points and key clarifications on BAV (Part 3 - LBA/cell-based assays: immunogenicity, biomarkers and PK assays)

The 2018 12^th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis took place in Philadelphia, PA, USA on April 9-13, 2018 with an attendance of over 900 representatives from pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, contract research organizations and regulatory agencies worldwide. WRIB was once again a 5-day full immersion in bioanalysis, biomarkers and immunogenicity. As usual, it was specifically designed to facilitate sharing, reviewing, discussing and agreeing on approaches to address the most current issues of interest including both small- and large-molecule bioanalysis involving LCMS, hybrid LBA/LCMS and LBA/cell-based assays approaches. This 2018 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2018 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations for large molecule bioanalysis, biomarkers and immunogenicity using LBA and cell-based assays. Part 1 (LCMS for small molecules, peptides, oligonucleotides and small molecule biomarkers) and Part 2 (hybrid LBA/LCMS for biotherapeutics and regulatory agencies' inputs) are published in volume 10 of Bioanalysis, issues 22 and 23 (2018), respectively.