Repeat doses of antibody to serum amyloid P component clear amyloid deposits in patients with systemic amyloidosis.

Systemic amyloidosis is a fatal disorder caused by pathological extracellular deposits of amyloid fibrils that are always coated with the normal plasma protein, serum amyloid P component (SAP). The small-molecule drug, miridesap, [(R)-1-[6-[(R)-2-carboxy-pyrrolidin-1-yl]-6-oxo-hexanoyl]pyrrolidine-2-carboxylic acid (CPHPC)] depletes circulating SAP but leaves some SAP in amyloid deposits. This residual SAP is a specific target for dezamizumab, a fully humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-SAP antibody that triggers immunotherapeutic clearance of amyloid. We report the safety, pharmacokinetics, and dose-response effects of up to three cycles of miridesap followed by dezamizumab in 23 adult subjects with systemic amyloidosis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01777243). Amyloid load was measured scintigraphically by amyloid-specific radioligand binding of 123I-labeled SAP or of 99mTc-3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid. Organ extracellular volume was measured by equilibrium magnetic resonance imaging and liver stiffness by transient elastography. The treatment was well tolerated with the main adverse event being self-limiting early onset rashes after higher antibody doses related to whole body amyloid load. Progressive dose-related clearance of hepatic amyloid was associated with improved liver function tests. 123I-SAP scintigraphy confirmed amyloid removal from the spleen and kidneys. No adverse cardiac events attributable to the intervention occurred in the six subjects with cardiac amyloidosis. Amyloid load reduction by miridesap treatment followed by dezamizumab has the potential to improve management and outcome in systemic amyloidosis.

Extracellular volume with bolus-only technique in amyloidosis patients: Diagnostic accuracy, correlation with other clinical cardiac measures, and ability to track changes in amyloid load over time.

BACKGROUND: Extracellular volume (ECV) by T1 mapping requires the contrast agent distribution to be at equilibrium. This can be achieved either definitively with a primed contrast infusion (infusion ECV), or sufficiently with a delay postbolus (bolus-only ECV). For large ECV, the bolus-only approach measures higher than the infusion ECV, causing some uncertainty in diseases such as amyloidosis. PURPOSE: To characterize the relationship between the bolus-only and current gold-standard infusion ECV in patients with amyloidosis. STUDY TYPE: Bolus-only and infusion ECV were prospectively measured. POPULATION: In all, 186 subjects with systemic amyloidosis attending our clinic and 23 subjects with systemic amyloidosis who were participating in an open-label, two-part, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial. FIELD STRENGTH: Avanto 1.5T, Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen, Germany. ASSESSMENT: Bolus-only and infusion ECV were measured in all subjects using shortened modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (ShMOLLI) T1 mapping sequence. STATISTICAL TESTS: Pearson correlation coefficient (r); Bland-Altman; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Linear regression model with a fractional polynomial transformation. RESULTS: The difference between the bolus-only and infusion myocardial ECV increased as the average of the two measures increased, with the bolus-ECV measuring higher. For an average ECV of 0.4, the difference was 0.013. The 95% limits of agreement for the two methods, after adjustment for the bias, were ±0.056. However, cardiac diagnostic accuracy was comparable (bolus-only vs. infusion ECV area under the curve [AUC] = 0.839 vs. 0.836), as were correlations with other clinical cardiac measures, and, in the trial patients, the ability to track changes in the liver/spleen with therapy. DATA CONCLUSION: In amyloidosis, with large ECVs, the bolus-only technique reads higher than the infusion technique, but clinical performance by any measure is the same. Given the work-flow advantages, these data suggest that the bolus-only approach might be acceptable for amyloidosis, and might support its use as a surrogate endpoint in future clinical trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1677-1684.

Characterization of the relationship between dose and blood eosinophil response following subcutaneous administration of mepolizumab.

OBJECTIVE: Mepolizumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that blocks human IL-5 from binding to the IL-5 receptor, which is mainly expressed on eosinophils. Eosinophils are key cells in the inflammatory cascade of various diseases, including asthma. This study investigated the pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship between exposure of mepolizumab subcutaneous (SC) administration and blood eosinophil reduction compared with intravenous (IV) administration in adult subjects with asthma. METHODS: In this multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, repeat-dose study, 70 adult subjects received one of four possible treatment regimens: mepolizumab 12.5, 125, or 250 mg SC or 75 mg IV. In addition to analyzing the dose and PK/PD relationship, absolute bioavailability, safety, tolerability, and incidence of anti-mepolizumab antibodies were evaluated. RESULTS: Blood eosinophil levels decreased in a dose-dependent manner with the lowest (12.5 mg) dose clearly differentiating from the other doses. A non-linear inhibition Imax model based on blood eosinophil levels at week 12 identified that the SC doses providing 50% and 90% of maximal blood eosinophil inhibition were 11 mg (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.19 - 16.85) and 99 mg (95% CI: 47 - 152), respectively. The route of administration did not affect the exposure-response relationship. The estimated mepolizumab SC absolute bioavailability (arm) was 74% (90% CI: 54 - 102%). The safety profile of mepolizumab was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: A dose-dependent reduction in blood eosinophils across all mepolizumab doses investigated was observed. The subcutaneous absolute bioavailability was 74%. The route of administration did not affect the mepolizumab exposure eosinophil response relationship.

Therapeutic Clearance of Amyloid by Antibodies to Serum Amyloid P Component.

BACKGROUND: The amyloid fibril deposits that cause systemic amyloidosis always contain the nonfibrillar normal plasma protein, serum amyloid P component (SAP). The drug (R)-1-[6-[(R)-2-carboxy-pyrrolidin-1-yl]-6-oxo-hexanoyl]pyrrolidine-2-carboxylic acid (CPHPC) efficiently depletes SAP from the plasma but leaves some SAP in amyloid deposits that can be specifically targeted by therapeutic IgG anti-SAP antibodies. In murine amyloid A type amyloidosis, the binding of these antibodies to the residual SAP in amyloid deposits activates complement and triggers the rapid clearance of amyloid by macrophage-derived multinucleated giant cells. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, single-dose-escalation, phase 1 trial involving 15 patients with systemic amyloidosis. After first using CPHPC to deplete circulating SAP, we infused a fully humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-SAP antibody. Patients with clinical evidence of cardiac involvement were not included for safety reasons. Organ function, inflammatory markers, and amyloid load were monitored. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events. Infusion reactions occurred in some of the initial recipients of larger doses of antibody; reactions were reduced by slowing the infusion rate for later patients. At 6 weeks, patients who had received a sufficient dose of antibody in relation to their amyloid load had decreased liver stiffness, as measured with the use of transient elastography. These patients also had improvements in liver function in association with a substantial reduction in hepatic amyloid load, as shown by means of SAP scintigraphy and measurement of extracellular volume by magnetic resonance imaging. A reduction in kidney amyloid load and shrinkage of an amyloid-laden lymph node were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CPHPC followed by an anti-SAP antibody safely triggered clearance of amyloid deposits from the liver and some other tissues. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01777243.).