Neutralizing Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization.

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized neutralizing antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. A team of experts within the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists' Therapeutic Product Immunogenicity Community across industry and the Food and Drug Administration addressed challenges unique to cell-based and non-cell-based neutralizing antibody assays. Harmonization of validation expectations and data reporting will facilitate filings to health authorities and are described in this manuscript. This team provides validation testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) format selection; (2) cut point; (3) assay acceptance criteria; (4) control precision; (5) sensitivity including positive control selection and performance tracking; (6) negative control selection; (7) selectivity/specificity including matrix interference, hemolysis, lipemia, bilirubin, concomitant medications, and structurally similar analytes; (8) drug tolerance; (9) target tolerance; (10) sample stability; and (11) assay robustness.

Interference in a Neutralizing Antibody Assay for Odronextamab, a CD20xCD3 Bispecific mAb, from Prior Rituximab Therapy and Possible Mitigation Strategy.

A cell-based assay was developed to detect neutralizing anti-drug antibodies (NAbs) against odronextamab, a CD20xCD3 bispecific monoclonal antibody (mAb) under investigation for treatment of CD20+ B cell malignancies. In this assay, odronextamab bridges between two cell types, CD20-expressing HEK293 cells and CD3-expressing Jurkat T cells that generate a luciferase signal upon CD3 clustering. Patient samples containing NAbs directed to either arm of the bispecific drug block the odronextamab bridge formation between the cell lines thus preventing the generation of the luciferase signal. We determined that other anti-CD20 therapeutics also block bridge formation, resulting in false-positive results. In patient samples from odronextamab clinical trials, approximately 30% of baseline samples had a strong false-positive NAb signal that correlated with the presence of prior rituximab (anti-CD20) therapy. We determined that rituximab interference can be minimized by the addition of anti-rituximab antibodies in the NAb assay. Understanding and mitigating the impact of prior biologic exposure is increasingly important for implementing a successful bioanalytical strategy to support clinical drug development, especially in the immuno-oncology field. Odronextamab neutralizing antibody assay, interference, and mitigation. A Design of the odronextamab neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay where anti-CD20xCD3 drug bridges between CD20-expressing HEK293 cells and Jurkat T cells expressing an NFAT response element and luciferase reporter. True NAb prevents odronextamab from bridging between target and effector cells, thus preventing the expression of luciferase. B Interference with odronextamab from other anti-CD20 therapeutic antibodies (e.g., rituximab) from prior disease treatment generates a false-positive NAb result. Assay interference can be mitigated with an anti-idiotypic antibody against the interfering therapy.

A method to quantitate the neutralizing capacity of anti-therapeutic protein antibodies in serum and their correlation to clinical impact.

A robust, quantitative method for assessing the neutralizing capacity of anti-therapeutic protein antibodies was developed and tested using 4 analytical assay platforms typically used for detection of anti-drug neutralizing antibodies. The method described here utilized titration of increasing concentrations of therapeutic protein into serum containing anti-therapeutic protein antibodies, either positive control antibodies or clinical samples. Neutralizing capacities were calculated by determining the EC50 from the titration curves. The neutralizing capacity of purified anti therapeutic protein antibodies was expressed in terms of "µg of drug neutralized per µg of anti-TP antibody" present. In the case of serum originating from clinical study subjects, the neutralizing capacity of the samples was expressed as "µg of drug neutralized per mL of serum". A relative shift in EC50 values was observed as the amount of serum or antibody was changed resulting in a proportional shift of the calculated neutralizing capacity. Application of this approach using different assay platforms was consistent providing evidence for its potential to be a useful approach to characterize, qualify and compare neutralizing positive control antibody preparations or clinical samples. Using this methodology, we were able to draw a clear correlation between the neutralizing capacity and the effect of these antibodies on a clinical pharmacodynamic (PD) marker. Determination of the neutralizing capacity of antibody positive samples from subjects in a clinical study indicated direct correlation of pharmacodynamic results with non-response, partial response and response to high, mid and low neutralizing capacities respectively.

Immunogenicity of panitumumab in combination chemotherapy clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Panitumumab is a fully human antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor that is indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after disease progression on standard chemotherapy. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the immunogenicity of panitumumab and to evaluate the effect of anti-panitumumab antibodies on pharmacokinetic and safety profiles in patients with mCRC receiving panitumumab in combination with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapies. METHODS: Three validated assays (two screening immunoassays and a neutralizing antibody bioassay) were used to detect the presence of anti-panitumumab antibodies in serum samples collected from patients enrolled in four panitumumab combination chemotherapy clinical trials. The impact of anti-panitumumab antibodies on pharmacokinetic and safety profiles was analyzed using population pharmacokinetic analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. RESULTS: Of 1124 patients treated with panitumumab in combination with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy with postbaseline samples available for testing, 20 (1.8%) patients developed binding antibodies and 2 (0.2%) developed neutralizing antibodies. The incidence of anti-panitumumab antibodies was similar in patients with tumors expressing wild-type or mutant KRAS and in patients receiving oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapies. No evidence of an altered pharmacokinetic or safety profile was found in patients who tested positive for anti-panitumumab antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity of panitumumab in the combination chemotherapy setting was infrequent and similar to the immunogenicity observed in the monotherapy setting. Panitumumab immunogenicity did not appear to alter pharmacokinetic or safety profiles. This low rate of immunogenicity may be attributed to the fully human nature of panitumumab.

Multiplexed evaluation of a cell-based assay for the detection of antidrug neutralizing antibodies to panitumumab in human serum using automated fluorescent microscopy.

The method described here employs a high-content cell-based assay format for the detection of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) to panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antagonistic antibody to the human epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor in human serum (screening assay). A specificity assay was also developed and qualified to confirm that the neutralizing activity was attributable to the presence of NAbs and not due to serum interference (serum interference assay). The ArrayScan IV HCS reader was used for the measurement of tyrosine phosphorylation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and STAT-1 redistribution between the cytoplasm and nucleus in the human epidermoid carcinoma cell line A431. Assay conditions were developed by (1) optimizing the response of the A431 cells to recombinant human EGF in pooled human serum, (2) evaluating the ability of panitumumab to inhibit the EGF response, and (3) assessing the assay's sensitivity for detecting a positive control affinity purified rabbit polyclonal anti-panitumumab antibody. Panitumumab dose-dependently inhibited 4 ng/mL EGF, and the positive control antibody showed a dose-dependent neutralization of 50 ng/mL panitumumab. The experiments indicated that in comparison to STAT-1 translocation, EGFR phosphorylation was the optimal endpoint for the screening and serum interference assays. Assay cut points were derived for the screening and serum interference assays by obtaining normalized ratios of mean fluorescence intensity values obtained with EGFR phosphorylation by testing sera from healthy human donor sera. The assay sensitivity was determined to be 0.125 microg/mL for the positive control antibody.

Comparing ELISA and surface plasmon resonance for assessing clinical immunogenicity of panitumumab.

Evaluation of the immunogenicity of panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor mAb approved for use in colorectal cancer patients, led to the development of two separate immunoassays for the detection of anti-panitumumab Abs. The first immunoassay used a bridging ELISA capable of detecting 10 ng/ml positive control anti-panitumumab Ab. The ELISA incorporated an acid dissociation step to reduce drug interference and tolerated the presence of approximately 100-fold molar excess of drug. During eight clinical trials, the ELISA detected developing Ab responses in 2 of 612 (0.3%) subjects. In one of the ELISA positive subjects, neutralizing Abs were detected using an epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation bioassay. The second immunoassay used a Biacore biosensor immunoassay format capable of detecting 1 mug/ml positive control Ab while tolerating the presence of equal molar amounts of drug. Although less sensitive and less tolerant to competing drug in the assay, the Biacore assay detected developing Ab responses in 25 of the 604 (4.1%) subjects. Additionally, the Biacore assay identified eight subjects who developed neutralizing Abs. Mouse mAbs with affinities ranging from 1.1 x 10(-6) to 8.4 x 10(-10) M were used to characterize both assay types. The ELISA was more sensitive for the detection of higher affinity mAbs and detected high-affinity mAbs in the presence of higher molar ratio of drug to mAb. The Biacore assay was more sensitive for detection of lower affinity mAbs and detected low affinity Abs in the presence of higher molar ratios of drug to mAb.