This continuing education course was designed to provide an overview of the immunologic mechanisms involved in immunogenicity and hypersensitivity reactions following administration of biologics in nonclinical toxicity studies, the methods used to determine whether such reactions are occurring, and the associated clinical and anatomic pathology findings. Hypersensitivity reactions have classically been divided into type I, II, III, and IV reactions; type I and III reactions are those most often observed following administration of biologics. A variety of methods can be used to detect these reactions. Antemortem methods include hematology; detection of antidrug antibodies, circulating immune complexes and complement fragments, and immunoglobulin E in serum; tests for serum complement activity; and evaluation of complement receptor 1 on erythrocytes. Postmortem methods include routine light microscopy and electron microscopy, which can demonstrate typical findings associated with hypersensitivity reactions, and immunohistochemistry, which can detect the presence of immune complexes in tissues, including the detection of the test article. A final determination of whether findings are related to a hypersensitivity reaction in individual animals or across the entire study should rely on the overall weight of evidence, as findings indicative of these reactions are not necessarily consistent across all affected animals.

No abstract

SummaryBiopharmaceuticals (BPs) represent a rapidly growing class of approved and investigational drug therapies that is contributing significantly to advancing treatment in multiple disease areas, including inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, genetic deficiencies and cancer. Unfortunately, unwanted immunogenic responses to BPs, in particular those affecting clinical safety or efficacy, remain among the most common negative effects associated with this important class of drugs. To manage and reduce risk of unwanted immunogenicity, diverse communities of clinicians, pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists are involved in: interpretation and management of clinical and biological outcomes of BP immunogenicity, improvement of methods for describing, predicting and mitigating immunogenicity risk and elucidation of underlying causes. Collaboration and alignment of efforts across these communities is made difficult due to lack of agreement on concepts, practices and standardized terms and definitions related to immunogenicity. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI; www.imi-europe.org), ABIRISK consortium [Anti‐Biopharmaceutical (BP) Immunization Prediction and Clinical Relevance to Reduce the Risk; www.abirisk.eu] was formed by leading clinicians, academic scientists and EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) members to elucidate underlying causes, improve methods for immunogenicity prediction and mitigation and establish common definitions around terms and concepts related to immunogenicity. These efforts are expected to facilitate broader collaborations and lead to new guidelines for managing immunogenicity. To support alignment, an overview of concepts behind the set of key terms and definitions adopted to date by ABIRISK is provided herein along with a link to access and download the ABIRISK terms and definitions and provide comments (http://www.abirisk.eu/index_t_and_d.asp).

No abstract

SummaryWe examined the assay formats used to detect anti‐drug antibodies (ADA) in clinical studies of the anti‐tumour necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibodies adalimumab and infliximab in chronic inflammatory disease and their potential impact on pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes. Using findings of a recent systematic literature review of the immunogenicity of 11 biological/biosimilar agents, we conducted an ancillary qualitative review of a subset of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of the monoclonal antibodies against anti‐TNF factor adalimumab and infliximab. Among studies of adalimumab and infliximab, the immunoassay method used to detect antibodies was reported in 91 of 111 (82%) and 154 of 206 (75%) adalimumab and infliximab studies, respectively. In most adalimumab and infliximab studies, an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay or radioimmunoassay was used [85 of 91 (93%) and 134 of 154 (87%), respectively]. ADA incidence varied widely among assays and inflammatory diseases (adalimumab, 0–87%; infliximab, 0–79%). Pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes were only reported for ADA‐positive patients in 38 of 91 (42%) and 61 of 154 (40%) adalimumab and infliximab studies, respectively. Regardless of assay format or biological used, ADA formation was associated with lower serum concentrations, reduced efficacy and elevated rates of infusion‐related reactions. Consistent with previous recommendations to improve interpretation of immunogenicity data for biologicals, greater consistency in reporting of assay methods and clinical consequences of ADA formation may prove useful. Additional standardization in immunogenicity testing and reporting, application of modern, robust assays that satisfy current regulatory expectations and implementation of international standards for marketed products may help to improve our understanding of the impact of immunogenicity to biologics.