Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are common with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and timely related to drug administration and have been reported as anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions and cytokine release syndrome, among other terms used. We address risk management measures for individual patients and for the study and propose a consistent reporting approach in an attempt to allow cross-molecule comparisons. Once the symptoms of IRR have resolved, the mAb may be restarted. Rechallenge should not be done for suspected IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and Grade 4 IRRs. Management of IRRs for subsequent patients includes administration of premedication, which, however, does not prevent IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. Reporting approach: (1) Report as IRRs, reactions occurring during or within 24 h after an infusion. Negative skin Prick test and absent or undetectable allergen-specific IgE levels have high negative predictive value for an IgE-mediated allergic reaction. If IgE-mediated anaphylaxis is suspected based on medical history and/or laboratory test results, the reaction should be reported as suspected (IgE mediated) anaphylaxis. (2) Collect signs and symptoms with grades to allow characterization of IRRs. IRRs pathogenesis is of scientific interest and has impact on drug development. Animal toxicology studies are neither predictive of severe IRRs nor of anaphylaxis in human. Preclinical tests should be further developed to identify patients at risk for severe IRRs, for complement activation-related pseudoallergy and for IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. The proposed approach should help standardizing data collection and analysis of IRRs in an attempt to enable comparisons across molecules.

BackgroundThere is little guidance regarding the risk of exposure of pregnant women/ women of childbearing potential to genotoxic or teratogenic compounds via vaginal dose delivered through seminal fluid during sexual intercourse.MethodWe summarize current thinking and provide clinical trial considerations for a consistent approach to contraception for males exposed to genotoxic and/or teratogenic compounds or to compounds of unknown teratogenicity, and for collection of pregnancy data from their female partners.ResultsWhere toxicity testing demonstrates genotoxic potential, condom use is required during exposure and for 5 terminal plasma half-lives plus 74 days (one human spermatogenesis cycle) to avoid conception.For non-genotoxic small molecules and immunoglobulins with unknown teratogenic potential or without a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from embryo-fetal development (EFD) studies and no minimal anticipated biological effect level (MABEL), condom use is recommended for males with pregnant partner/female partner of childbearing potential. For teratogenic small molecules with estimated seminal fluid concentration and a margin between projected maternal area under the curve (AUC) and NOAEL AUC from EFD studies of ≥300 (≥100 for immunoglobulins) or in the absence of a NOAEL with a margin between MABEL plasma concentration and maternal Cmax of ≥300 (≥10 for immunoglobulins), condom use is not required. However, condom use is required for margins below the thresholds previously indicated. For small molecules with available seminal fluid concentrations, condom use is required if margins are <100 instead of <300. Condom use should continue for as long as the projected margin is at or above the defined thresholds.Pregnancy data should be proactively collected if pregnancy occurs during the condom use period required for males exposed to first-in-class molecules or to molecules with a target/class shown to be teratogenic, embryotoxic or fetotoxic in human or preclinical experiments.ConclusionThese recommendations, based on a precaution principle, provide a consistent approach for minimizing the risk of embryo-fetal exposure to potentially harmful drugs during pregnancy of female partners of males in clinical trials. Proactive targeted collection of pregnancy information from female partners should help determine the teratogenic potential of a drug and minimize background noise and ethical/logistical issues.

Background This is an update to our 2012 publication on clinical trial considerations on male contraception and collection of pregnancy information from female partner, after critical review of recent (draft) guidances released by the International Council for Harmonisation [ICH] the Clinical Trial Facilitation Group [CTFG] and the US Food & Drug Administration [FDA]. Methods Relevant aspects of the new guidance documents are discussed in the context of male contraception and pregnancy reporting from female partner in clinical trials and the approach is updated accordingly. Results Genotoxicity The concept of a threshold is introduced using acceptable daily intake/permissible daily exposure to define genotoxicity requirements, hence highly effective contraception in order to avoid conception. The duration for highly effective contraception has been extended from 74 to 90 days from the end of relevant systemic exposure. Teratogenicity Pharmacokinetic considerations to estimate safety margins have been contextualized with regard to over- and underestimation of the risk of teratogenicity transmitted by a vaginal dose. The duration of male contraception after the last dose takes into account the end of relevant systemic exposure if measured, or a default period of five half-lives after last dose for small molecules and two half-lives for immunoglobulins (mAbs). Measures to prevent exposure of the conceptus via a vaginal dose apply to reproductively competent or vasectomized men, unless measurements fail to detect the compound in seminal fluid. Conclusion Critical review of new guidance documents provides a comparison across approaches and resulted in an update of our previous publication. Separate algorithms for small molecules and monoclonal antibodies are proposed to guide the recommendations for contraception for male trial participants and pregnancy reporting from female partners. No male contraception is required if the dose is below a defined threshold for genotoxic concern applicable to small molecules. For men treated with teratogenic mAbs, condom use to prevent exposure of a potentially pregnant partner is unlikely to be recommended because of the minimal female exposure anticipated following a vaginal dose. The proposed safety margins for teratogenicity may evolve with further knowledge.

GA201 is a novel dual-acting humanized, engineered IgG1 anti-EGFR mAb designed to enhance ADCC in combination with signaling inhibition. Superior efficacy was demonstrated versus cetuximab in orthotopic CRC xenograft models. Preclinical data indicated an increase in macrophages (4-5 fold) and NK cells (2-3 fold) infiltration in tumors treated with GA201 compared to cetuximab. In a phase I clinical study objective responses and long lasting disease stabilizations were observed. A marked reduction in circulating NK cells and an increased infiltration of immune cells into skin rash was seen. Preliminary evidence of the enhanced ADCC capacity of GA201 was investigated in 25 third line patients with KRAS-mutant mCRC. Best overall response was SD in 40% of patients and median OS was 9.4 months. Reduction in peripheral NK cells and regulatory T-cells was observed. Comparison of pre- and post-treatment tumour biopsies revealed that tumour-infiltrating immune cells, in particular CD68+ and CD3+ cells increased overall. EGFR-membrane staining in baseline tumour biopsies was markedly higher than in the corresponding archival tumour specimens (median H-score 52 vs 3, respectively), which might reflect technical, but most importantly, biological variability. Based on these results and the commitment to investigate the tumor immune infiltration profile as a potential predictive biomarker, a fresh tumor biopsy at baseline was mandated in the ongoing randomized phase II trial (GAIN-C). This compares GA201 plus irinotecan, infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) with FOLFIRI alone in KRAS-mutant 2nd line mCRC patients and with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS-wild type patients (n=160). Primary objective is PFS. The fresh tumor biopsy will be centrally analyzed for EGFR and KRAS. A comprehensive biomarker program was implemented to investigate potential predictive biomarkers, with an emphasis on the real time tumor immune-infiltration status. The safety run-in phase with 36 patients was completed. Most common treatment related AEs on GA201 arms vs cetuximab vs. chemotherapy included (≥ grade 3): rash (33 vs. 17 vs. 0%), IRR (10 vs. 0 vs. 0%), diarrhea (17 vs. 0 vs. 11%), fatigue/asthenia (0 vs. 17 vs. 0%), hypomagnesaemia (17 vs. 0 vs. 0%), stomatitis (17 vs. 0 vs. 0%) and vomiting/nausea (6 vs. 0 vs. 0%). So far, no patient discontinued due to EGFR-related skin toxicity. Immunological profiling is ongoing. Extensive research efforts, including a fresh tumor biopsy in second line mCRC patients, are taken to understand the immunological mechanism of action of GA201 and to select and test (ph. II) and validate (ph. III) potential predictive biomarkers. To guide personalized cancer immunotherapies there is a clear need for reliable biomarkers which would necessitate a tumor assessment directly prior to the therapy and immune monitoring throughout treatment. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-220. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-220

No abstract