No abstract

All therapeutic proteins have the potential to induce anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Clinically relevant ADA can impact efficacy and/or safety of a biological therapeutic. Immunogenicity assessment strategy evaluates binding and neutralizing ADA, and the need for additional characterization (e.g., epitope, titer and so on) is determined using a risk-based approach. The choice of characterization assays depends on the type, application and immunogenicity of the therapeutic. ADA characterization can impact the interpretation of the risk profile of a given therapeutic, and offers insight into opportunities for risk mitigation and management. This article describes common ADA characterization methods. Strategic assessment and characterization of clinically relevant ADA are discussed, in order to support clinical options for safe and effective patient care and disease management.

Abstract.Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) pose a potential risk to patient safety and efficacy and are routinely monitored during clinical trials. Pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies are present in patients without prior drug exposure and are defined by their ability to bind to a component of the drug. These pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies are frequently observed and could represent an adaptive immune response of an individual who has been previously exposed to antigens with structural similarities to the biotherapeutic. Clinical consequences of these antibodies can vary from no impact to adverse effects on patient safety, exposure, and efficacy, and are highly dependent on biotherapeutic modality, disease indications, and patient demographics. This paper describes how the immunogenicity risk assessment of a biotherapeutic integrates the existence of pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies, and provides recommendations for risk-based strategies to evaluate treatment-emergent ADA responses.

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

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized anti-drug antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. Following debate at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences National Biotechnology Conference, a group was formed to address these gaps. Over the last 3 years, 44 members from 29 organizations (including 5 members from Europe and 10 members from FDA) discussed gaps in understanding immunogenicity assay requirements and have developed harmonization tools for use by industry scientists to facilitate filings to health authorities. Herein, this team provides testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) pre-study validation cut point; (2) in-study cut points, including procedures for applying cut points to mixed populations; (3) system suitability control criteria for in-study plate acceptance; (4) assay sensitivity, including the selection of an appropriate low positive control; (5) specificity, including drug and target tolerance; (6) sample stability that reflects sample storage and handling conditions; (7) assay selectivity to matrix components, including hemolytic, lipemic, and disease state matrices; (8) domain specificity for multi-domain therapeutics; (9) and minimum required dilution and extraction-based sample processing for titer reporting. Graphical Abstract