Boris Gorovits

Recommendations for the validation of immunoassays used for detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products

Most biological drug products elicit some level of anti-drug antibody (ADA) response. This antibody response can, in some cases, lead to potentially serious side effects and/or loss of efficacy. In humans, ADA often causes no detectable clinical effects, but in the instances of some therapeutic proteins these antibodies have been shown to cause a variety of clinical consequences ranging from relatively mild to serious adverse events. In nonclinical (preclinical) studies, ADA can affect drug exposure, complicating the interpretation of the toxicity, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data. Therefore, the immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins is a concern for clinicians, manufacturers and regulatory agencies. In order to assess the immunogenic potential of biological drug molecules, and be able to correlate laboratory results with clinical events, it is important to develop reliable laboratory test methods that provide valid assessments of antibody responses in both nonclinical and clinical studies. For this, method validation is considered important, and is a necessary bioanalytical component of drug marketing authorization applications. Existing regulatory guidance documents dealing with the validation of methods address immunoassays in a limited manner, and in particular lack information on the validation of immunogenicity methods. Hence this article provides scientific recommendations for the validation of ADA immunoassays. Unique validation performance characteristics are addressed in addition to those provided in existing regulatory documents pertaining to bioanalyses. The authors recommend experimental and statistical approaches for the validation of immunoassay performance characteristics; these recommendations should be considered as examples of best practice and are intended to foster a more unified approach to antibody testing across the biopharmaceutical industry.

Recommendations on risk-based strategies for detection and characterization of antibodies against biotechnology products

The appropriate evaluation of the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals is of major importance for their successful development and licensure. Antibodies elicited by these products in many cases cause no detectable clinical effects in humans. However, antibodies to some therapeutic proteins have been shown to cause a variety of clinical consequences ranging from relatively mild to serious adverse events. In addition, antibodies can affect drug efficacy. In non-clinical studies, anti-drug antibodies (ADA) can complicate interpretation of the toxicity, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data. Therefore, it is important to develop testing strategies that provide valid assessments of antibody responses in both non-clinical and clinical studies. This document provides recommendations for antibody testing strategies stemming from the experience of contributing authors. The recommendations are intended to foster a more unified approach to antibody testing across the biopharmaceutical industry. The strategies proposed are also expected to contribute to better understanding of antibody responses and to further advance immunogenicity evaluation.

Bioanalysis of antibody–drug conjugates: American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Antibody–Drug Conjugate Working Group position paper

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) typically consist of a cytotoxic drug covalently bound to an antibody by a linker. These conjugates have the potential to substantially improve efficacy and reduce toxicity compared with cytotoxic small-molecule drugs. Since ADCs are generally complex heterogeneous mixtures of multiple species, these novel therapeutic products present unique bioanalytical challenges. The growing number of ADCs being developed across the industry suggests the need for alignment of the bioanalytical methods or approaches used to assess the multiple species and facilitate consistent interpretation of the bioanalytical data. With limited clinical data, the current strategies that can be used to provide insight into the relationship between the multiple species and the observed clinical safety and efficacy are still evolving. Considerations of the bioanalytical strategies for ADCs based on the current industry practices that take into account the complexity and heterogeneity of ADCs are discussed.

Workshop Report: Crystal City V—Quantitative Bioanalytical Method Validation and Implementation: The 2013 Revised FDA Guidance

In September 2013, the FDA released a draft revision of the Bioanalytical Method Validation (BMV) Guidance, which included a number of changes to the expectations for bioanalysis, most notably the inclusion of biomarker assays and data. To provide a forum for an open, inclusive discussion of the revised draft BMV Guidance, the AAPS and FDA once again collaborated to convene a two-and-a-half day workshop during early December 2013 in Baltimore, MD, USA. The resulting format embodied extensive open discussion and each thematic session included only brief, concise descriptions by Agency and industry representatives prior to opening the floor discussion. The Workshop was built around four thematic sessions (Common Topics, Chromatographic, Ligand-Binding Assays, and Biomarkers) and a final session with international regulators, concluding with a review of the outcomes and recommendations from the thematic sessions. This Workshop report summarizes the outcomes and includes topics of agreement, those where the FDA will consider the Industry’s perspective, and those where the workshop provided a first open dialogue. This article will be available to the bioanalytical community at http://www.aaps.org/BMV13.

Theoretical Considerations and Practical Approaches to Address the Effect of Anti-drug Antibody (ADA) on Quantification of Biotherapeutics in Circulation

Continuous improvement in bioanalytical method development is desired in order to ensure the quality of the data and to better support pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety studies of biotherapeutics. One area that has been getting increasing attention recently is in the assessment of “free” and “total” analyte and the impact of the assay format on those assessments. To compliment these considerations, the authors provide a critical review of available literature and prospectively explore methods to mitigate the potential impact of anti-drug antibody on PK assay measurement. This challenge is of particular interest and importance since biotherapeutic drugs often elicit an immune response, and thus may have a direct impact on quantification of the drug for its PK and safety evaluations.

Proposed mechanism of off-target toxicity for antibody–drug conjugates driven by mannose receptor uptake

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are developed with the goal of increasing compound therapeutic index by specific and targeted delivery of a toxic payload to the site of action while considerably reducing damage to normal tissues. Yet, off-target hepatic toxicities have been reported for several ADC. Locations of these off-target toxicities coincide with the reported locations of cell surface mannose receptor (MR). The relative proportion of agalactosylated glycans on the Fc domain (G0F vs. G1F and G2F components) in monoclonal antibody (mAb)–based biotherapeutics is closer to some disease state IgG rather than to a normal serum-derived immunoglobulin. The lack of the terminal galactose on a G0F glycan creates an opportunity for the mAb to interact with soluble and cell surface MRs. MR is a known multi-domain lectin that specifically binds and internalizes glycoproteins and immune complexes with relatively high G0F content and has been found on the surface of various cell types, including immune cells of myeloid lineage, endothelial cells, and hepatic and splenic sinusoids. In this review paper it is proposed that the mechanism of the off-target toxicities for ADC biotherapeutics is at least in part driven by the carbohydrates, specifically agalactosylated glycans, such as G0F, their interactions with MR and resulting glycan-derived cellular uptake of ADCs. Several case studies are reviewed presenting corroborating information.

A White Paper—Consensus and Recommendations of a Global Harmonization Team on Assessing the Impact of Immunogenicity on Pharmacokinetic Measurements

The Global Bioanalysis Consortium (GBC) set up an international team to explore the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments. The intent of this paper is to define the field and propose best practices when developing PK assays for biotherapeutics. We focus on the impact of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) on the performance of PK assay leading to the impact on the reported drug concentration and exposure. The manuscript describes strategies to assess whether the observed change in the drug concentration is due to the ADA impact on drug clearance rates or is a consequence of ADA interference in the bioanalytical method applied to measure drug concentration. This paper provides the bioanalytical scientist guidance for developing ADA-tolerant PK methods. It is essential that the data generated in the PK, ADA, pharmacodynamic and efficacy/toxicity evaluations are viewed together. Therefore, the extent for the investigation of the PK sensitivity to the presence of ADA should be driven by the project needs and risk based.

Considerations for the nonclinical safety evaluation of antibody drug conjugates for oncology

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) include monoclonal antibodies that are linked to cytotoxic small molecules. A number of these agents are currently being developed as anti-cancer agents designed to improve the therapeutic index of the cytotoxin (i.e., cytotoxic small molecule or cytotoxic agent) by specifically delivering it to tumor cells. This paper presents primary considerations for the nonclinical safety evaluation of ADCs and includes strategies for the evaluation of the entire ADC or the various individual components (i.e., antibody, linker or the cytotoxin). Considerations are presented on how to design a nonclinical safety assessment program to identify the on- and off-target toxicities to enable first-in-human (FIH) studies. Specific discussions are also included that provide details as to the need and how to conduct the studies for evaluating ADCs in genetic toxicology, tissue cross-reactivity, safety pharmacology, carcinogenicity, developmental and reproductive toxicology, biotransformation, toxicokinetic monitoring, bioanalytical assays, immunogenicity testing, test article stability and the selection of the FIH dose. Given the complexity of these molecules and our evolving understanding of their properties, there is no single all-encompassing nonclinical strategy. Instead, each ADC should be evaluated on a case-by-case scientifically-based approach that is consistent with ICH and animal research guidelines.

Recommendations for the characterization of immunogenicity response to multiple domain biotherapeutics

Many biotherapeutics currently in development have complex mechanisms of action and contain more than one domain, each with a specific role or function. Examples include antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), PEGylated, fusion proteins and bi-specific antibodies. As with any biotherapeutic molecule, a multi-domain biotherapeutic (MDB) can elicit immune responses resulting in the production of specific anti-drug antibodies (ADA) when administered to patients. As it is beneficial to align industry standards for evaluating immunogenicity of MDBs, this paper highlights pertinent immunogenicity risk factors and describes steps involved in the design of a testing strategy to detect and characterize binding (non-neutralizing and neutralizing, NAb) ADAs. In a common tier based approach, samples identified as ADA screen positive are confirmed for the binding specificity of the antibodies to the drug molecule via a confirmatory assay. The confirmation of specificity is generally considered as a critical step of the tier based approach in overall ADA response evaluation. Further characterization of domain specificity of polyclonal anti-MDB ADA response may be required based on the analysis of molecule specific risk factors. A risk based approach in evaluating the presence of NAbs for MDB is discussed in this article. Analysis of domain-specific neutralizing antibody reactivity should be based on the risk assessment as well as the information learned during binding ADA evaluation. Situations where additional characterization of NAb specificity is possible and justified are discussed. Case studies demonstrating applicability of the risk factor based approach are presented. In general, the presence of a domain with high immunogenicity risk or presence of a domain with high endogenous protein homology may result in an overall high immunogenicity risk level for the entire MDB and can benefit from domain specificity characterization of immune response. For low immunogenicity risk MDBs, domain specificity characterization could be re-considered at later clinical phases based on the need to explain specific clinical observations. Inclusion of domain specificity characterization in early phase clinical studies for MDBs with limited clinical immunogenicity experience may be considered to help understand its value in later clinical development. It is beneficial and is recommended to have a well-defined plan for the characterization of ADA domain specificity and data analysis prior to the initiation of sample testing. Overall, best practices for immunogenicity evaluation of complex MDBs are discussed.

Antidrug Antibody Assay Validation: Industry Survey Results

Immunogenicity of biopharmaceutical products has attracted considerable attention from the industrial, academia, and regulatory organizations. Many methods exist to detect and characterize level of antidrug antibody response in patients. Still, additional work is required to harmonize various approaches used throughout the industry. This review presents results of a survey sponsored by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists that was designed to collect relevant information and to understand various methods used throughout the bioanalytical field for the detection and evaluation of antidrug antibody responses.