Jennifer Sims

Safety and immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies

Most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) licensed for human use or in clinical development are indicated for treatment of patients with cancer and inflammatory/autoimmune disease, and as such are designed to directly interact with the immune system. A major hurdle for the development and early clinical investigation of many of these immunomodulatory mAbs is their inherent risk for adverse immune-mediated drug reactions in humans such as infusion reactions, cytokine storms, immunosuppression and autoimmunity. A thorough understanding of the immunopharmacology of a mAb in humans and animals is required to both anticipate the clinical risk of adverse immunotoxicological events and to select a safe starting dose for first-in-human (FIH) clinical studies. This review summarizes the most common adverse immunotoxicological events occurring in humans with immunomodulatory mAbs and outlines non-clinical strategies to define their immunopharmacology and assess their immunotoxic potential, as well as reduce the risk of immunotoxicity through rational mAb design. Tests to assess the relative risk of mAb candidates for cytokine release syndrome, innate immune system (dendritic cell) activation and immunogenicity in humans are also described. The importance of selecting a relevant and sensitive toxicity species for human safety assessment in which the immunopharmacology of the mAb is similar to that expected in humans is highlighted, as is the importance of understanding the limitations of the species selected for human safety assessment and supplementation of in vivo safety assessment with appropriate in vitro human assays. A tiered approach to assess effects on immune status, immune function and risk of infection and cancer, governed by the mechanism of action and structural features of the mAb, is described. Finally, the use of immunopharmacology and immunotoxicity data in determining a minimum anticipated biologic effect Level (MABEL) and in the selection of safe human starting dose is discussed.

Challenges and approaches for the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics.

Immunomodulatory biologics, which render their therapeutic effects by modulating or harnessing immune responses, have proven their therapeutic utility in several complex conditions including cancer and autoimmune diseases. However, unwanted adverse reactions — including serious infections, malignancy, cytokine release syndrome, anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity as well as immunogenicity — pose a challenge to the development of new (and safer) immunomodulatory biologics. In this article, we assess the safety issues associated with immunomodulatory biologics and discuss the current approaches for predicting and mitigating adverse reactions associated with their use. We also outline how these approaches can inform the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics.

The minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL) for selection of first human dose in clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies.

Dose selection for first-in-human (FIH) clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is based on specifically designed preclinical pharmacology and toxicology studies, mechanistic ex vivo/in vitro investigations with human and animal cells and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling approaches and requires a thorough understanding of the biology of the target and the relative binding and pharmacological activity of the mAb in animals and humans. These investigations provide the essential information required for the selection of a safe starting dose and escalation for FIH trials based on toxicology and pharmacology data and the minimal anticipated biological effect level (MABEL) by integrating all available in vivo and in vitro data. In this review, strategies for estimation of the MABEL for mAbs specific for both membrane and soluble targets are presented and the scientific and regulatory challenges highlighted.

The design of chronic toxicology studies of monoclonal antibodies: implications for the reduction in use of non-human primates.

The changing environment of monoclonal antibody (mAb) development is impacting on the cost of drug development and the use of experimental animals, particularly non-human primates (NHPs). The drive to reduce these costs is huge and involves rethinking and improving nonclinical studies to make them more efficient and more predictive of man. While NHP use might be unavoidable in many cases because of the exquisite specificity and consequent species selectivity of mAbs, our increasing knowledge base can be used to improve drug development and maximise the output of experimental data. Data on GLP regulatory toxicology studies for 58mAbs were obtained from 10 companies across a wide range of therapeutic indications. These data have been used to investigate current practice and identify study designs that minimise NHP use. Our analysis shows that there is variation in the number of animals used for similar studies. This information has been used to develop practical guidance and make recommendations on the use of science-based rationale to design studies using fewer animals taking into account the current regulatory guidance. There are eight recommendations intended to highlight areas for consideration. They include guidance on the main group size, the inclusion of recovery groups and the number of dose groups used in short and long term chronic toxicology studies.

A whole blood in vitro cytokine release assay with aqueous monoclonal antibody presentation for the prediction of therapeutic protein induced cytokine release syndrome in humans.

The administration of several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to humans has been associated with acute adverse events characterized by clinically significant release of cytokines in the blood. The limited predictive value of toxicology species in this field has triggered intensive research to establish human in vitro assays using peripheral blood mononuclear cells or blood to predict cytokine release in humans. A thorough characterization of these assays is required to understand their predictive value for hazard identification and risk assessment in an optimal manner, and to highlight potential limitations of individual assay formats. We have characterized a whole human blood cytokine release assay with only minimal dilution by the test antibodies (95% v/v blood) in aqueous presentation format, an assay which has so far received less attention in the scientific world with respect to the evaluation of its suitability to predict cytokine release in humans. This format was compared with a human PBMC assay with immobilized mAbs presentation already well-characterized by others. Cytokine secretion into plasma or cell culture supernatants after 24h incubation with the test mAbs (anti-CD28 superagonist TGN1412-like material (TGN1412L), another anti-CD28 superagonistic mAb (ANC28.1), a T-cell depleting mAb (Orthoclone™), and a TGN1412 isotype-matched control (Tysabri™) not associated with clinically-relevant cytokine release) was detected by a multiplex assay based on electrochemiluminescent excitation. We provide proof that this whole blood assay is a suitable new method for hazard identification of safety-relevant cytokine release in the clinic based on its ability to detect the typical cytokine signatures found in humans for the tested mAbs and on a markedly lower assay background and cytokine release with the isotype-matched control mAb Tysabri™ - a clear advantage over the PBMC assay. Importantly, quantitative and qualitative differences in the relative cytokine responses to the individual mAbs, in the concentration-response relationships and the prominent cytokine signatures for individual mAbs in the two formats reflect diverging mechanisms of cytokine release and different levels of dependency on high density coating even for two anti-CD28 super-agonistic antibodies. These results clearly show that one generic approach to assessment of cytokine release using in vitro assays is not sufficient, but rather the choice of the method, i.e. applying the whole blood assay or the PBMC assay needs to be well considered depending on the target characteristics and the mechanistic features of the therapeutic mAbs being evaluated.

PEGylated Biopharmaceuticals Current Experience and Considerations for Nonclinical Development

PEGylation (the covalent binding of one or more polyethylene glycol molecules to another molecule) is a technology frequently used to improve the half-life and other pharmaceutical or pharmacological properties of proteins, peptides, and aptamers. To date, 11 PEGylated biopharmaceuticals have been approved and there is indication that many more are in nonclinical or clinical development. Adverse effects seen with those in toxicology studies are mostly related to the active part of the drug molecule and not to polyethylene glycol (PEG). In 5 of the 11 approved and 10 of the 17 PEGylated biopharmaceuticals in a 2013 industry survey presented here, cellular vacuolation is histologically observed in toxicology studies in certain organs and tissues. No other effects attributed to PEG alone have been reported. Importantly, vacuolation, which occurs mainly in phagocytes, has not been linked with changes in organ function in these toxicology studies. This article was authored through collaborative efforts of industry toxicologists/nonclinical scientists to address the nonclinical safety of large PEG molecules (>10 kilo Dalton) in PEGylated biopharmaceuticals. The impact of the PEG molecule on overall nonclinical safety assessments of PEGylated biopharmaceuticals is discussed, and toxicological information from a 2013 industry survey on PEGylated biopharmaceuticals under development is summarized. Results will contribute to the database of toxicological information publicly available for PEG and PEGylated biopharmaceuticals.

Assessment of biotechnology products for therapeutic use

Biotechnology products for therapeutic use include a very diverse range of products, including growth factors, cytokines, hormones, receptors, enzymes, clotting factors, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, DNA vaccines, gene transfer products, cell therapies and tissue/organ grafts. While some of these products are regulated as medicinal products, the regulatory status of others such as some cell therapies and tissue/organ-based products differs globally and falls within the borderline between the practice of medicine, medical devices and medicinal products. The unclear regulatory status of some products can add to the complexity of the safety assessment of such products. Conventional non-clinical testing paradigms and guidelines for small molecule development are often not relevant for biotechnology products. Guidelines relating to the non-clinical safety evaluation of biotechnology products, gene transfer products and cell therapy products are available and represent a set of general guiding principals to be applied on a case-by-case basis. The quality, safety and efficacy of biotechnology products for therapeutic use are intricately linked, far more so than for conventional medicinal products, leading to the need for increased communication between those responsible for ensuring product quality and those responsible for non-clinical safety testing. Safety issues include microbiological safety (due to the use of biological materials either during the manufacturing process or as an integral part of the products), pharmacological/ biological toxicity (due to excessive primary pharmacology or undesirable secondary pharmacology), immunogenicity and potential tumourigenicity (for example, for growth factors, immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies and cell therapy products). Genotoxicity and intrinsic chemical toxicity are less of a problem for biotechnology products.

Waiving in vivo studies for monoclonal antibody biosimilar development: National and global challenges

ABSTRACT Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorised original biological medicinal product (the innovator or reference product). The first approved biosimilar medicines were small proteins, and more recently biosimilar versions of innovator monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have entered development as patents on these more complex proteins expire. In September 2013, the first biosimilar mAb, infliximab, was authorised in Europe. In March 2015, the first biosimilar (Zarxio™, filgrastim-sndz, Sandoz) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, to date no mAb biosimilars have been approved in the US. There are currently major differences between how biosimilars are regulated in different parts of the world, leading to substantial variability in the amount of in vivo nonclinical toxicity testing required to support clinical development and marketing of biosimilars. There are approximately 30 national and international guidelines on biosimilar development and this number is growing. The European Unions guidance describes an approach that enables biosimilars to enter clinical trials based on robust in vitro data alone; in contrast, the World Health Organizations guidance is interpreted globally to mean in vivo toxicity studies are mandatory. We reviewed our own experience working in the global regulatory environment, surveyed current practice, determined drivers for nonclinical in vivo studies with biosimilar mAbs and shared data on practice and study design for 25 marketed and as yet unmarketed biosimilar mAbs that have been in development in the past 5y. These data showed a variety of nonclinical in vivo approaches, and also demonstrated the practical challenges faced in obtaining regulatory approval for clinical trials based on in vitro data alone. The majority of reasons for carrying out nonclinical in vivo studies were not based on scientific rationale, and therefore the authors have made recommendations for a data-driven approach to the toxicological assessment of mAb biosimilars that minimises unnecessary use of animals and can be used across all regions of the world.

Evaluation of dried blood spots for the quantification of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and detection of anti-drug antibodies

BACKGROUND Recently, the potential of dried blood spots (DBS) for small-molecule bioanalysis by LC-MS has been explored. The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the use of DBS for the quantification of biologics, where bioanalysis is with immunoassay. RESULTS Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies were successfully eluted from DBS and detected by immunoassays, and the procedure could be validated in alignment with current guidelines. Accuracy, precision, selectivity and dilution linearity were all within the acceptance criteria currently used for the validation of binding assays with serum samples. Serum and DBS samples obtained in parallel during a PK research study in rats were analyzed for drug and anti-drug antibodies using AlphaLISA(®) technology. Drug concentrations in both sample types showed a strong correlation, and there was very good alignment in detection of immunogenicity positive animals. CONCLUSION Using two examples, we have demonstrated that therapeutic monoclonal antibodies can be accurately quantified in DBS, and since anti-drug antibodies could also be successfully detected, there is scope for application of DBS to preclinical and clinical bioanalysis of monoclonal antibody drugs and anti-drug antibodies.

Development of the ICH Guidelines for Immunotoxicology Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals Using a Survey of Industry Practices

An anonymous survey of pharmaceutical industry practices for immunotoxicology evaluation was conducted. This was in support of the development of the guideline on the preclinical evaluation of unintended modulation of the immune system for the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. The survey was conducted in two phases in 2003 and 2004. A total of 64 responses were received of which 45 were included in the formal evaluation. The remaining compounds were excluded because they were cytotoxic anti-neoplastic drugs (N = 7), or due to insufficient information (N = 12). The purpose of the survey was to gather data on the correlation between routine toxicology studies (RTS) and additional immunotoxicological studies (AIS). The results of the survey were evaluated by the Expert Working Group (EWG) and classified as to positive or negative findings in RTS and AIS. The results of the survey showed that for 27 of 45 compounds (60%), the RTS and AIS endpoints were in agreement. In 12 of 45 cases (27%), the RTS endpoints showed immune modulation not observed in the AIS assays. Finally for 6 of 45 drugs (13%) a response was seen with the AIS methods where no significant effect was observed in the RTS endpoints. Length of dosing and the number of tests evaluated were similar in all groups. The groups where RTS detected signs of immunosuppression were more likely to have been dosed at or above MTD. This data contributed to the consensus in the EWG that routine immune function testing as an initial screen for all new drugs is not required. Instead, a weight-of-evidence approach including RTS and other causes for concern is recommended to identify the need for additional immunotoxicity studies.