Overview of cell-based tools for pre-clinical assessment of immunogenicity of biotherapeutics

With the increasing number of biotherapeutic drugs entering clinical trials, drug-induced immunogenicity becomes more and more a topic in immunotoxicology of drug development. Immunogenicity relies on the induction or presence of antibodies recognizing a biotherapeutic protein after its administration. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) that may either bind to a protein drug and/ or neutralize its potency may modulate the pharmacokinetics of therapeutic proteins or evoke adverse events, ranging from hypersensitivity to autoimmune reactions. Screening for binding and neutralizing ADA is integral part of the monitoring program of biotherapeutics in clinical studies. In light of the availability of powerful in silico and in vitro tools for immunogenicity risk assessment, de-risking possibilities during pre-clinical development have become worth being considered. This review, which summarizes a presentation from the Conference on Immunogenicity for Biologics, gives an overview on novel cell-based approaches in immunogenicity risk assessment in the lead optimization phase of biotherapeutics. In particular, a strategy combining a human dendritic cell and a mass spectrometry analysis is compared with in silico algorithms as to its suitability to identify T-cell epitopes conferring immunogenicity. Moreover, the possibility of utilizing T-cell activation assays to rank lead candidates according to their immunogenicity potential is discussed. Finally, a strategy is outlined as to how the results of cell-based risk assessment tools can be exploited to reduce the immunogenicity of biotherapeutic proteins in the future.     

Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: Influence of aggregation

Abstract

The elicitation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against biotherapeutics can have detrimental effects on drug safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics. The immunogenicity of biotherapeutics is, therefore, an important issue. There is evidence that protein aggregation can result in enhanced immunogenicity; however, the precise immunological and biochemical mechanisms responsible are poorly defined. In the context of biotherapeutic drug development and safety assessment, understanding the mechanisms underlying aggregate immunogenicity is of considerable interest. This review provides an overview of the phenomenon of protein aggregation, the production of unwanted aggregates during bioprocessing, and how the immune response to aggregated protein differs from that provoked by non-aggregated protein. Of particular interest is the nature of the interaction of aggregates with the immune system and how subsequent ADA responses are induced. Pathways considered here include ‘classical’ activation of the immune system involving antigen presenting cells and, alternatively, the breakdown of B-cell tolerance. Additionally, methods available to screen for aggregation and immunogenicity will be described. With an increased understanding of aggregation-enhanced immune responses, it may be possible to develop improved manufacturing and screening processes to avoid, or at least reduce, the problems associated with ADA.     

Immunogenicity to Biologics: Mechanisms,Prediction and Reduction

Currently, there is a significant rise in the development and clinical use of a unique class of pharmaceuticals termed as Biopharmaceuticals or Biologics, in the management of a range of disease conditions with, remarkable therapeutic benefits. However, there is an equally growing concern regarding development of adverse effects like immunogenicity in the form of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) production and hypersensitivity. Immunogenicity to biologics represents a significant hurdle in the continuing therapy of patients in a number of disease settings. Efforts focussed on the identification of factors that contribute towards the onset of immunogenic response to biologics have led to reductions in the incidence of immunogenicity. An in-depth understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanism underpinning immunogenic responses will likely improve the safety profile of biologics. This review addresses the mechanistic basis of ADA generation to biologics, with emphasis on the role of antigen processing and presentation in this process. The article also addresses the potential contribution of complement system in augmenting or modulating this response. Identifying specific factors that influences processing and presentation of biologic-derived antigens in different genotype and disease background may offer additional options for intervention in the immunogenic process and consequently, the management of immunogenicity to biologics.     

Contribution of enhanced engagement of antigen presentation machinery to the clinical immunogenicity of a human interleukin (IL)‐21 receptor‐blocking therapeutic antibody

Reliable risk assessment for biotherapeutics requires accurate evaluation of risk factors associated with immunogenicity. Immunogenicity risk assessment tools were developed and applied to investigate the immunogenicity of a fully human therapeutic monoclonal antibody, ATR‐107 [anti‐interleukin (IL)‐21 receptor] that elicited anti‐drug antibodies (ADA) in 76% of healthy subjects in a Phase 1 study. Because the ATR‐107 target is expressed on dendritic cells (DCs), the immunogenicity risk related to engagement with DC and antigen presentation pathways was studied. Despite the presence of IL‐21R on DCs, ATR‐107 did not bind to the DCs more extensively than the control therapeutic antibody (PF‐1) that had elicited low clinical ADA incidence. However, ATR‐107, but not the control therapeutic antibody, was translocated to the DC late endosomes, co‐localized with intracellular antigen‐D related (HLA‐DR) molecules and presented a dominant T cell epitope overlapping the complementarity determining region 2 (CDR2) of the light chain. ATR‐107 induced increased DC activation exemplified by up‐regulation of DC surface expression of CD86, CD274 (PD‐L1) and CD40, increased expansion of activated DC populations expressing CD86^hi, CD40^hi, CD83^hi, programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1)^hi, HLA‐DR^hi or CCR7^hi, as well as elevated secretion of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)‐α by DCs. DCs exposed to ATR‐107 stimulated an autologous T cell proliferative response in human donor cells, in concert with the detection of immunoglobulin (Ig)G‐type anti‐ATR‐107 antibody response in clinical samples. Collectively, the enhanced engagement of antigen presentation machinery by ATR‐107 was suggested. The approaches and findings described in this study may be relevant to identifying lower immunogenicity risk targets and therapeutic molecules.     

The case for measuring anti-drug antibodies in people with multiple sclerosis

The advent of biopharmaceuticals (BPs) has led to significant improvements in the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, and the number of BPs on the market and of diseases treated reflects their success. However, repetitive parenteral administration and intrinsic immunogenic properties of the drug can elicit an immune response, leading to production of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). This is a major limitation of the use of BPs and has to be taken into consideration in clinical practice and during drug development. With increasing knowledge about the immunogenicity of BPs and regular ADA testing in patients, we ensure optimized long-term treatment for the individual and thus optimal use of health care resources. This field has already been extensively investigated in the treatment of multiple sclerosis with IFN-β, but there is a clear need for consensus from academia, health care providers and the BP industry in managing ADA across all BPs and diseases.     

From the bench to clinical practice: understanding the challenges and uncertainties in immunogenicity testing for biopharmaceuticals

Unlike conventional chemical drugs where immunogenicity typically does not occur, the development of anti‐drug antibodies following treatment with biologics has led to concerns about their impact on clinical safety and efficacy. Hence the elucidation of the immunogenicity of biologics is required for drug approval by health regulatory authorities worldwide. Published ADA ‘incidence’ rates can vary greatly between same‐class products and different patient populations. Such differences are due to disparate bioanalytical methods and interpretation approaches, as well as a plethora of product‐specific and patient‐specific factors that are not fully understood. Therefore, the incidence of ADA and their association with clinical consequences cannot be generalized across products. In this context, the intent of this review article is to discuss the complex nature of ADA and key nuances of the methodologies used for immunogenicity assessments, and to dispel some fallacies and myths.     

Immunogenicity assay development and validation for biological therapy as exemplified by ustekinumab

Introduction of biotherapeutics has been a major milestone in the treatment of different chronic diseases. Nevertheless, the immune system can recognize the administered biological as non-self and respond with generation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA), including neutralizing ADA (nADA). Immunogenic responses may result in altered drug dynamics and kinetics leading to changes in safety and efficacy. However, there are several challenges with standard techniques for immunogenicity testing. Ustekinumab (UST), used in different inflammatory diseases, is a therapeutic antibody directed against the shared p40 subunit of interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23, interfering in the pathogenically crucial T helper type 1 (Th1)/Th17 pathway. We established and validated different approaches for detection and quantitation of UST, UST-specific ADA and nADA. Addressing the obstacle of complex formation of UST with nADA, we developed an acidification assay to approach the total amount of nADA. Validated methods were based on surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy (SPR), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a cell-based approach to characterize neutralizing capacity of nADA. Parameters assessed were determination and quantitation limits, linearity, range, precision, accuracy and selectivity. Quantitation of ADA and UST was feasible at lower concentrations using ELISA, whereas SPR showed a wider linear range for determination of ADA and UST. Accuracy, precision and linearity for quantitation were comparable using ELISA, SPR and the cell-based approach. All validated parameters fulfill the requirements of regulatory agencies. A combination of the testing approaches could address the increasing demand of precision medicine as it can be suitable for capturing the whole spectrum of immunogenicity and is transferable to other biologicals.     

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.     

Advances in Predicting and Manipulating the Immunogenicity of Biotherapeutics and Vaccines

Therapeutic proteins are vital to the future of human health provision and the survival and profitability of the global pharmaceutical industry. Returns from protein therapeutics are experiencing unprecedented growth: both their number and their economic dividend have increased by an order of magnitude in the last 10 years. The potential immunogenicity of protein therapeutics raises many clinical and safety concerns. Many poorly understood factors relating to both product and host affect immune responses. Available laboratory measurement of immunogenicity is of little utility for predicting the clinical properties of biotherapeutics. Coupled with assay variability and standardization issues, this precludes adequate prediction of the biological or clinical responses of therapeutic proteins, arguing for the utilization of informatic strategies in the analysis and prediction of protein immunogenicity. Currently, many unresolved issues must be addressed and thus circumvented before effective prediction can become routine.     

Transferon™, a peptide mixture with immunomodulatory properties is not immunogenic when administered with various adjuvants

Transferon, a human dialyzable leukocyte extract (hDLE), is a biotherapeutic that comprises a complex mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides (3, incomplete Freund's adjuvant (IFA), or Titermax Gold. The inoculation scheme entailed three routes of administration (intraperitoneal, Day 1; subcutaneous, Day 7; and intramuscular, Day 14) using 200?μg Transferon/inoculation. Serum samples were collected on Day 21. Total IgG levels were quantitated by affinity chromatography, and specific antibodies against components of Transferon were analyzed by dot-blot and ELISA. Ovalbumin (OVA, 44?kDa) and peptides from hydrolyzed collagen (PFHC,?相似文献   

Vaccines against mucosal infections

There remains a great need to develop vaccines against many of the pathogens that infect mucosal tissues or have a mucosal port of entry. Parenteral vaccination may protect in some instances, but usually a mucosal vaccination route is necessary. Mucosal vaccines also have logistic advantages over injectable vaccines by being easier to administer, having less risk of transmitting infections and potentially being easier to manufacture. Still, however, only relatively few vaccines for human use are available: oral vaccines against cholera, typhoid, polio, and rotavirus, and a nasal vaccine against influenza. For polio, typhoid and influenza, in which the pathogens reach the blood stream, there is also an injectable vaccine alternative. A problem with available oral live vaccines is their reduced immunogenicity when used in developing countries; for instance, the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines correlates closely with the national per capita income. Research is needed to define the impact of factors such as malnutrition, aberrant intestinal microflora, concomitant infections, and preexisting immunity as well as of host genetic factors on the immunogenicity of these vaccines.     

Immunoassay methods used in clinical studies for the detection of anti‐drug antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab

We 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.     

Biotherapeutics in Orthopaedic Medicine

Musculoskeletal injuries have a significant human and financial impact on society. In particular, fractures that lead to delayed union or even nonunion represent a serious clinical challenge for which few treatment options are available. The multiple surgical procedures often needed are associated with patient morbidity and reduced quality of life. Biotechnological advances have made possible a host of potential treatments for enhancing and accelerating the repair of bone. By stimulating the body's own healing mechanisms, clinical outcomes may be improved while also containing procedural costs. Biotherapeutics may take the form of proteins, genes or cells that can be used to treat the injury. Protein biotherapeutics have received the greatest attention. Using recombinant DNA techniques, growth factors that play important roles in bone development and repair are being produced. By delivering exogenous growth factors to the site of injury in an appropriate manner, bone formation can be stimulated. Although individual proteins have been the primary focus of investigation, combinations of biomolecules can have additive, and perhaps synergistic, effects. Alternatively, genes coding for osteotropic growth factors can be delivered to the site of injury. Expression of the gene effectively results in localised delivery of the growth factor. Delivery of cells having osteogenic potential can also result in bone formation. Furthermore, it may be possible to obtain additional benefits by combining biotherapeutic approaches, such as by introducing cells genetically modified to overexpress therapeutic proteins of interest. Although biotherapeutics have great potential for stimulating bone repair, only a limited number of treatments have been approved by governmental regulatory agencies for clinical use. Bone morphogenetic activity was initially described in 1965, but not until 2001 and 2002 did two protein biotherapeutics, utilising bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 7, receive approval for commercial distribution. Gene- and cell-based therapies are in a comparatively early stage of development.     

Challenges related to the immunogenicity of parenteral recombinant proteins: Underlying mechanisms and new approaches to overcome it

Immune response elicited by therapeutic proteins is an important safety and efficacy issue for regulatory agencies, drug manufacturers, clinicians, and patients. Administration of therapeutic proteins can potentially induce the production of anti-drug antibodies or cell-mediated immune responses. At first, it was speculated that the immunogenicity is related to the non-human origin of these proteins. Later on, it was confirmed that the human proteins may also show immunogenicity. In this review article, we will focus on a number of factors, which play crucial roles in the human protein immunogenicity. These factors are related to the patient's status (or intrinsic properties) and molecular characteristics of the therapeutic protein's (or extrinsic properties). Furthermore, we will discuss available in silico, in vitro, and in vivo methods for the prediction of sequences, which may generate an immune response following parenteral administration of these proteins. In summary, nowadays, it is possible for drug manufacturers to evaluate the risk of immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins and implement a management plan to overcome the problems prior to proceeding to human clinical trials.     

Difference of T cell and B cell activation in two homologous proteins with similar antigenicity but great distinct immunogenicity

The candidate particulate hepatitis E vaccine, HEV 239, has been shown to be an efficacious vaccine in primates, and clinical study to date shows it to be safe and immunogenic for humans. The antigenicity of HEV 239 is virtually identical to its N-terminal 26 amino acids truncated protein, E2, which is not particulate but soluble. However, HEV 239 is over 200 times more immunogenic than E2. In present study, several events underlying this dramatic immunogenicity difference have been addressed. (1) HEV 239 can efficiently evoke a vigorous and predominant T cell response while E2 cannot induce detectable T cell response; (2) the dominant T cell epitopes in HEV 239 are identified, and both are also contained integrally in E2; (3) priming mice with Th epitope peptide can partially rescue the weak immunogenicity of E2 in alum adjuvant and (4) HEV 239 but not E2 can induce significant antibody response in athymic mice, which indicates that HEV 239 can directly activate B cell more efficiently. These results contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the significant high immunogenicity of particulate antigen and may provide knowledge for the rational design and development of future vaccines.     

Anti-drug antibodies in psoriasis: a critical evaluation of clinical significance and impact on treatment response

TNF inhibitors and anti-p40IL12/23 monoclonal antibodies are efficacious treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) with biologics may prevent patients from achieving a full clinical response. ADA have been reported in patients treated with etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab or ustekinumab at rates of 0–18.3%, 5.4–43.6%, 8.8–44.8% and 3.8–5.4%, respectively. Antibodies against etanercept have no apparent effects on clinical response, whereas antibodies against infliximab or adalimumab have been associated with diminished clinical response. The significance of ADA against ustekinumab is yet to be determined. Data regarding management strategies to counteract ADA formation and their effects are limited in psoriasis patients. However, some evidence suggests that concomitant immunomodulators such as methotrexate may suppress ADA development in psoriasis. ADA specific to one biologic do not appear to carry cross-linking potential with other biologic agents. ADA formation needs to be considered as a possible factor contributing to diminished response from biologic agents.     

Therapeutic Breast Cancer Vaccines

Treatment of breast cancer in the adjuvant setting has changed rapidly over the last few years. In addition to improvements in chemotherapy, radiation, hormone manipulation, and surgery, immunotherapy has emerged as an effective adjunct for the treatment of breast cancer. Passive immunotherapeutic agents such as trastuzumab have been widely adopted as the standard of care for HER-2/neu overexpressing breast cancer. Vaccine therapy in the metastatic setting has yet to demonstrate clinical significance in a phase III testing. This may be due to the enhanced immunosuppressive effects demonstrated in the tumor microenvironment. Lack of co-stimulatory molecules, activation of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), increased T regulatory cells as well as soluble immunosuppressive factors produced by the tumor contribute to the ineffectiveness of vaccine therapy. Based on these observations, there has been a shift towards treating patients with minimal residual disease and a high risk of relapse. In this adjuvant setting, immune mechanisms of tumor evasion are less formidable, and the use of vaccine therapy in these patients may offer a higher chance of clinical benefit. There are several different vaccine approaches, including the use of cell-based vaccines (autologous, allogeneic, or dendritic cell-based), tumor-associated peptide or protein vaccines, DNA vaccines, heat shock proteins, and recombinant technology using viral or bacterial vectors to enhance immunogenicity of vaccine preparations. This review summarizes principles involving vaccine formulation and antigen selection, followed by a brief synopsis of therapeutic vaccines given in the metastatic setting and possible reasons for their lack of efficacy. The current literature regarding vaccine development for the treatment of breast cancer in the adjuvant setting is also reviewed.     

Endothelial dysfunction—An obstacle of therapeutic angiogenesis

Due to ageing populations and improvements in survival, increasing numbers of patients suffering from ischemic cardiovascular disease are not amenable to revascularization. Hence, interests are currently focused on “therapeutic angiogenesis”, which is the clinical use of growth factors to enhance or promote the development of collateral blood vessels in ischemic tissue. Several growth factors (or genes encoding these growth factors) are now available for therapeutic vascular growth in normal and ischemic tissues. However, the successes of angiogenic therapy observed in pre-clinical studies have not been realized in clinical trials. Most animal studies demonstrating the physiologic effectiveness of angiogenic therapies have been performed in normal young animals, while clinical trials typically enroll older patients with various endothelial disruptive risk factors. The promising results of trials using endothelial function-improving strategies support the hypothesis that the decreased effectiveness of growth factor therapy due to endothelial dysfunction could be a principle reason for failure of trials using growth factors. We will have a retrospection of therapeutic angiogenesis trials and discuss the mechanisms that contribute to an impaired angiogenic response in the setting of endothelial dysfunction. We also briefly explore endothelial function-improving procedures that have the potentially therapeutic benefit of enhancing the angiogenic response.