Preclinical Development of an anti-5T4 Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Pharmacokinetics in Mice, Rats, and NHP and Tumor/Tissue Distribution in Mice.

The pharmacokinetics of an antibody (huA1)-drug (auristatin microtubule disrupting MMAF) conjugate, targeting 5T4-expressing cells, were characterized during the discovery and development phases in female nu/nu mice and cynomolgus monkeys after a single dose and in S-D rats and cynomolgus monkeys from multidose toxicity studies. Plasma/serum samples were analyzed using an ELISA-based method for antibody and conjugate (ADC) as well as for the released payload using an LC-MS/MS method. In addition, the distribution of the Ab, ADC, and released payload (cys-mcMMAF) was determined in a number of tissues (tumor, lung, liver, kidney, and heart) in two tumor mouse models (H1975 and MDA-MB-361-DYT2 models) using similar LBA and LC-MS/MS methods. Tissue distribution studies revealed preferential tumor distribution of cys-mcMMAF and its relative specificity to the 5T4 target containing tissue (tumor). Single dose studies suggests lower CL values at the higher doses in mice, although a linear relationship was seen in cynomolgus monkeys at doses from 0.3 to 10 mg/kg with no evidence of TMDD. Evaluation of DAR (drug-antibody ratio) in cynomolgus monkeys (at 3 mg/kg) indicated that at least half of the payload was still on the ADC 1 to 2 weeks after IV dosing. After multiple doses, the huA1 and conjugate data in rats and monkeys indicate that exposure (AUC) increases with increasing dose in a linear fashion. Systemic exposure (as assessed by Cmax and AUC) of the released payload increased with increasing dose, although exposure was very low and its pharmacokinetics appeared to be formation rate limited. The incidence of ADA was generally low in rats and monkeys. We will discuss cross species comparison, relationships between the Ab, ADC, and released payload exposure after multiple dosing, and insights into the distribution of this ADC with a focus on experimental design as a way to address or bypass apparent obstacles and its integration into predictive models.

Neutralizing Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization.

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized neutralizing antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. A team of experts within the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists' Therapeutic Product Immunogenicity Community across industry and the Food and Drug Administration addressed challenges unique to cell-based and non-cell-based neutralizing antibody assays. Harmonization of validation expectations and data reporting will facilitate filings to health authorities and are described in this manuscript. This team provides validation testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) format selection; (2) cut point; (3) assay acceptance criteria; (4) control precision; (5) sensitivity including positive control selection and performance tracking; (6) negative control selection; (7) selectivity/specificity including matrix interference, hemolysis, lipemia, bilirubin, concomitant medications, and structurally similar analytes; (8) drug tolerance; (9) target tolerance; (10) sample stability; and (11) assay robustness.

GCC Consolidated Feedback to ICH on the 2019 ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline.

The 13th GCC Closed Forum for Bioanalysis was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA on April 5th, 2019. This GCC meeting was organized to discuss the contents of the 2019 ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline published in February 2019 and consolidate the feedback of the GCC members. In attendance were 63 senior-level participants from eight countries representing 44 bioanalytical CRO companies/sites. This event represented a unique opportunity for CRO bioanalytical experts to share their opinions and concerns regarding the ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline and to build unified comments to be provided to the ICH.

12th GCC Closed Forum: critical reagents; oligonucleotides; CoA; method transfer; HRMS; flow cytometry; regulatory findings; stability and immunogenicity.

The 12th GCC Closed Forum was held in Philadelphia, PA, USA, on 9 April 2018. Representatives from international bioanalytical Contract Research Organizations were in attendance in order to discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The issues discussed at the meeting included: critical reagents; oligonucleotides; certificates of analysis; method transfer; high resolution mass spectrometry; flow cytometry; recent regulatory findings and case studies involving stability and nonclinical immunogenicity. Conclusions and consensus from discussions of these topics are included in this article.

Recommendations for classification of commercial LBA kits for biomarkers in drug development from the GCC for bioanalysis.

Over the last decade, the use of biomarker data has become integral to drug development. Biomarkers are not only utilized for internal decision-making by sponsors; they are increasingly utilized to make critical decisions for drug safety and efficacy. As the regulatory agencies are routinely making decisions based on biomarker data, there has been significant scrutiny on the validation of biomarker methods. Contract research organizations regularly use commercially available immunoassay kits to validate biomarker methods. However, adaptation of such kits in a regulated environment presents significant challenges and was one of the key topics discussed during the 12th Global Contract Research Organization Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) meeting. This White Paper reports the GCC members' opinion on the challenges facing the industry and the GCC recommendations on the classification of commercial kits that can be a win-win for commercial kit vendors and end users.

11th GCC Closed Forum: cumulative stability; matrix stability; immunogenicity assays; laboratory manuals; biosimilars; chiral methods; hybrid LBA/LCMS assays; fit-for-purpose validation; China Food and Drug Administration bioanalytical method validation.

The 11th Global CRO Council Closed Forum was held in Universal City, CA, USA on 3 April 2017. Representatives from international CRO members offering bioanalytical services were in attendance in order to discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The second CRO-Pharma Scientific Interchange Meeting was held on 7 April 2017, which included Pharma representatives' sharing perspectives on the topics discussed earlier in the week with the CRO members. The issues discussed at the meetings included cumulative stability evaluations, matrix stability evaluations, the 2016 US FDA Immunogenicity Guidance and recent and unexpected FDA Form 483s on immunogenicity assays, the bioanalytical laboratory's role in writing PK sample collection instructions, biosimilars, CRO perspectives on the use of chiral versus achiral methods, hybrid LBA/LCMS assays, applications of fit-for-purpose validation and, at the Global CRO Council Closed Forum only, the status and trend of current regulated bioanalytical practice in China under CFDA's new BMV policy. Conclusions from discussions of these topics at both meetings are included in this report.

Highlights from the 2014 Applied Pharmaceutical Analysis conference.

The 10th annual Applied Pharmaceutical Analysis (APA) conference was held from 8th to 10th September in Cambridge, MA, USA. This year's APA conference focused on three different 'workshops' over the 3 days: Regulated Bioanalysis, Biotransformation, and Discovery. There was a great amount of information discussed by a variety of experts over the 3 days. This included, among other things; speakers from the US FDA discussing statute changes and guidelines, leaders from academic laboratories discussing innovation in bioanalytical tools, and industry scientists discussing current trends in the industry. The conference afforded attendees the opportunity to learn from the speakers during their sessions. In addition, there was ample opportunity for attendees and speakers both to learn from each other through informal interactions.

Resolution of matrix interference: quantitative and quasi-quantitative ligand-binding assays case studies.

BACKGROUND: Matrix effects pose a constant challenge in developing robust ligand-binding assays to be validated for use in nonclinical and clinical study support. When notable matrix effects of any kind are present, it can render an otherwise sound method ineffective. We present two case studies detailing the mitigation of observed matrix effects. METHOD: A dimeric protein was removed from unknown samples in an anti-therapeutic antibody assay through protein extraction. Nonspecific matrix effects in a quantitative ligand-binding assays were mitigated through development of a specialized buffer. RESULTS: The protein extraction method reproducibly reduced the artificially high responses of naïve samples, enabling the accurate detection of anti-therapeutic antibodies. Design of experiments was used to evaluate and select the optimal components and associated concentrations in order to reduce the observed matrix effect to acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest there are multiple techniques available for the bioanalytical scientist to mitigate both matrix effects in ligand-binding assays.

Comparison of an antibody capture and a cell capture ligand-binding assay to quantify a monoclonal therapeutic in serum.

BACKGROUND: Ligand-binding assays are a tool used for the quantification of antibody therapies. When assay format changes are required during the drug development process it is advisable to assess these formats ensuring the resulting data can be compared. In this article, we outline the method and results obtained comparing an anti-idiotype capture and a cell-capture ligand-binding assay. RESULTS: Comparison of results for all quality controls between assays were within acceptance limits, with the exception of the low quality control. Statistical analysis of the results demonstrated 95% power to detect a 20% difference between data sets. Subsequent analysis of unknown samples further confirmed 98% power to detect a 20% difference between data sets. CONCLUSION: Results obtained using two assay formats are statistically comparable to each other.

Comparison of four distinct detection platforms using multiple ligand binding assay formats.

Several detection platforms are available for ligand binding assays (LBA), each claiming superiority in sensitivity and dynamic range. However, little information exists in the literature directly comparing the various LBA platforms for quantitation. We have tested four common platforms to evaluate and compare the interchangeability of detection platforms by comparing sensitivity and dynamic range to a colorimetric LBA. The detection platforms compared are: colorimetric, chemiluminescence, time-resolved fluorescence (TRF) and electrochemiluminescence (ECL). Five different LBA protocols were tested with each of the detection endpoints. The assay protocols include the following ligand binding assay formats: direct binding, sandwich ELISA, competitive and cell based ELISA. We found that no detection platform consistently performed better than all the others and it was not possible to predict which platform would perform best for a given assay protocol. We also found surprising differences in assays (plate coating efficiency, low signal) which add to difficulty in choosing the best platform ad hoc. We propose here that in developing new assay protocols for detection of biotherapeutic agents, multiple detection platforms should be tested in order to forward the best assays possible and for the right reasons.