Statistical Approaches for Establishing Appropriate Immunogenicity Assay Cut Points: Impact of Sample Distribution, Sample Size, and Outlier Removal.

The statistical assessments needed to establish anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay cut points (CPs) can be challenging for bioanalytical scientists. Poorly established CPs that are too high could potentially miss treatment emergent ADA or, when set too low, result in detection of responses that may have no clinical relevance. We evaluated 16 validation CP datasets generated with ADA assays at Regeneron's bioanalytical laboratory and compared results obtained from different CP calculation tools. We systematically evaluated the impact of various factors on CP determination including biological and analytical variability, number of samples for capturing biological variability, outlier removal methods, and the use of parametric vs. non-parametric CP determination. In every study, biological factors were the major component of assay response variability, far outweighing the contribution from analytical variability. Non-parametric CP estimations resulted in screening positivity in drug-naïve samples closer to the targeted rate (5%) and were less impacted by skewness. Outlier removal using the boxplot method with an interquartile range (IQR) factor of 3.0 resulted in screening positivity close to the 5% targeted rate when applied to entire drug-naïve dataset. In silico analysis of CPs calculated using different sample sizes showed that using larger numbers of individuals resulted in CP estimates closer to the CP of the entire population, indicating a larger sample size (~ 150) for CP determination better represents the diversity of the study population. Finally, simpler CP calculations, such as the boxplot method performed in Excel, resulted in CPs similar to those determined using complex methods, such as random-effects ANOVA.

Bioanalytical Challenges due to Prior Checkpoint Inhibitor Exposure: Interference and Mitigation in Drug Concentration and Immunogenicity Assays.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a leading class of biotherapeutics. In oncology, patients often fail on early lines of biologic therapy to a specific target. Some patients may then enroll in a new clinical trial with a mAb specific for the same target. Therefore, immunoassays designed to quantify the current mAb therapy or assess immunogenicity to the drug may be susceptible to cross-reactivity or interference with residual prior biologics. The impact of two approved anti-PD-1 mAbs, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, was tested in several immunoassays for cemiplimab, another approved anti-PD-1 mAb. The methods included a target-capture drug concentration assay, a bridging anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay and a competitive ligand-binding neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay. We also tested bioanalytical strategies to mitigate cross-reactivity or interference in these assays from other anti-PD-1 biologics. Both pembrolizumab and nivolumab cross-reacted in the cemiplimab drug concentration assay. This was mitigated by addition of antibodies specific to pembrolizumab or nivolumab. ADA specific for pembrolizumab and nivolumab did not interfere in the cemiplimab ADA assay. However, pembrolizumab and nivolumab generated a false-positive response in a target-capture NAb assay. Our results demonstrate that similar exogenous pre-existing anti-PD-1 mAbs (biotherapeutics) such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab are detected and accurately quantified in the cemiplimab drug concentration assay. However, once steady state is achieved for the new therapy, prior biologics would likely not be detected. Cross-reactivity and interference in immunoassays from previous treatment with class-specific biotherapeutic(s) pose significant bioanalytical challenges, especially in immuno-oncology.