Comparison of cell-based and non-cell-based assay platforms for the detection of clinically relevant anti-drug neutralizing antibodies for immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins.

Anti-drug neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) formed due to unwanted immunogenicity of a therapeutic protein point towards a mature immune response. NAb detection is important in interpreting the therapeutic's efficacy and safety in vivo. In vitro cell-based NAb assays provide a physiological system for NAb detection, however are complex assays. Non-cell-based competitive ligand binding (CLB) approaches are also employed for NAb detection. Instead of cells, CLB assays use soluble receptor and conjugated reagents and are easier to perform, however have reduced physiological relevance. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of CLB assays to established cell-based assays to determine the former's ability to detect clinically relevant NAbs towards therapeutics that (i) acted as an agonist or (ii) acted as antagonists by binding to a target receptor. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the performance of cell-based and CLB NAb assays for erythropoietin (EPO) and two anti-receptor monoclonal antibodies (AMG-X and AMG 317). Clinically relevant NAb-positive samples identified previously by a cell-based assay were assessed in the corresponding CLB format(s). A panel of 12 engineered fully human anti-EPO monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) was tested in both EPO NAb assay formats. Our results showed that the CLB format was (i) capable of detecting human anti-EPO MAbs of differing neutralizing capabilities and affinities and (ii) provided similar results as the cell-based assay for detecting NAbs in patient samples. The cell-based and CLB assays also behaved comparably in detecting NAbs in clinical samples for AMG-X. In the case of anti-AMG 317 NAbs, the CLB format failed to detect NAbs in more than 50% of the tested samples. We conclude that assay sensitivity, drug tolerance and the selected assay matrix played an important role in the inability of AMG 317 CLB assays to detect clinically relevant NAbs.

Development and characterization of a human antibody reference panel against erythropoietin suitable for the standardization of ESA immunogenicity testing.

Recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) has been used therapeutically for more than two decades in the treatment of anemia. Although EPO is generally well tolerated, in rare cases, patients have developed anti-EPO antibodies that can negatively impact safety and efficacy. Therefore, the detection of antibodies against EPO is a regulatory requirement during clinical development and post-approval. Although it is a rare phenomenon, antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) is a serious complication than can result from antibodies that develop and neutralize EPO as well as endogenous erythropoietin. Currently, there are no universally accepted analytical methods to detect the full repertoire of binding and neutralizing anti-EPO antibodies. A number of different methods that differ in terms of antibodies detected and assay sensitivities are used by different manufacturers. There is also a lack of antibody reference reagents, and therefore no consistent basis for detecting and measuring anti-EPO antibodies. Reference reagents, with established ranges, are essential to monitor the safety and efficacy of all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) structurally related to human erythropoietin. This is the first report of the development and characterization of a panel of fully human antibodies against EPO suitable as reference reagents. The characteristics of antibodies within the panel were selected based on the prevalence of non-neutralizing IgG and IgM antibodies in non-PRCA patients and neutralizing IgG antibodies, including IgG1 and IgG4, in antibody-mediated PRCA subjects. The reference panel includes antibodies of high- and low-affinity with binding specificity to neutralizing and non-neutralizing erythropoietin epitopes. The subclass of human antibodies in this reference panel includes an IgG1, IgG2, and IgG4, as well as an IgM isotype. This antibody panel could help select appropriate immunogenicity assays, guide validation, and monitor assay performance. Further, this human anti-ESA antibody panel may help set the limits of each assay platform in terms of the full repertoire of the anti-ESA antibodies, and may facilitate standardization of ESA immunogenicity reporting across assay platforms.

Implementation of design of experiments (DOE) in the development and validation of a cell-based bioassay for the detection of anti-drug neutralizing antibodies in human serum.

The administration of biological therapeutics can potentially elicit the development of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) to the therapeutic drug in patients, which could have a significant impact on drug efficacy and safety. A rigorous in vitro cell-based assay for the detection of NAbs is critical for the assessment of the immunogenicity profile of the therapeutic drug. Conatumumab is a fully human monoclonal agonist antibody directed against the extracellular domain of human TRAIL receptor 2 (TR-2). It is being investigated as a cancer treatment because it is able to induce apoptosis in sensitive tumor cells. This report demonstrates how statistically designed experiments could be employed effectively in different stages of a NAb bioassay life cycle in order to characterize, optimize and stabilize the assay with added benefit of resource efficiency. By combining the approach of design of experiments (DOE) with subject matter expertise and experience, we were able to understand thoroughly how assay parameters affect the performance of the assay individually and interactively, identify the key assay parameters, define assay operating ranges and finally achieve a robust and sensitive cell-based assay for the detection of NAbs to Conatumumab. With the goal of developing a cell-based bioassay that is highly optimized for sensitivity, specificity, precision, and robustness, we performed 2 DOE experiments for assay optimization and 1 DOE experiment to validate assay robustness. We evaluated key operating parameters of the assay such as cell number, percentage of serum matrix, concentration of the therapeutic drug, concentration of the cross-linker, length of various incubation steps, cell age, interval between cell subculture and bioassay time, and detection equipment.