Immunogenicity of Cemiplimab: Low Incidence of Antidrug Antibodies and Cut-Point Suitability Across Tumor Types.

The immunogenicity of cemiplimab, a fully human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody directed against programmed cell death 1, was assessed in patients across multiple tumor types. The development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) against cemiplimab was monitored using a validated bridging immunoassay. To identify ADA-positive samples in the assay, statistically determined cut points were established by analyzing baseline clinical study samples from a mixed population of different tumor types, and this validation cut point was used to assess immunogenicity in all subsequent studies. Regulatory guidance requires that ADA assay cut points be verified for appropriateness in different patient populations. Thus, for the cemiplimab ADA assay, we evaluated whether each new oncology population was comparable with the validation population used to set the cut point. Assay responses from 2393 individual serum samples from 8 different tumor types were compared with the validation population, using established statistical methods for cut-point determination and comparison, with no significant differences observed. Across tumor types, the immunogenicity of cemiplimab was low, with an overall treatment-emergent ADA incidence rate of 1.9% and 2.5% at intravenous dose regimens of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 350 mg every 3 weeks, respectively. Moreover, no neutralizing antibodies to cemiplimab were detected in patients with ADA-positive samples, and there was no observed impact of cemiplimab ADAs on pharmacokinetics. Study-specific cut points may be required in some diseases, such as immune and inflammatory diseases; however, based on this analysis, in-study cut points are not required for each new oncology disease indication for cemiplimab.

Interference in a Neutralizing Antibody Assay for Odronextamab, a CD20xCD3 Bispecific mAb, from Prior Rituximab Therapy and Possible Mitigation Strategy.

A cell-based assay was developed to detect neutralizing anti-drug antibodies (NAbs) against odronextamab, a CD20xCD3 bispecific monoclonal antibody (mAb) under investigation for treatment of CD20+ B cell malignancies. In this assay, odronextamab bridges between two cell types, CD20-expressing HEK293 cells and CD3-expressing Jurkat T cells that generate a luciferase signal upon CD3 clustering. Patient samples containing NAbs directed to either arm of the bispecific drug block the odronextamab bridge formation between the cell lines thus preventing the generation of the luciferase signal. We determined that other anti-CD20 therapeutics also block bridge formation, resulting in false-positive results. In patient samples from odronextamab clinical trials, approximately 30% of baseline samples had a strong false-positive NAb signal that correlated with the presence of prior rituximab (anti-CD20) therapy. We determined that rituximab interference can be minimized by the addition of anti-rituximab antibodies in the NAb assay. Understanding and mitigating the impact of prior biologic exposure is increasingly important for implementing a successful bioanalytical strategy to support clinical drug development, especially in the immuno-oncology field. Odronextamab neutralizing antibody assay, interference, and mitigation. A Design of the odronextamab neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay where anti-CD20xCD3 drug bridges between CD20-expressing HEK293 cells and Jurkat T cells expressing an NFAT response element and luciferase reporter. True NAb prevents odronextamab from bridging between target and effector cells, thus preventing the expression of luciferase. B Interference with odronextamab from other anti-CD20 therapeutic antibodies (e.g., rituximab) from prior disease treatment generates a false-positive NAb result. Assay interference can be mitigated with an anti-idiotypic antibody against the interfering therapy.

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.

Molecular mechanisms linking high dose medroxyprogesterone with HIV-1 risk.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies suggest that medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) may increase the risk of HIV-1. The current studies were designed to identify potential underlying biological mechanisms. METHODS: Human vaginal epithelial (VK2/E6E7), peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMC), and polarized endometrial (HEC-1-A) cells were treated with a range of concentrations of MPA (0.015-150 µg/ml) and the impact on gene expression, protein secretion, and HIV infection was evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment of VK2/E6E7 cells with high doses (>15 µg/ml] of MPA significantly upregulated proinflammatory cytokines, which resulted in a significant increase in HIV p24 levels secreted by latently infected U1 cells following exposure to culture supernatants harvested from MPA compared to mock-treated cells. MPA also increased syndecan expression by VK2/E6E7 cells and cells treated with 15 µg/ml of MPA bound and transferred more HIV-1 to T cells compared to mock-treated cells. Moreover, MPA treatment of epithelial cells and PBMC significantly decreased cell proliferation resulting in disruption of the epithelial barrier and decreased cytokine responses to phytohaemagglutinin, respectively. CONCLUSION: We identified several molecular mechanisms that could contribute to an association between DMPA and HIV including proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine responses that could activate the HIV promoter and recruit immune targets, increased expression of syndecans to facilitate the transfer of virus from epithelial to immune cells and decreased cell proliferation. The latter could impede the ability to maintain an effective epithelial barrier and adversely impact immune cell function. However, these responses were observed primarily following exposure to high (15-150 µg/ml) MPA concentrations. Clinical correlation is needed to determine whether the prolonged MPA exposure associated with contraception activates these mechanisms in vivo.