Anti-drug Antibody Sample Testing and Reporting Harmonization.

A clear scientific and operational need exists for harmonized bioanalytical immunogenicity study reporting to facilitate communication of immunogenicity findings and expedient review by industry and health authorities. To address these key bioanalytical reporting gaps and provide a report structure for documenting immunogenicity results, this cross-industry group was formed to establish harmonized recommendations and a develop a submission template to facilitate agency filings. Provided here are recommendations for reporting clinical anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay results using ligand-binding assay technologies. This publication describes the essential bioanalytical report (BAR) elements such as the method, critical reagents and equipment, study samples, results, and data analysis, and provides a template for a suggested structure for the ADA BAR. This publication focuses on the content and presentation of the bioanalytical ADA sample analysis report. The interpretation of immunogenicity data, including the evaluation of the impact of ADA on safety, exposure, and efficacy, is out of scope of this publication.

Anti-drug Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization.

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized anti-drug antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. Following debate at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences National Biotechnology Conference, a group was formed to address these gaps. Over the last 3 years, 44 members from 29 organizations (including 5 members from Europe and 10 members from FDA) discussed gaps in understanding immunogenicity assay requirements and have developed harmonization tools for use by industry scientists to facilitate filings to health authorities. Herein, this team provides testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) pre-study validation cut point; (2) in-study cut points, including procedures for applying cut points to mixed populations; (3) system suitability control criteria for in-study plate acceptance; (4) assay sensitivity, including the selection of an appropriate low positive control; (5) specificity, including drug and target tolerance; (6) sample stability that reflects sample storage and handling conditions; (7) assay selectivity to matrix components, including hemolytic, lipemic, and disease state matrices; (8) domain specificity for multi-domain therapeutics; (9) and minimum required dilution and extraction-based sample processing for titer reporting.

Recommendations for the Assessment and Management of Pre-existing Drug-Reactive Antibodies During Biotherapeutic Development.

Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) pose a potential risk to patient safety and efficacy and are routinely monitored during clinical trials. Pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies are present in patients without prior drug exposure and are defined by their ability to bind to a component of the drug. These pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies are frequently observed and could represent an adaptive immune response of an individual who has been previously exposed to antigens with structural similarities to the biotherapeutic. Clinical consequences of these antibodies can vary from no impact to adverse effects on patient safety, exposure, and efficacy, and are highly dependent on biotherapeutic modality, disease indications, and patient demographics. This paper describes how the immunogenicity risk assessment of a biotherapeutic integrates the existence of pre-existing drug-reactive antibodies, and provides recommendations for risk-based strategies to evaluate treatment-emergent ADA responses.

Strategic characterization of anti-drug antibody responses for the assessment of clinical relevance and impact.

All therapeutic proteins have the potential to induce anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Clinically relevant ADA can impact efficacy and/or safety of a biological therapeutic. Immunogenicity assessment strategy evaluates binding and neutralizing ADA, and the need for additional characterization (e.g., epitope, titer and so on) is determined using a risk-based approach. The choice of characterization assays depends on the type, application and immunogenicity of the therapeutic. ADA characterization can impact the interpretation of the risk profile of a given therapeutic, and offers insight into opportunities for risk mitigation and management. This article describes common ADA characterization methods. Strategic assessment and characterization of clinically relevant ADA are discussed, in order to support clinical options for safe and effective patient care and disease management.

Recommendations for the characterization of immunogenicity response to multiple domain biotherapeutics.

Many biotherapeutics currently in development have complex mechanisms of action and contain more than one domain, each with a specific role or function. Examples include antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), PEGylated, fusion proteins and bi-specific antibodies. As with any biotherapeutic molecule, a multi-domain biotherapeutic (MDB) can elicit immune responses resulting in the production of specific anti-drug antibodies (ADA) when administered to patients. As it is beneficial to align industry standards for evaluating immunogenicity of MDBs, this paper highlights pertinent immunogenicity risk factors and describes steps involved in the design of a testing strategy to detect and characterize binding (non-neutralizing and neutralizing, NAb) ADAs. In a common tier based approach, samples identified as ADA screen positive are confirmed for the binding specificity of the antibodies to the drug molecule via a confirmatory assay. The confirmation of specificity is generally considered as a critical step of the tier based approach in overall ADA response evaluation. Further characterization of domain specificity of polyclonal anti-MDB ADA response may be required based on the analysis of molecule specific risk factors. A risk based approach in evaluating the presence of NAbs for MDB is discussed in this article. Analysis of domain-specific neutralizing antibody reactivity should be based on the risk assessment as well as the information learned during binding ADA evaluation. Situations where additional characterization of NAb specificity is possible and justified are discussed. Case studies demonstrating applicability of the risk factor based approach are presented. In general, the presence of a domain with high immunogenicity risk or presence of a domain with high endogenous protein homology may result in an overall high immunogenicity risk level for the entire MDB and can benefit from domain specificity characterization of immune response. For low immunogenicity risk MDBs, domain specificity characterization could be re-considered at later clinical phases based on the need to explain specific clinical observations. Inclusion of domain specificity characterization in early phase clinical studies for MDBs with limited clinical immunogenicity experience may be considered to help understand its value in later clinical development. It is beneficial and is recommended to have a well-defined plan for the characterization of ADA domain specificity and data analysis prior to the initiation of sample testing. Overall, best practices for immunogenicity evaluation of complex MDBs are discussed.