Validation of Anti-Adeno Associated Virus Serotype rh10 (AAVrh.10) Total and Neutralizing Antibody Immunogenicity Assays.

Immunogenicity assessment of Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) vectors is a critical part of gene therapy drug development. Whether the assays are used for inclusion/exclusion criteria or to monitor the safety and efficacy of the gene therapy, they are critical bioanalytical assessments. While total anti-AAV assays are perceived as easier to develop and implement than neutralizing anti-AAV assays, the gene therapy field is still nascent, and it is not yet clear which of the assays should be implemented at what stage of drug development. Recently AAVrh.10 has gained interest for use in gene therapies targeting cardiac, neurological, and other diseases due to its enhanced transduction efficiency. There is limited information on anti-AAVrh.10 antibodies and their clinical impact; thus, the information presented herein documents the validation of both a total antibody assay (TAb) and a neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay for anti-AAVrh.10 antibodies. In this manuscript, the validation was performed in accordance with the 2019 FDA immunogenicity guidance with additional evaluations to comply with CLIA where applicable. The AAVrh.10 TAb and NAb assays were compared in terms of sensitivity, drug tolerance, and precision, along with a concordance analysis using the same individual serum samples. This comparison gave insight into the utility of each format as a screening assay for inclusion into clinical studies.

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.

Recommendations on qPCR/ddPCR assay validation by GCC.

Gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccine research have led to an increased use of qPCR/ddPCR in bioanalytical laboratories. CROs are progressively undertaking the development and validation of qPCR and ddPCR assays. Currently, however, there is limited regulatory guidance for the use of qPCR and a complete lack of any regulatory guidelines for the use of the newer ddPCR to support regulated bioanalysis. Hence, the Global CRO Council in Bioanalysis (GCC) has issued this White Paper to provide; 1) a consensus on the different validation parameters required to support qPCR/ddPCR assays; 2) a harmonized approach to their validation and 3) a consistent development of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all the bioanalytical laboratories using these techniques.

Recommendations on ELISpot assay validation by the GCC.

Gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccine research have led to an increased need to perform cellular immunity testing in a regulated environment to ensure the safety and efficacy of these treatments. The most common method for the measurement of cellular immunity has been Enzyme-Linked Immunospot assays. However, there is a lack of regulatory guidance available discussing the recommendations for developing and validating these types of assays. Hence, the Global CRO Council has issued this white paper to provide a consensus on the different validation parameters required to support Enzyme-Linked Immunospot assays and a harmonized and consistent approach to Enzyme-Linked Immunospot validation among contract research organizations.

Recommendations for the content and management of Certificates of Analysis for reference standards from the GCC for bioanalysis.

The 13th Global CRO Council (GCC) closed forum for bioanalysis was held in New Orleans, LA, USA on 5 April 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. While ICH M10 will cover requirements for reference standards, one of the biggest challenges facing the CRO community is the lack of consistency and completeness of Certificates of Analysis for reference standards used in regulated bioanalysis. Similar challenges exist with critical reagents (e.g., capture and detection antibodies) used for assays supporting biologics. The recommendations provided in this publication are the minimum requirements for the content that GCC members believe should be included in Certificates of Analysis for reference standards obtained from commercial vendors, sponsors and compendial suppliers, for use in regulated bioanalytical studies. In addition, recommendations for internal standards, metabolites and critical reagents are discussed.

Recommendations for the Development and Validation of Immunogenicity Assays in Support of Biosimilar Programs.

For biosimilar drug development programs, it is essential to demonstrate that there are no clinically significant differences between the proposed biosimilar therapeutic (biosimilar) and its reference product (originator). Based on a stepwise comprehensive comparability exercise, the biosimilar must demonstrate similarity to the originator in physicochemical characteristics, biological activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, including immunogenicity. The goal of the immunogenicity assessment is to evaluate potential differences between the proposed biosimilar product and the originator product in the incidence and severity of human immune responses. Establishing that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the immune response between the products is a key element in the demonstration of biosimilarity. An issue of practical, regulatory, and financial importance is to establish whether a two-assay (based on the biosimilar and originator respectively) or a one-assay approach (based on the biosimilar) is optimal for the comparative immunogenicity assessment. This paper recommends the use of a single, biosimilar-based assay for assessing immunogenic similarity in support of biosimilar drug development. The development and validation of an ADA assay used for a biosimilar program should include all the assessments recommended for an innovator program (10-16, 29). In addition, specific parameters also need to be evaluated, to gain confidence that the assay can detect antibodies against both the biosimilar and the originator. Specifically, the biosimilar and the originator should be compared in antigenic equivalence, to assess the ability of the biosimilar and the originator to bind in a similar manner to the positive control(s), as well as in the confirmatory assay and drug tolerance experiments. Practical guidance for the development and validation of anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays to assess immunogenicity of a biosimilar in comparison to the originator, using the one-assay approach, are described herein.

Pleomorphic ductal carcinoma of the breast: predictors of decreased overall survival.

The World Health Organization classification of tumors of the breast includes a rare variant of invasive ductal carcinoma termed pleomorphic carcinoma. This variant has marked nuclear pleomorphism (>6-fold variation in nuclear size by definition, but often>10-fold) and characteristically contains multinucleated tumor giant cells. Approximately one-third of the cases in the initial series contained a focal spindle cell metaplastic component. The tumors are reported to have an aggressive behavior, but because some contain a spindle cell metaplastic component, it is unclear whether the metaplastic component or other clinicopathologic features account for the poor clinical outcome. We identified 37 cases of pleomorphic carcinoma of the breast and evaluated the association between clinical outcome and multiple clinicopathologic features. Patients with invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma and those without at least a tissue biopsy before chemotherapy were excluded. Patients ranged in age from 23 to 78 years (median, 49 y). Tumor size was >5 cm in 12 cases and <5 cm in 22. A focal spindle cell component (<25% of the tumor) was present in 14 tumors (38%). Clinical follow-up was available for 36 patients (median, 17 mo). In multivariate analysis, when the 2 stage-IV patients were excluded, the presence of a spindle cell component and tumor size >5 cm were each independently associated with decreased overall survival. The actuarial 5-year overall survival for patients with and without a metaplastic spindle cell component was 38%+/-15% and 89%+/-7%, respectively. Poor clinical outcome, therefore, is associated with the subset of pleomorphic carcinomas with a spindle cell metaplastic component. As the morphologic features of pleomorphic carcinoma can be seen in primary tumors from other sites, it is important to recognize this tumor as a rare variant of invasive breast carcinoma.

Different panels of markers should be used to predict mammary Paget's disease associated with in situ or invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.

Mammary Paget's disease (MPD) is a rare manifestation of breast carcinoma involving the nipple. Our objective was to identify molecular markers and molecular subtypes that may predict patients at high risk of developing MPD. Immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses were performed with antibodies to estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), androgen receptor (AR), HER2, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and several cytokeratins (CK5/6, CK14, CK17, CK8, CK18) on representative sections of 121 cases of ductal carcinoma of the breast, including 28 cases with MPD, 81 cases with neither MPD nor nipple involvement, and 12 cases of non-MPD with nipple involvement. The rates of receptor expression and subtype distributions of 3 IHC-based molecular classifications were compared among these groups. The results showed that: (1) MPD is more likely to be associated with ER- and PR-negative ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), but not invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC); (2) MPD is more likely to be associated with HER2-over expression subtype DCIS, but not IDC; and (3) carcinomas with non-MPD nipple involvement differ from those with MPD, since they are more likely to be ER- and PR-positive, HER2-negative, and luminal A subtype. In summary, different panels of markers should be used to predict MPD associated with different underlying lesions; for DCIS, the ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER2-subtype and not basal-like subtype is most predictive of MPD; for IDC, the luminal B-subtype is most predictive of MPD.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma with osseous metastases and pathologic fracture of femoral neck.

Malignant mesotheliomas occur in the pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, and tunica vaginalis. The majority of tumors are pleural in origin. The typical pattern of spread is usually contiguous or via implantation. Hematogenous or lymphatic metastasis is not uncommon; however, metastasis to bone has rarely been well documented. This is a case report of malignant pleural mesothelioma metastatic to the femur with a pathologic fracture of femoral neck.