Immunogenicity Risk Assessment of Process-related Impurities in an Engineered T cell Receptor Cellular Product.

Cell therapies such as genetically modified T cells have emerged as a promising and viable treatment for hematologic cancers and are being aggressively pursued for a wide range of diseases and conditions that were previously difficult to treat or had no cure. The process development requires genetic modifications to T cells to express a receptor (engineered T cell receptor (eTCR)) of specific binding qualities to the desired target. Protein reagents utilized during the cell therapy manufacturing process, to facilitate these genetic modifications, are often present as process-related impurities at residual levels in the final drug product and can represent a potential immunogenicity risk upon infusion. This manuscript presents a framework for the qualification of an assay for assessing the immunogenicity risk of AA6 and Cas9 residuals. The same framework applies for other residuals; however, AAV6 and Cas9 were selected as they were residuals from the manufacturing of an engineered T cell receptor cellular product in development. The manuscript:1 elucidates theoretical risks,2 summarizes analytical data collected during process development,3 describes the qualification of an in vitro human PBMC cytokine release assay to assess immunogenicity risk from cellular product associated process residuals;4 identifies a multiplexed inflammatory innate and adaptive cytokine panel with pre-defined criteria using relevant positive controls; and5 discusses qualification challenges and potential solutions for establishing meaningful thresholds. The assessment is not only relevant to establishing safe exposure levels of these residuals but also in guiding risk assessment and CMC strategy during the conduct of clinical trials.

A High Threshold of Biotherapeutic Aggregate Numbers is Needed to Induce an Immunogenic Response In Vitro, In Vivo, and in the Clinic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is concern that subvisible aggregates in biotherapeutic drug products pose a risk to patient safety. We investigated the threshold of biotherapeutic aggregates needed to induce immunogenic responses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Highly aggregated samples were tested in cell-based assays and induced cellular responses in a manner that depended on the number of particles. The threshold of immune activation varied by disease state (cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, allergy), concomitant therapies, and particle number. Compared to healthy donors, disease state patients showed an equal or lower response at the late phase (7 days), suggesting they may not have a higher risk of responding to aggregates. Xeno-het mice were used to assess the threshold of immune activation in vivo. Although highly aggregated samples (~ 1,600,000 particles/mL) induced a weak and transient immunogenic response in mice, a 100-fold dilution of this sample (~ 16,000 particles/mL) did not induce immunogenicity. To confirm this result, subvisible particles (up to ~ 18,000 particles/mL, containing aggregates and silicone oil droplets) produced under representative administration practices (created upon infusion of a drug product through an IV catheter) did not induce a response in cell-based assays or appear to increase the rate of adverse events or immunogenicity during phase 3 clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The ability of biotherapeutic aggregates to elicit an immune response in vitro, in vivo, and in the clinic depends on high numbers of particles. This suggests that there is a high threshold for aggregates to induce an immunogenic response which is well beyond that seen in standard biotherapeutic drug products.

Preexisting antibody assays for gene therapy: Considerations on patient selection cutoffs and companion diagnostic requirements.

Recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors are the leading delivery vehicle used for in vivo gene therapies. Anti-AAV antibodies (AAV Abs) can interact with the viral capsid component of an AAV-based gene therapy (GT). Therefore, patients with preexisting AAV Abs (seropositive patients) are often excluded from GT trials to prevent treatment of patients who are unlikely to benefit1 or may have a higher risk for adverse events outweighing treatment benefits. On the contrary, unnecessary exclusion of patients with high unmet medical need should be avoided. Instead, a risk-benefit assessment that weighs the potential risks due to seropositivity vs. severity of disease and available treatment options, should drive the decision if patient selection is required. Assays for patient selection must be validated according to their intended use following national regulations/standards for diagnostic assays in appropriate laboratories. In this review, we summarize the current process of patient selection, including assay cutoff criteria and related assay validation approaches. We further provide considerations on regulatory requirements for the development of in vitro diagnostic tests supporting market authorization of a corresponding GT.

An IQ Consortium Perspective on Best Practices for Bioanalytical and Immunogenicity Assessment Aspects of CAR-T and TCR-T Cellular Therapies Development.

CAR-T therapies have shown remarkable efficacy against hematological malignancies in the clinic over the last decade and new studies indicate that progress is being made to use these novel therapies to target solid tumors as well as treat autoimmune disease. Innovation in the field, including TCR-T, allogeneic or "off the shelf" CAR-T, and autoantigen/armored CAR-Ts are likely to increase the efficacy and applications of these therapies. The unique aspects of these cell-based therapeutics; patient-derived cells, intracellular expression, in vivo expansion, and phenotypic changes provide unique bioanalytical challenges to develop pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity assessments. The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) Translational and ADME Sciences Leadership Group (TALG) has brought together a group of industry experts to discuss and consider these challenges. In this white paper, we present the IQ consortium perspective on the best practices and considerations for bioanalytical and immunogenicity aspects toward the optimal development of CAR-T and TCR-T cell therapies.

2022 White Paper on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis: FDA Draft Guidance on Immunogenicity Information in Prescription Drug Labeling, LNP & Viral Vectors Therapeutics/Vaccines Immunogenicity, Prolongation Effect, ADA Affinity, Risk-based Approaches, NGS, qPCR, ddPCR Assays (Part 3 - Recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell Therapy, Vaccines Immunogenicity & Technologies; Immunogenicity & Risk Assessment of Biotherapeutics and Novel Modalities; NAb Assays Integrated Approach).

The 2022 16th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (WRIB) took place in Atlanta, GA, USA on September 26-30, 2022. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 16th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on ICH M10 BMV final guideline (focused on this guideline training, interpretation, adoption and transition); mass spectrometry innovation (focused on novel technologies, novel modalities, and novel challenges); and flow cytometry bioanalysis (rising of the 3rd most common/important technology in bioanalytical labs) were the special features of the 16th edition. As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues. This 2022 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2022 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity. Part 1 (Mass Spectrometry and ICH M10) and Part 2 (LBA, Biomarkers/CDx and Cytometry) are published in volume 15 of Bioanalysis, issues 16 and 15 (2023), respectively.

Best Practices and Considerations for Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacometric Aspects for Optimal Development of CAR-T and TCR-T Cell Therapies: An Industry Perspective.

With the promise of a potentially "single dose curative" paradigm, CAR-T cell therapies have brought a paradigm shift in the treatment and management of hematological malignancies. Both CAR-T and TCR-T cell therapies have also made great progress toward the successful treatment of solid tumor indications. The field is rapidly evolving with recent advancements including the clinical development of "off-the-shelf" allogeneic CAR-T therapies that can overcome the long and difficult "vein-to-vein" wait time seen with autologous CAR-T therapies. There are unique clinical pharmacology, pharmacometric, bioanalytical, and immunogenicity considerations and challenges in the development of these CAR-T and TCR-T cell therapies. Hence, to help accelerate the development of these life-saving therapies for the patients with cancer, experts in this field came together under the umbrella of International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) to form a joint working group between the Clinical Pharmacology Leadership Group (CPLG) and the Translational and ADME Sciences Leadership Group (TALG). In this white paper, we present the IQ consortium perspective on the best practices and considerations for clinical pharmacology and pharmacometric aspects toward the optimal development of CAR-T and TCR-T cell therapies.

PK/PD and Bioanalytical Considerations of AAV-Based Gene Therapies: an IQ Consortium Industry Position Paper.

Interest and efforts to use recombinant adeno-associated viruses (AAV) as gene therapy delivery tools to treat disease have grown exponentially. However, gaps in understanding of the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) and disposition of this modality exist. This position paper comes from the Novel Modalities Working Group (WG), part of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ). The pan-industry WG effort focuses on the nonclinical PK and clinical pharmacology aspects of AAV gene therapy and related bioanalytical considerations.Traditional PK concepts are generally not applicable to AAV-based therapies due to the inherent complexity of a transgene-carrying viral vector, and the multiple steps and analytes involved in cell transduction and transgene-derived protein expression. Therefore, we explain PK concepts of biodistribution of AAV-based therapies and place key terminologies related to drug exposure and PD in the proper context. Factors affecting biodistribution are presented in detail, and guidelines are provided to design nonclinical studies to enable a stage-gated progression to Phase 1 testing. The nonclinical and clinical utility of transgene DNA, mRNA, and protein analytes are discussed with bioanalytical strategies to measure these analytes. The pros and cons of qPCR vs. ddPCR technologies for DNA/RNA measurement and qualitative vs. quantitative methods for transgene-derived protein are also presented. Last, best practices and recommendations for use of clinical and nonclinical data to project human dose and response are discussed. Together, the manuscript provides a holistic framework to discuss evolving concepts of PK/PD modeling, bioanalytical technologies, and clinical dose selection in gene therapy.

Bioanalytical Methods for Characterization of CAR-T Cellular Kinetics: Comparison of PCR Assays and Matrices.

Recently, multiple chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T)-based therapies have been approved for treating hematological malignancies, targeting CD19 and B-cell maturation antigen. Unlike protein or antibody therapies, CAR-T therapies are "living cell" therapies whose pharmacokinetics are characterized by expansion, distribution, contraction, and persistence. Therefore, this unique modality requires a different approach for quantitation compared with conventional ligand binding assays implemented for most biologics. Cellular (flow cytometry) or molecular assays (polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) can be deployed with each having unique advantages and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the molecular assays utilized: quantitative PCR (qPCR), which was the initial platform used to estimate transgene copy numbers and more recently droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) which quantitates the absolute copy numbers of CAR transgene. The comparability of the two methods in patient samples and of each method across different matrices (isolated CD3+ T-cells or whole blood) was also performed. The results show a good correlation between qPCR and ddPCR for the amplification of same gene in clinical samples from a CAR-T therapy trial. In addition, our studies show that the qPCR-based amplification of transgene levels was well-correlated, independent of DNA sources (either CD3+ T-cells or whole blood). Our results also highlight that ddPCR can be a better platform for monitoring samples at the early phase of CAR-T dosing prior to expansion and during long-term monitoring as they can detect samples with very low copy numbers with high sensitivity, in addition to easier implementation and sample logistics.

Survey Outcome on Immunogenicity Risk Assessment Tools for Biotherapeutics: an Insight into Consensus on Methods, Application, and Utility in Drug Development.

A survey conducted by the Therapeutic Product Immunogenicity (TPI) community within the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) posed questions to the participants on their immunogenicity risk assessment strategies prior to clinical development. The survey was conducted in 2 phases spanning 5 years, and queried information about in silico algorithms and in vitro assay formats for immunogenicity risk assessments and how the data were used to inform early developability effort in discovery, chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC), and non-clinical stages of development. The key findings representing the trends from a majority of the participants included the use of high throughput in silico algorithms, human immune cell-based assays, and proteomics based outputs, as well as specialized assays when therapeutic mechanism of action could impact risk assessment. Additional insights into the CMC-related risks could also be gathered with the same tools to inform future process development and de-risk critical quality attributes with uncertain and unknown risks. The use of the outputs beyond supporting early development activities was also noted with participants utilizing the risk assessments to drive their clinical strategy and streamline bioanalysis.

Understanding preclinical and clinical immunogenicity risks in novel biotherapeutics development.

Immunogenicity continues to pose a challenge in the development of biotherapeutics like conventional therapeutic-proteins and monoclonal antibodies as well as emerging modalities such as gene-therapy components, gene editing, and CAR T cells. The approval of any therapeutic is based on a benefit-risk evaluation. Most biotherapeutics address serious medical conditions where the standard of care has a poor outcome. Consequently, even if immunogenicity limits the utility of the therapeutic in a sub-set of patients, the benefit-risk assessment skews in favor of approval. Some cases resulted in the discontinuation of biotherapeutics due to immunogenicity during drug development processes, This special issue presents a platform for review articles offering a critical assessment of accumulated knowledge as well as novel findings related to nonclinical risks that extend our understanding of the immunogenicity of biotherapeutics. Some of the studies in this collection leveraged assays and methodologies refined over decades to support more clinically relevant biological samples. Others have applied rapidly advancing methodologies in pathway-specific analyses to immunogenicity. Similarly, the reviews address urgent issues such as the rapidly emerging cell and gene therapies which hold immense promise but could have limited reach as a significant number of the patient population could potentially not benefit due to immunogenicity. In addition to summarizing the work presented in this special issue we have endeavored to identify areas where additional studies are required to understand the risks of immunogenicity and develop appropriate mitigation strategies.

Evaluation of Cellular Immune Response to Adeno-Associated Virus-Based Gene Therapy.

The number of approved or investigational late phase viral vector gene therapies (GTx) has been rapidly growing. The adeno-associated virus vector (AAV) technology continues to be the most used GTx platform of choice. The presence of pre-existing anti-AAV immunity has been firmly established and is broadly viewed as a potential deterrent for successful AAV transduction with a possibility of negative impact on clinical efficacy and a connection to adverse events. Recommendations for the evaluation of humoral, including neutralizing and total antibody based, anti-AAV immune response have been presented elsewhere. This manuscript aims to cover considerations related to the assessment of anti-AAV cellular immune response, including review of correlations between humoral and cellular responses, potential value of cellular immunogenicity assessment, and commonly used analytical methodologies and parameters critical for monitoring assay performance. This manuscript was authored by a group of scientists involved in GTx development who represent several pharma and contract research organizations. It is our intent to provide recommendations and guidance to the industry sponsors, academic laboratories, and regulatory agencies working on AAV-based GTx viral vector modalities with the goal of achieving a more consistent approach to anti-AAV cellular immune response assessment.

Comparison of Pre-existing Anti-AAV8 Total Antibody Screening and Confirmatory Assays with a Cell-Based Neutralizing Assay in Normal Human Serum.

Pre-existing adeno-associated viruses (AAV) neutralizing antibodies (NAb) can prevent AAV vectors from transducing target tissues. The immune responses can include binding/total antibodies (TAb) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb). This study is aimed at comparing total antibody assay (TAb) and cell-based NAb assay against AAV8 to help inform the best assay format for patient exclusion criteria. We developed a chemiluminescence-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to analyze AAV8 TAb in human serum. The specificity of AAV8 TAb was determined using a confirmatory assay. A COS-7-based assay was used to analyze anti-AAV8 NAbs. The TAb screening cut point factor was determined to be 2.65, and the confirmatory cut point (CCP) was 57.1%. The prevalence of AAV8 TAb in 84 normal subjects was 40%, of which 24% were NAb positive and 16% were NAb negative. All NAb-positive subjects were confirmed to be TAb-positive and also passed the CCP-positive criteria. All 16 NAb-negative subjects did not pass the CCP criterion for the positive specificity test. There was a high concordance between AAV8 TAb confirmatory assay and NAb assay. The confirmatory assay improved the specificity of the TAb screening test and confirmed neutralizing activity. We proposed a tiered assay approach, in which an anti-AAV8 screening assay should be followed by a confirmatory assay during pre-enrollment for patient exclusions for AAV8 gene therapy. This approach can be used in lieu of developing a NAb assay and can be also implemented as a companion diagnostic assay for post-marketing seroreactivity assessments due to ease of development and use.

An Overview of Current Accomplishments and Gaps of COVID-19 Vaccine Platforms and Considerations for Next Generation Vaccines.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have transformed the course of the COVID-19 pandemic with more than 30 authorizations. More than 2 billion people have been vaccinated with these vaccines developed on very different manufacturing platforms. We have reviewed the unprecedented work done in various aspects of the authorized vaccines and listed three potential improvements: 1) long-term stability at room-temperature conditions; 2) suitability for diverse populations such as infants, elderly, immune-compromised, and those with pre-existing or ongoing diseases; and 3) ability to act against different strains. In this article, we have discussed the current status of COVID-19 vaccines with respect to 1) diversity (strength and breadth) of initial immune responses and long-term immune memory; 2) prime-boost combinations that induce protection against variants; and 3) breakthrough infections. Further, we have listed host, product (critical quality attributes), and viral pathogenic factors that contribute to safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of vaccines. In addition, we have elaborated on the potential to (develop models and) determine the immune correlates that can predict long-term immune memory. The graphical representation of the abstract is provided as Fig. 1.

Immunogenicity assessment of AAV-based gene therapies: An IQ consortium industry white paper.

Immunogenicity has imposed a challenge to efficacy and safety evaluation of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapies. Mild to severe adverse events observed in clinical development have been implicated with host immune responses against AAV gene therapies, resulting in comprehensive evaluation of immunogenicity during nonclinical and clinical studies mandated by health authorities. Immunogenicity of AAV gene therapies is complex due to the number of risk factors associated with product components and pre-existing immunity in human subjects. Different clinical mitigation strategies have been employed to alleviate treatment-induced or -boosted immunogenicity in order to achieve desired efficacy, reduce toxicity, or treat more patients who are seropositive to AAV vectors. In this review, the immunogenicity risk assessment, manifestation of immunogenicity and its impact in nonclinical and clinical studies, and various clinical mitigation strategies are summarized. Last, we present bioanalytical strategies, methodologies, and assay validation applied to appropriately monitor immunogenicity in AAV gene therapy-treated subjects.

Immunogenicity Risk Assessment of Spontaneously Occurring Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody Aggregates.

Aggregates of therapeutic proteins have been associated with increased immunogenicity in pre-clinical models as well as in human patients. Recent studies to understand aggregates and their immunogenicity risks use artificial stress methods to induce high levels of aggregation. These methods may be less biologically relevant in terms of their quantity than those that occur spontaneously during processing and storage. Here we describe the immunogenicity risk due to spontaneously occurring therapeutic antibody aggregates using peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and a cell line with a reporter gene for immune activation: THP-1 BLUE NFκB. The spontaneously occurring therapeutic protein aggregates were obtained from process intermediates and final formulated drug substance from stability retains. Spontaneously occurring aggregates elicited innate immune responses for several donors in a PBMC assay with cytokine and chemokine production as a readout for immune activation. Meanwhile, no significant adaptive phase responses to spontaneously occurring aggregate samples were detected. While the THP-1 BLUE NFκB cell line and PBMC assays both responded to high stress induced aggregates, only the PBMC from a limited subset of donors responded to processing-induced aggregates. In this case study, levels of antibody aggregation occurring at process relevant levels are lower than those induced by stirring and may pose lower risk in vivo. Our methodologies can further inform additional immunogenicity risk assessments using a pre-clinical in vitro risk assessment approach utilizing human derived immune cells.

Comparison of Titer and Signal to Noise (S/N) for Determination of Anti-drug Antibody Magnitude Using Clinical Data from an Industry Consortium.

During biotherapeutic drug development, immunogenicity is evaluated by measuring anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). The presence and magnitude of ADA responses is assessed using a multi-tier workflow where samples are screened, confirmed, and titered. Recent reports suggest that the assay signal to noise ratio (S/N) obtained during the screening tier correlates well with titer. To determine whether S/N could more broadly replace titer, anonymized ADA data from a consortium of sponsors was collected and analyzed. Datasets from clinical programs with therapeutics of varying immunogenicity risk levels (low to high), common ADA assay platforms (ELISA and MSD) and formats (bridging, direct, solid-phase extraction with acid dissociation), and titration approaches (endpoint and interpolated) were included in the analysis. A statistically significant correlation between S/N and titer was observed in all datasets, with a strong correlation (Spearman's r > 0.8) in 11 out of 15 assays (73%). For assays with available data, conclusions regarding ADA impact on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were similar using S/N or titer. Subject ADA kinetic profiles were also comparable using the two measurements. Determination of antibody boosting in patients with pre-existing responses could be accomplished using similar approaches for titer and S/N. Investigation of factors that impacted the accuracy of ADA magnitude measurements revealed advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. In general, S/N had superior precision and ability to detect potentially low affinity/avidity responses compared to titer. This analysis indicates that S/N could serve as an equivalent and in some cases preferable alternative to titer for assessing ADA magnitude and evaluation of impact on clinical responses.

When to Extend Monitoring of Anti-drug Antibodies for High-risk Biotherapeutics in Clinical Trials: an Opinion from the European Immunogenicity Platform.

The determination of a tailored anti-drug antibody (ADA) testing strategy is based on the immunogenicity risk assessment to allow a correlation of ADAs with changes to pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety. The clinical impact of ADA formation refines the immunogenicity risk assessment and defines appropriate risk mitigation strategies. Health agencies request for high-risk biotherapeutics to extend ADA monitoring for patients that developed an ADA response to the drug until ADAs return to baseline levels. However, there is no common understanding in which cases an extension of ADA follow-up sampling beyond the end of study (EOS) defined in the clinical study protocol is required. Here, the Immunogenicity Strategy Working Group of the European Immunogenicity Platform (EIP) provides recommendations on requirements for an extension of ADA follow-up sampling in clinical studies where there is a high risk of serious consequences from ADAs. The importance of ADA evaluation during a treatment-free period is recognized but the decision whether to extend ADA monitoring at a predefined EOS should be based on evaluation of ADA data in the context of corresponding clinical signals. If the clinical data set shows that safety consequences are minor, mitigated, or resolved, further ADA monitoring may not be required despite potentially detectable ADAs above baseline. Extended ADA monitoring should be centered on individual patient benefit.

2021 White Paper on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis: TAb/NAb, Viral Vector CDx, Shedding Assays; CRISPR/Cas9 & CAR-T Immunogenicity; PCR & Vaccine Assay Performance; ADA Assay Comparability & Cut Point Appropriateness (Part 3 - Recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell Therapy, Vaccine Assays; Immunogenicity of Biotherapeutics and Novel Modalities; Integrated Summary of Immunogenicity Harmonization).

The 15th edition of the Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (15th WRIB) was held on 27 September to 1 October 2021. Even with a last-minute move from in-person to virtual, an overwhelmingly high number of nearly 900 professionals representing pharma and biotech companies, contract research organizations (CROs), and multiple regulatory agencies still eagerly convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 15th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on biomarker assay development and validation (BAV) (focused on clarifying the confusion created by the increased use of the term "Context of Use - COU"); mass spectrometry of proteins (therapeutic, biomarker and transgene); state-of-the-art cytometry innovation and validation; and, critical reagent and positive control generation were the special features of the 15th edition. This 2021 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop, and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2021 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on TAb/NAb, Viral Vector CDx, Shedding Assays; CRISPR/Cas9 & CAR-T Immunogenicity; PCR & Vaccine Assay Performance; ADA Assay Comparability & Cut Point Appropriateness. Part 1A (Endogenous Compounds, Small Molecules, Complex Methods, Regulated Mass Spec of Large Molecules, Small Molecule, PoC), Part 1B (Regulatory Agencies' Inputs on Bioanalysis, Biomarkers, Immunogenicity, Gene & Cell Therapy and Vaccine) and Part 2 (ISR for Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsies, Spectral Cytometry, Inhalation/Oral & Multispecific Biotherapeutics, Accuracy/LLOQ for Flow Cytometry) are published in volume 14 of Bioanalysis, issues 9 and 10 (2022), respectively.

Holistic analytical characterization and risk assessment of residual host cell protein impurities in an active pharmaceutical ingredient synthesized by biocatalysts.

Host cell proteins (HCPs) are a significant class of process-related impurities commonly associated with the manufacturing of biopharmaceuticals. However, due to the increased use of crude enzymes as biocatalysts for modern organic synthesis, HCPs can also be introduced as a new class of impurities in chemical drugs. In both cases, residual HCPs need to be adequately controlled to ensure product purity, quality, and patient safety. Although a lot of attentions have been focused on defining a universally acceptable limit for such impurities, the risks associated with residual HCPs on product quality, safety, and efficacy often need to be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the residual HCP profile in the product, the dose, dosage form, administration route, and so forth. Here we describe the unique challenges for residual HCP control presented by the biocatalytic synthesis of an investigational stimulator of interferon genes protein agonist, MK-1454, which is a cyclic dinucleotide synthesized using Escherichia coli cell lysate overexpressing cyclic GMP-AMP synthase as a biocatalyst. In this study, a holistic characterization of residual protein impurities using a variety of analytical tools including nanoscale liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, together with in silico immunogenicity prediction of identified proteins, facilitated risk assessment and guided process development to achieve adequate removal of residual protein impurities in MK-1454 active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Implementing a Clinical Immunogenicity Strategy using Preclinical Risk Assessment Outputs.

Immunogenicity to biologics is often observed following dosing in human subjects during clinical trials. Both product and host specific factors may be implicated in contributing to a potential immune response. However, even if such risk factors are identified and eliminated as part of the rational quality by design approaches, the outcome in clinic can be uncertain and challenging to predict. Several tools have been employed to identify these risk factors and consequent mitigation approaches implemented prior to dosing in humans. However, the complexity of the immune system with an interplay of network of immune cells involved in driving a long- term immune response as well as patient characteristics, can make it challenging to predict the outcome in clinic. This perspective will provide an insight into recent advances in the risk assessment approaches that are utilized during preclinical stage of development of a biologic. The outputs from such tools can help to rank order and select the most optimal candidate with the least likelihood of an immune response and can further drive the development of a clinical bioanalytical and immunogenicity monitoring strategy. Such a strategy can be proactively shared with the regulators along with the proposal to streamline clinical immunogenicity and personalizing the outcome based on pharmacogenomics and other patient-related factors. This paper provides a roadmap on performing risk assessments through a systematic identification of risks and their mitigations wherever possible. Recommendations on incorporating the key components of such risk assessments as part of the new regulatory submissions are also provided. Shorter abstract Immunogenicity to biologics is common during clinical trials. Both product and host specific factors have been implicated. Several risk assessment tools can be used to identify and mitigate the risk factors responsible for immunogenicity. An insight into recent advances in the risk assessment approaches will be presented. The outputs can define a risk score and guide the clinical bioanalytical and immunogenicity monitoring strategy. A roadmap on performing risk assessments through a systematic identification of risks and their mitigations wherever possible is provided. Best practices for a risk assessment strategy and recommendations on the content for IND and the Integrated summary of Immunogenicity are also provided.