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.

T-cell assays confirm immunogenicity of tungsten-induced erythropoietin aggregates associated with pure red cell aplasia.

Immunogenicity of biotherapeutics and the elicitation of anti-drug antibodies are a key concern for their efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety. A particularly severe consequence of immunogenicity of a biotherapeutic is the rare development of antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) in anemic patients treated with aggregated forms of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). Here, we investigated in vitro T-cell responses to experimentally heat-induced rhEPO aggregates, and to tungsten-induced rhEPO aggregates in clinical lots associated with rhEPO-neutralizing antibodies and PRCA. Heat-stressed rhEPO elicited T-cell responses only in blood obtained from healthy individuals identified as responders, whereas nonstressed rhEPO overall did not induce reactions neither in responders nor nonresponders. Tungsten-induced rhEPO aggregates in clinical lots associated with rhEPO-neutralizing antibodies and PRCA could induce in vitro T-cell responses in blood obtained from healthy donors, in contrast to rhEPO from low tungsten syringes. Importantly, ex vivo T-cell recall responses of patients treated with rhEPO without PRCA showed no T-cell responses, whereas T cells of a patient who developed PRCA after treatment with a clinical batch with elevated levels of tungsten and rhEPO aggregates showed a clear response to rhEPO from that clinical batch. To our knowledge, this is the first time that T-cell assays confirm the root cause of increased rhEPO immunogenicity associated with PRCA.

N-glycan PK Profiling Using a High Sensitivity nanoLCMS Work-Flow with Heavy Stable Isotope Labeled Internal Standard and Application to a Preclinical Study of an IgG1 Biopharmaceutical.

PURPOSE: In this study an innovative, highly sensitive work-flow is presented that allows the analysis of a possible influence of individual glyco-variants on pharmacokinetics already during pre-clinical development. Possible effects on the pharmacokinetics caused by glyco-variants have been subject of several studies with in part contradictory results which can be related to differences in the set-up. METHODS: Using 96-well plate based affinity purification an IgG1 antibody was isolated from preclinical samples and glycans were analyzed individually by nanoLCMS. Prerequisite was a reference standard based on stable heavy isotope labeled glycans. The high sensitivity and low sample consumption enabled the integration into the preclinical development program. RESULTS: The data of an IgG1 biopharmaceutical from a preclinical rabbit study showed that some N-glycoforms have a different PK profile compared with the average of all molecule variants as determined by ELISA. IgG1 high mannose glycoforms M5 and M6 were removed from circulation at a higher rate. CONCLUSION: The results of the preclinical study demonstrated the applicability of the developed innovative workflow. The PK profile of glyco-variants could be determined individually. It was concluded that M6 was converted by mannosidases in circulation to M5 which in turn was selectively cleared by mannose receptor binding which is in-line with previously published results. Therefore the developed technology delivers reliable results and can be applied for PK profiling of other mAbs and other types of biopharmaceuticals.

A fit-for-purpose strategy for the risk-based immunogenicity testing of biotherapeutics: a European industry perspective.

There is much debate in the pharmaceutical industry on how to translate the current guidelines on immunogenicity testing for biotherapeutics into a testing strategy that suits the specific requirements of individual drug candidates. In this paper, member companies from the European immunogenicity platform (EIP) present a consensus view on the essential requirements for immunogenicity testing of a biotherapeutic throughout the various phases of drug development, to ensure patient safety and to enable successful market entry. Our aim is to open the debate and provoke discussion on this important topic which is unique to biotherapeutic drug development. The scope of this paper is limited to aspects relevant to biotherapeutic drug development and does not include fundamental academic studies of immunogenicity. Here, we propose two pre-defined testing strategies for the detection and characterization of anti-drug antibody (ADA) responses where the different strategies are based on the phase of development for a biotherapeutic, a. without (category 1) and b. with (category 2) the expected potential to elicit ADA mediated severe clinical consequences. The harm of a potential ADA response determines which of the two testing strategies is adopted. Rather than replacing the overall risk assessment which is known to be challenging and multi-factorial, the testing strategy selection is a starting point for immunogenicity testing which adapts throughout drug development as more information becomes available. The scientific rationale on which the "case-by-case" approach advocated in white papers and guidance documents may be translated for each individual drug development program is provided and, underpins the recommendations made here.

Systematic verification of bioanalytical similarity between a biosimilar and a reference biotherapeutic: committee recommendations for the development and validation of a single ligand-binding assay to support pharmacokinetic assessments.

For biosimilar drug development, it is critical to demonstrate similar physiochemical characteristics, efficacy, and safety of the biosimilar product compared to the reference product. Therefore, pharmacokinetic (PK) and immunogenicity (antidrug antibody, ADA) assays that allow for the demonstration of biosimilarity are critical. Under the auspices of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) Ligand-Binding Assay Bioanalytical Focus Group (LBABFG), a Biosimilars Action Program Committee (APC) was formed in 2011. The goals of this Biosimilars APC were to provide a forum for in-depth discussions on issues surrounding the development and validation of PK and immunogenicity assays in support of biosimilar drug development and to make recommendations thereof. The Biosimilars APC's recommendations for the development and validation of ligand-binding assays (LBAs) to support the PK assessments for biosimilar drug development are presented here. Analytical recommendations for the development and validation of LBAs to support immunogenicity assessments will be the subject of a separate white paper.

Target-directed development and preclinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013.

Biosimilar development involves a target-directed iterative process to ensure a similar product to the originator. Here we report the preclinical development of the proposed biosimilar rituximab (GP2013). Post-translational modifications and bioactivities of GP2013 versus originator rituximab were engineered and monitored to ensure similar pharmacological profiles. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) was used to illustrate how different glycosylation patterns and structure-function relationships were controlled during process development. Pharmacological comparability between GP2013 and originator rituximab were confirmed in preclinical studies using clinical scale drug product. Similar in vitro ADCC potency was demonstrated when compared in a dose-response manner against two lymphoma cell lines using freshly purified human natural killer (NK) cells. In vivo efficacy was demonstrated in two well characterized mouse xenograft models, testing at sensitive sub-therapeutic dose levels. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (CD20 cell depletion) were likewise comparable in cynomolgus monkeys. This preclinical comparability exercise confirms that GP2013 and originator rituximab are pharmacologically similar.