Re-evaluating the need for chronic toxicity studies with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, using a weight of evidence approach.

To support registration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for chronic indications, 6-month toxicity studies have historically been conducted. Experience with mAb development has shown a relatively benign and well-understood safety profile for this class, with most toxicity findings anticipated based on pharmacology. We evaluated whether a 6-month toxicity study is necessary to assess the long-term safety of mAbs. Data on First-in-Human (FIH)-enabling and chronic toxicity studies were shared for 142 mAbs submitted by 11 companies. Opportunities to further optimize study designs to reduce animal usage were identified. For 71% of mAbs, no toxicities or no new toxicities were noted in chronic studies compared to FIH-enabling study findings. New toxicities of potential concern for human safety or that changed trial design were identified in 13.5% of cases, with 7% being considered critical and 2% leading to program termination. An iterative, weight-of-evidence model which considers factors that influence the overall risk for a mAb to cause toxicity was developed. This model enables an evidence-based justification, suggesting when 3-month toxicity studies are likely sufficient to support late-stage clinical development and registration for some mAbs.

The use of recovery animals in nonclinical safety assessment studies with monoclonal antibodies: further 3Rs opportunities remain.

Assessment of reversibility from nonclinical toxicity findings in animals with potential adverse clinical impact is required during pharmaceutical development, but there is flexibility around how and when this is performed and if recovery animals are necessary. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and in accordance with ICH S6(R1) if inclusion of recovery animals is warranted, this need only occur in one study. Data on study designs for first-in-human (FIH)-enabling and later-development toxicity studies were shared from a recent collaboration between the NC3Rs, EPAA, Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and 14 pharmaceutical companies. This enabled a review of practices on recovery animal use during mAb development and identification of opportunities to reduce research animal use. Recovery animals were included in 68% of FIH-enabling and 69% of later-development studies, often in multiple studies in the same program. Recovery groups were commonly in control plus one test article-dosed group or in all dose groups (45% of studies, each design). Based on the shared data review and conclusions, limiting inclusion of recovery to a single nonclinical toxicology study and species, study design optimisation and use of existing knowledge instead of additional recovery groups provide opportunities to further reduce animal use within mAb development programs.

Classic and evolving approaches to evaluating cross reactivity of mAb and mAb-like molecules - A survey of industry 2008-2019.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and mAb derivatives have become mainstay pharmaceutical modalites. A critical assessment is to ascertain the specificity of these molecules prior to human clinical trials. The primary technique for determining specificity has been the immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based "Tissue Cross-Reactivity" (TCR) assay, where the candidate molecule is applied to > 30 tissues to look for unexpected staining. In the last few years, however, non-IHC array-based platforms have emerged that allow for screening 75-80% of the human membrane proteome, indicating a viable alternative and/or addition to the IHC methods. The preclinical sciences subcommittee of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), "BioSafe", conducted a survey of 26 BIO member companies to understand current sponsor experience with the IHC and array techniques. In the last ten years, respondents noted they have conducted more than 650 IHC TCR assays, largely on full length mAbs, with varying impacts on programs. Protein/cell arrays have been utilized by almost half of the companies and sponsors are gaining familiarity and comfort with the platform. Initial experience with recent versions of these arrays has been largely positive. While most sponsors are not prepared to eliminate the IHC TCR assay, growing experience with these alternatives allows them to confidently choose other approaches with or without TCR assays.

PEGylated Biopharmaceuticals: Current Experience and Considerations for Nonclinical Development.

PEGylation (the covalent binding of one or more polyethylene glycol molecules to another molecule) is a technology frequently used to improve the half-life and other pharmaceutical or pharmacological properties of proteins, peptides, and aptamers. To date, 11 PEGylated biopharmaceuticals have been approved and there is indication that many more are in nonclinical or clinical development. Adverse effects seen with those in toxicology studies are mostly related to the active part of the drug molecule and not to polyethylene glycol (PEG). In 5 of the 11 approved and 10 of the 17 PEGylated biopharmaceuticals in a 2013 industry survey presented here, cellular vacuolation is histologically observed in toxicology studies in certain organs and tissues. No other effects attributed to PEG alone have been reported. Importantly, vacuolation, which occurs mainly in phagocytes, has not been linked with changes in organ function in these toxicology studies. This article was authored through collaborative efforts of industry toxicologists/nonclinical scientists to address the nonclinical safety of large PEG molecules (>10 kilo Dalton) in PEGylated biopharmaceuticals. The impact of the PEG molecule on overall nonclinical safety assessments of PEGylated biopharmaceuticals is discussed, and toxicological information from a 2013 industry survey on PEGylated biopharmaceuticals under development is summarized. Results will contribute to the database of toxicological information publicly available for PEG and PEGylated biopharmaceuticals.

Challenges and opportunities for the future of monoclonal antibody development: Improving safety assessment and reducing animal use.

The market for biotherapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is large and is growing rapidly. However, attrition poses a significant challenge for the development of mAbs, and for biopharmaceuticals in general, with large associated costs in resource and animal use. Termination of candidate mAbs may occur due to poor translation from preclinical models to human safety. It is critical that the industry addresses this problem to maintain productivity. Though attrition poses a significant challenge for pharmaceuticals in general, there are specific challenges related to the development of antibody-based products. Due to species specificity, non-human primates (NHP) are frequently the only pharmacologically relevant species for nonclinical safety and toxicology testing for the majority of antibody-based products, and therefore, as more mAbs are developed, increased NHP use is anticipated. The integration of new and emerging in vitro and in silico technologies, e.g., cell- and tissue-based approaches, systems pharmacology and modeling, have the potential to improve the human safety prediction and the therapeutic mAb development process, while reducing and refining animal use simultaneously. In 2014, to engage in open discussion about the challenges and opportunities for the future of mAb development, a workshop was held with over 60 regulators and experts in drug development, mechanistic toxicology and emerging technologies to discuss this issue. The workshop used industry case-studies to discuss the value of the in vivo studies and identify opportunities for in vitro technologies in human safety assessment. From these and continuing discussions it is clear that there are opportunities to improve safety assessment in mAb development using non-animal technologies, potentially reducing future attrition, and there is a shared desire to reduce animal use through minimised study design and reduced numbers of studies.

Preclinical development of monoclonal antibodies: considerations for the use of non-human primates.

The development of mAbs remains high on the therapeutic agenda for the majority of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Often, the only relevant species for preclinical safety assessment of mAbs are non-human primates (NHPs), and this raises important scientific, ethical and economic issues. To investigate evidence-based opportunities to minimize the use of NHPs, an expert working group with representatives from leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, contract research organizations and institutes from Europe and the USA, has shared and analyzed data on mAbs for a range of therapeutic areas. This information has been applied to hypothetical examples to recommend scientifically appropriate development pathways and study designs for a variety of potential mAbs. The addendum of ICHS6 provides a timely opportunity for the scientific and regulatory community to embrace strategies which minimize primate use and increase efficiency of mAb development.