Recommendations on risk-based strategies for detection and characterization of antibodies against biotechnology products.

The appropriate evaluation of the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals is of major importance for their successful development and licensure. Antibodies elicited by these products in many cases cause no detectable clinical effects in humans. However, antibodies to some therapeutic proteins have been shown to cause a variety of clinical consequences ranging from relatively mild to serious adverse events. In addition, antibodies can affect drug efficacy. In non-clinical studies, anti-drug antibodies (ADA) can complicate interpretation of the toxicity, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data. Therefore, it is important to develop testing strategies that provide valid assessments of antibody responses in both non-clinical and clinical studies. This document provides recommendations for antibody testing strategies stemming from the experience of contributing authors. The recommendations are intended to foster a more unified approach to antibody testing across the biopharmaceutical industry. The strategies proposed are also expected to contribute to better understanding of antibody responses and to further advance immunogenicity evaluation.

Recommendations for the design and optimization of immunoassays used in the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products.

Most biopharmaceutical therapeutics elicit some level of antibody response against the product. This antibody response can, in some cases, lead to potentially serious side effects and/or loss of efficacy. Therefore, the immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins is a concern for clinicians, manufacturers and regulatory agencies. In order to assess immunogenicity of these molecules, appropriate detection, quantitation and characterization of antibody responses are necessary. Inadequately designed antibody assays have led to the hampering of product development or, during licensure, post-marketing commitments. This document provides scientific recommendations based on the experience of the authors for the development of anti-product antibody immunoassays intended for preclinical or clinical studies. While the main focus of this document is assay design considerations, we provide scientific focus and background to the various assay performance parameters necessary for developing a valid assay. Sections on assay performance parameters, including those that appear in regulatory guidances, are contained in this manuscript.

Zymography and reverse zymography for detecting MMPs and TIMPs.

Zymography is the electrophoretic separation of proteins through a polyacrylamide gel containing a proteolytic substrate. After denaturing (but nonreducing) electrophoresis, proteins are renatured and incubated in an appropriate buffer for proteolytic activity. Clear zones of lysis in the stained gel indicated active proteinases. Reverse zymography is a similar technique to detect proteinase inhibitors. After renaturing of proteins, the gel is incubated with metalloproteinases which digest the substrate incorporated into the gel. Inhibitors are shown as dark zones of inhibition against a clear background upon staining.

Development, validation, and clinical implementation of an assay to measure total antibody response to naglazyme (galsulfase).

Naglazyme (galsulfase, rhASB) was developed as enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis type VI. Naglazyme generated an IgG antibody response in most patients. To better characterize Naglazyme immunogenicity, a solution phase bridged immunoassay was developed to measure total antibody response regardless of isotype. Overnight incubation of serum dilutions with rhASB labeled with biotin and ruthenium-based tags allowed antibody-antigen complexes to form prior to capture on a streptavidin plate. Neat serum was tolerated in the assay, with a 1:10 screening dilution implemented for testing. At this dilution, the assay was sensitive to 75 ng/ml anti-rhASB. Titers were reported as the highest dilution factor with signal above a 95% confidence interval from naïve individual sera. Precise measurement of titers, within two consecutive dilution factors, was observed across analysts and days. Clinical samples showed similar positive/negative results between the IgG ELISA and the total antibody ECLA, although with an imperfect correlation. Improvements in assay performance and implementation strategy altered some positive clinical samples to negative and vice versa. Comparison of the titer readout for clinical samples with the screening signal illustrates a range of relationships for signal versus sample dilution factor, confirming that signal from a screening dilution cannot directly predict the reported titer.