Skip to main content
Log in

A Proposal to Redefine Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With more than 100 therapeutic proteins (TP) approved since the first EMA guidance on immunogenicity in 2007, a vast amount of clinical experience with a variety of therapeutic proteins has been gained. This has provided data on anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and their observed clinical impact, or lack thereof. It has become evident that not all ADA responses are clinically relevant. The current “standard practice” is to test for ADA in all patients on every study. It is essential that we acknowledge the immunogenicity data gained from marketed TPs and that options for immunogenicity testing reflect this information. Improvements in bioanalytical support throughout the drug development process will eliminate extraneous, non-impactful practices. We propose that low-risk therapeutic proteins could be supported with an event-driven (“collect-and-hold”) immunogenicity testing strategy throughout early phases of the clinical program. In the absence of an event, only pivotal studies (where ADA incidence and impact can be decisively assessed) would include default ADA testing. In keeping with the “standard practice,” immunogenicity risk assessment must be an on-going and real-time evaluation. This approach has the potential to deliver meaningful, clinically relevant immunogenicity results while maintaining an emphasis on patient safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. FDA, Guidance for industry: immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM338856.pdf. 2014.

  2. EMA, Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientificguideline/2009/09/WC500003946.pdf. 2007.

  3. Bi V, Jawa V, Joubert MK, Kaliyaperumal A, Eakin C, et al. Development of a human antibody tolerant mouse model to assess the immunogenicity risk due to aggregated biotherapeutics. J Pharm Sci. 2014;102(10):3545–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jawa V, Cousens LP, Awwad M, Wakshull E, Kropshofer H, et al. T-cell dependent immunogenicity of protein therapeutics: preclinical assessment and mitigation. Clin Immunol. 2013;149(3):534–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mazor R, Tai CH, Lee B, Pastan I. Poor correlation between T cell activation assays and HLA-DR binding prediction algorithms in an immunogenic fragment of Pseudomonas exotoxin A. J J Immunol Methods. 2015;425:10–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paul S, Lindestam Arlehamn CS, Scriba TJ, Dillon MB, Oseroff C, et al. Development and validation of a broad scheme for prediction of HLA class II restricted T cell epitopes. J Immunol Methods. 2015;422:28–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wullner D, Zhou L, Bramhall E, Kuck A, Goletz TJ, Swanson S, et al. Considerations for optimization and validation of an in vitro PBMC derived T cell assay for immunogenicity prediction of biotherapeutics. Clin Immunol. 2010;137(1):5–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kloks C, Berger C, Cortez P, Dean Y, Heinrich J, et al. A fit-for-purpose strategy for the risk-based immunogenicity testing of biotherapeutics: a European industry perspective. J Immunol Methods. 2015;417:1–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fischer SK, Cheu M, Peng K, Lowe J, Araujo J, et al. Specific immune response to phospholipase B-like 2 protein, a host cell impurity in lebrikizumab clinical material. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):254–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jawa V, Joubert M, Zhang Q, Deshpande M, Hapurarachchi S, et al. Evaluating immunogenicity risk due to host cell protein impurities in antibody-based biotherapeutics. AAPS J. 2016;18(6):1439–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung CH, Mirakhur B, Chan E, Le QT, Berlin J, Morse M, et al. Cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis and IgE specific for galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(11):1109–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Papadopoulos KP, Isaacs R, Bilic S, Kentsch K, Huet HA, et al. Unexpected hepatotoxicity in a phase I study of TAS266, a novel tetravalent agonistic Nanobody® targeting the DR5 receptor. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;75(5):887–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoofring SA, Lopez R, Hock MB, Kaliyaperumal A, Patel SK, et al. Immunogenicity testing strategy and bioanalytical assays for antibody-drug conjugates. Bioanalysis. 2013;5(9):1041–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carrasco-Triguero M, Yi JH, Dere R, Qiu ZJ, Lei C, Li Y, et al. Immunogenicity assays for antibody-drug conjugates: case study with ado-trastuzumab emtansine. Bioanalysis. 2013;5(9):1007–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Melton AC, Soon RK, Tompkins T, Long B, Schweighardt B, et al. Antibodies that neutralize cellular uptake of elosulfase alfa are not associated with reduced efficacy or pharmacodynamic effect in individuals with Morquio A syndrome. J Immunol Methods. 2017;440:41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cinnapongse RB, Lew MF, Ferreira JJ, Gullo KL, Nemeth PR, Zhang Y. Immunogenicity and long-term efficacy of Botulinum toxin type B in the treatment of cervical dystonia: report of 4 prospective, multicenter trials. Clin Neuropharm. 2012;35:215–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chamberlain P. Addressing immunogenicity-related risks in an integrated manner. Scrip. Regulatory Affairs. 2010.

  18. Kathman Jr S, Thway TM, Zhou L, Lee S, Yu S, et al. Utility of a Bayesian mathematical model to predict the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetics of therapeutic proteins. AAPS J. 2016;18(2):424–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Casadevall N, Nataf J, Viron B, Kolta A, Kiladjian JJ, et al. Pure red-cell aplasia and antierythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with recombinant erythropoietin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(7):469–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li J, Yang C, Xia Y, Bertino A, Glaspy J, et al. Thrombocytopenia caused by the development of antibodies to thrombopoietin. Blood. 2001;98(12):3241–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wadhwa M, Mytych DT, Bird C, Barger T, Dougall T, et al. Establishment of the first WHO Erythropoietin antibody reference panel: report of an international collaborative study. J Immunol Methods. 2016;435:32–42.22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shankar G, Arkin S, Devanarayan V, Kromminga A, Quarmby V, et al. The quintessence of immunogenicity reporting for biotherapeutics. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(4):334–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel T. Mytych.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mytych, D.T., Hock, M.B., Kroenke, M. et al. A Proposal to Redefine Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment. AAPS J 19, 599–602 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-017-0059-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-017-0059-7

KEY WORDS

Navigation