Hu Jenny, Wala Iwona, Han Hong, Nagatani Janice, Barger Troy, Civoli Francesca, Kaliyaperumal Arunan, Zhuang Yao, Gupta Shalini
Clinical Immunology, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, United States.
Clinical Immunology, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, United States.
J Immunol Methods. 2015 Apr;419:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2015.02.006. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
Anti-drug neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) formed due to unwanted immunogenicity of a therapeutic protein point towards a mature immune response. NAb detection is important in interpreting the therapeutic's efficacy and safety in vivo. In vitro cell-based NAb assays provide a physiological system for NAb detection, however are complex assays. Non-cell-based competitive ligand binding (CLB) approaches are also employed for NAb detection. Instead of cells, CLB assays use soluble receptor and conjugated reagents and are easier to perform, however have reduced physiological relevance. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of CLB assays to established cell-based assays to determine the former's ability to detect clinically relevant NAbs towards therapeutics that (i) acted as an agonist or (ii) acted as antagonists by binding to a target receptor. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the performance of cell-based and CLB NAb assays for erythropoietin (EPO) and two anti-receptor monoclonal antibodies (AMG-X and AMG 317). Clinically relevant NAb-positive samples identified previously by a cell-based assay were assessed in the corresponding CLB format(s). A panel of 12 engineered fully human anti-EPO monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) was tested in both EPO NAb assay formats. Our results showed that the CLB format was (i) capable of detecting human anti-EPO MAbs of differing neutralizing capabilities and affinities and (ii) provided similar results as the cell-based assay for detecting NAbs in patient samples. The cell-based and CLB assays also behaved comparably in detecting NAbs in clinical samples for AMG-X. In the case of anti-AMG 317 NAbs, the CLB format failed to detect NAbs in more than 50% of the tested samples. We conclude that assay sensitivity, drug tolerance and the selected assay matrix played an important role in the inability of AMG 317 CLB assays to detect clinically relevant NAbs.
由于治疗性蛋白质不必要的免疫原性而形成的抗药中和抗体(NAbs)表明存在成熟的免疫反应。NAb检测对于解释治疗药物在体内的疗效和安全性很重要。基于细胞的体外NAb检测为NAb检测提供了一个生理系统,然而这种检测很复杂。基于非细胞的竞争性配体结合(CLB)方法也用于NAb检测。CLB检测不使用细胞,而是使用可溶性受体和偶联试剂,操作更简便,但生理相关性较低。本研究的目的是比较CLB检测与既定的基于细胞的检测的性能,以确定前者检测针对以下治疗药物的临床相关NAb的能力:(i)作为激动剂起作用或(ii)通过与靶受体结合作为拮抗剂起作用。我们对促红细胞生成素(EPO)以及两种抗受体单克隆抗体(AMG-X和AMG 317)的基于细胞的和CLB的NAb检测性能进行了直接比较。对先前通过基于细胞的检测鉴定出的临床相关NAb阳性样本,以相应的CLB形式进行评估。一组12种工程化的全人抗EPO单克隆抗体(MAbs)在两种EPO NAb检测形式中均进行了测试。我们的结果表明,CLB形式(i)能够检测具有不同中和能力和亲和力的人抗EPO单克隆抗体,并且(ii)在检测患者样本中的NAb时提供了与基于细胞的检测相似的结果。基于细胞的检测和CLB检测在检测AMG-X临床样本中的NAb时表现也相当。对于抗AMG 317 NAbs,CLB形式在超过50%的测试样本中未能检测到NAb。我们得出结论,检测灵敏度、药物耐受性和所选的检测基质在AMG 317 CLB检测无法检测临床相关NAb中起重要作用。