Immunogenicity of Biologicals:Clinical ConsequencesDr. S.К. ZyryanovProfessor, Chair of Clinical Pharmacology,N.I. Pirogov...
Main DefinitionsBiologicalA drug, the active substance of which is abiological substance derived or extracted froma biolog...
What is the difference between biologicals andlow-molecular drugs?• Molecular weights• Structure complexity• Features:– St...
Factors Influencing ImmunogenicitySchellekens H. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002:457–62Sequence variation GlycosylationHuman Bact...
Frequency of Immune Response to TumorNecrosis Factor (TNF) InhibitorsHumira/Adalumimab % of patients with antibodiesJuveni...
Reported Frequencies of β-1a InterferonAntibody FormationExtract from the article by Bertolotto et al J Neurology 2004Stud...
r-protein Indications ImmunogenicityInsulin Diabetes Approx. 44% of patients (5%IgE)Growth hormone GH-deficiency 3%-16% of...
Antibody Formation Consequences• Efficacy loss– Interferon alpha 2– Interferon beta– TNF inhibitors– Beta agalsydase– And ...
Antibody analysis method Interferon drugEfficacy reduction (relapses, NMR orbio markers)PRISMS 4 (2005) CEA Rebif® YesIFNβ...
Fig. 5. States of stable disease activity and remissionin patients with and without adalimumab(ААА) antibodiesBartelds, G....
Impact of Antibodies on Beta-Agalsidase Efficacy in Fabry DiseaseBenichou et al. Molecular tools and genetics (2008)Shareo...
Biosimilar = generic‘Biosimilar’ is a biological that is similar to the originatorbiological but is not its generic due to...
Regulation of biosimilar manufacturing and application in ECAmended Directive 2001/83/EC(2003/63/EC, 2004/27/EC)Overarchin...
Findings of the Сomparative Alpha EpoietinDrug StudySingh A. K.Brigham and Women’s hospital & Harvard Medical School,Bosto...
15Singh A. K. Study Findings pH 9 samples deviated from the specification requirements Osmosis 21 samples had greater ...
16 Aggregate content 29 samples exceeded the specification by the number of aggregates 7 samples had more than 1% and l...
Alpha Epoietin Drug Comparative StudyFindings (continued)Epoietin biosimilarIn-vitro biosampleIn-vivo efficacy on mice,%Ba...
Epokim 123Epokrin 123EporonEpovet 12Espogen 123GeerepoHemax 123Hypercryte 12VepoxZirop 12Alkali isoformsAcid isoforms0 1 2...
Conclusions on Alpha Epoietin drugComparative Study Findings: Several out of the tested epoietin biosimilars had variable...
20July 09ASHAbstract &Poster #Immunogenicity of Low Molecular Weight Heparins and TheirBiosimilarsW.P.JeskeJ.WalengaHIT An...
Clinical case: Clexansubstitution with a genericA patient had taken Clexan for 4 yearswithout complications. Upon transiti...
М.V. Belov, A.S. Petrochenko, E.M. Pozdnyakova, V.V. Yakusevich. Efficacy of different tromboembolic complication preventi...
Immunogenicity Forecasting Establishment of physical and chemicalproperties Epitope analysis (in silico/in vitro) React...
Biosimilar Immunogenicity Issues The existing analysis methods do not fully predictbiological properties The immune syst...
Immunogenicity and BiosimilarAspects Immunogenicity can only be detected in clinicalstudies Problems of trackability and...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

31. Immunogenicity of Biologicals: Clinical Consequences

1,121 views
892 views

Published on

Provides an overview of clinical consequences of immunogenicity of biologicals.

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,121
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
51
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

31. Immunogenicity of Biologicals: Clinical Consequences

  1. 1. Immunogenicity of Biologicals:Clinical ConsequencesDr. S.К. ZyryanovProfessor, Chair of Clinical Pharmacology,N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research MedicalUniversity (RNRMU)
  2. 2. Main DefinitionsBiologicalA drug, the active substance of which is abiological substance derived or extracted froma biological source, including using one ormore of the above mentioned biotechnologicalmethods: rDNA technology; controlledexpression of genes encoding bioactive proteinproduction; hybrid and monoclonal antibodymethods
  3. 3. What is the difference between biologicals andlow-molecular drugs?• Molecular weights• Structure complexity• Features:– Structural and physical & chemical properties– Protein purification degree– Biological activity• Stability• Immunogenicity!Crommelin DJA, et al. Int J Pharm 2003;266:3-16.
  4. 4. Factors Influencing ImmunogenicitySchellekens H. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002:457–62Sequence variation GlycosylationHuman BacterialContaminants andimpurities (frominitial productionor downstreamprocessing)FormulationRoute ofadministration DoseFebruaryTreatment duration Assay technologies Patient characteristics Unknown factorsImmunogenicity
  5. 5. Frequency of Immune Response to TumorNecrosis Factor (TNF) InhibitorsHumira/Adalumimab % of patients with antibodiesJuvenile idiopathic arthritis 5.9% (+MTX) 25.6% (-MTX)Rheumatoid arthritis 0.6% (+MTS) 12.4% (-MTX)Remicaid / InfliximabAdults 38% (3 mg/kg) 12% (6 mg/kg)Children 2.9%Enbrel/ EtanerzeptRheumatoid arthritis 6%Psoriatic arthritis 7.5%Ankylozing spondyloatritis 2%Adult psoriasis 7%Child psoriasis 9.7%Juvenile idiopathic artritis 3%MTX – metatrexat
  6. 6. Reported Frequencies of β-1a InterferonAntibody FormationExtract from the article by Bertolotto et al J Neurology 2004Study Determination of positive response toneutralizing antibodies (Нат)AnalysismethodDosage (IM,weekly)Share of Нат-positive patients(%)Jacobs et al. (1996) [14] Not reported N/A 30 mcg 22*Herden et al. (1999) [10] Min. 1 out of 20 titres CEA 30 mcg 5Rudick et al. (1998) [34] Min. 1 out of 20 titres CEA 30 mcg 6Jacobs et al. (2000) [13] Min. 1 out of 20 titres CEA 30 mcg 2Clanet et al. (2002) [4] Min. 1 out of 20 titres CEA 30 mcg60 mcg2,35,8IM – intramuscular; CEA – cytopathic effect analysis* Нат frequency was higher than in earlier studies because Jacobs et al. [14] had conducted studies using a non-commercial drug beforethe production process was improved.
  7. 7. r-protein Indications ImmunogenicityInsulin Diabetes Approx. 44% of patients (5%IgE)Growth hormone GH-deficiency 3%-16% of patientsErythropoietin Anaemia 1:10 000 patientsVIII factor Haemophilia Approx. 35% of patientsIFN- Hepatitis etc. Approx. 25% of patientsIL-2 Certain tumors 20%-100% of patientsImmunogenicity of Recombinant TherapeuticProteins(H.Schellekens, 2002)
  8. 8. Antibody Formation Consequences• Efficacy loss– Interferon alpha 2– Interferon beta– TNF inhibitors– Beta agalsydase– And many others• Cross-neutralization of endogenous factors– Erythropoietin (EPO)– Growth and megakaryocyte development factor (GMDF)• Anaphylaxis reaction; serum reaction– Monoclonal antibodies
  9. 9. Antibody analysis method Interferon drugEfficacy reduction (relapses, NMR orbio markers)PRISMS 4 (2005) CEA Rebif® YesIFNβ research group (1996) CEA Betaferon® YesIFNβ European ResearchGroup (1998) and (1999)CEA Betaferon®Deisenhammer et al. (1999)MxA protein interferon alphatestBetaferon® YesCook et al. (2001) CEA; neopterin test Avonex®; Betaferon® YesVallittu et al. (2002) CEA; MxA protein test Rebif® 22 YesBertolotto et al. (2005) CEA; MxA protein i-RNA test Avonex®; Rebif® 22; Betaferon® YesPachner et al. (2003)CEA; MxA protein i-RNA test;ОАСNot reported Biomarker reductionMalucchi et al. (2004) CEA Avonex®; Rebif® 22; Betaferon® YesPetkau et al. (2004) CEA; MxA protein test Betaferon® YesPerini et al. (2004) CEA Avonex®; Rebif® 22; Betaferon® YesKappos et al. (2005) CEAAvonex® 30 mcg;Avonex® 60 mcgYesSorensen et al. (2003) CEAAvonex® 30 mcg OW; Rebif® 22mcg OW; Rebif® 22 mcg TTW;Betaferon® 8 ММЕ/2daysInterferon neutralization.Extract from the article by R.A. Farrell and G. Giovannoni, Measuring and management of anti-interferon beta antibodies in subjects with multiplesclerosis, Mult. Scler. 13 (5) (Jun 2007), pp. 567–577.ß-interferon neutralizing antibodies reduce the multiple sclerosis treatment efficacy
  10. 10. Fig. 5. States of stable disease activity and remissionin patients with and without adalimumab(ААА) antibodiesBartelds, G. M. et al. JAMA 2011;305:1460-1468Copyright restrictions may apply.Weeks Weeks WeeksStable remissionStable minimum activityStable minimum activityPatientsharePatientsharePatientshareNumber of persons at risk Number of persons at risk Number of persons at riskUI/mlUI/ml
  11. 11. Impact of Antibodies on Beta-Agalsidase Efficacy in Fabry DiseaseBenichou et al. Molecular tools and genetics (2008)Shareofpatientswithnon-zeroscoreSerum negative Low titers Medium titers High titers
  12. 12. Biosimilar = generic‘Biosimilar’ is a biological that is similar to the originatorbiological but is not its generic due to differences in the initialraw materials and manufacturing of the originator biologicaland of the biosimilar…Source: translated from Article 10 (2) b of Directive 2001/83 as amendedWhy should we be cautious speaking aboutsubstitutability of biologicals?
  13. 13. Regulation of biosimilar manufacturing and application in ECAmended Directive 2001/83/EC(2003/63/EC, 2004/27/EC)Overarching Guidelines(CHMP/437/04)Quality Guidelines(CHMP/49348/05)Non-Clin & Clin Guidelines(CHMP/42832/05)r-Human Insulin Guidance(CHMP/42832/05)Somatropin Guidance(CHMP/94528/05)r-GCSF Guidance(CHMP/31329/05)r-Erythropoeitin Guidance(CHMP/94526/05)Immunogenicity Guidance(CHMP/14327/06)Low Molecular Weight HeparinGuidance (CHMP/118264/2007)r--Interferon Guidance(CHMP/102046/06)Guidelines under preparation
  14. 14. Findings of the Сomparative Alpha EpoietinDrug StudySingh A. K.Brigham and Women’s hospital & Harvard Medical School,Boston, USA.World Congress of Nephrology – Apr 22, 200747 samples from the following countries were tested: Argentine,Brazil, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Korea, Lebanon,Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela, Viet Nam andYemenThe samples were tested according to the EuropeanPharmacopoeia quality requirements to alpha epoietin. Eprex®(alpha epoietin) was used as a reference product.Singh AK. Poster presented at the World Congress of Nephrology, 21-25 April 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  15. 15. 15Singh A. K. Study Findings pH 9 samples deviated from the specification requirements Osmosis 21 samples had greater osmosis Protein and erythropoietin content 1 sample did not meet the specification requirements as concerns theprotein content 8 samples had excess erythropoietin In vitro biological sample1 sample did not meet the specification requirements 18 samples deviated from the specification requirements In vivo efficacy48%-163% efficacy differences 9 samples did not meet the specification requirements 6 samples deviated from the specification requirements Bacterial endotoxin2 samples contained bacterial endotoxinSingh AK. Poster presented at the World Congress of Nephrology, 21-25 April 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  16. 16. 16 Aggregate content 29 samples exceeded the specification by the number of aggregates 7 samples had more than 1% and less than 2% aggregates 4 samples had 2%-4% aggregates 18 samples had more than 4% aggregates Isoform content 34 samples had excess isoforms, which may reduce the clinicaleffect 9 out of 34 samples had ≥ 3 additional isoformsSingh A. K. Study FindingsSingh AK. Poster presented at the World Congress of Nephrology, 21-25 April 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  17. 17. Alpha Epoietin Drug Comparative StudyFindings (continued)Epoietin biosimilarIn-vitro biosampleIn-vivo efficacy on mice,%Bacterial endotoxin(EU/ml)Aggregates, %Standard (Eprex®) 80-125 80-125 < 2.5 < 1Epocrim1 94 73 < 0.5 < 1Epocrim2 175 76 < 0.5 2.4Epokin 1 84 91 < 0.5 1.7Epokrin 1 167 135 < 0.5 1.2Epokrin 2 155 117 < 0.5 >4Epokrin 3 175 149 < 0.5 < 1Eporon 170 163 < 0.5 > 4Epoet 141 95 < 0.5 2.7Gerepo 141 48 < 0.5 > 4Hemax 1 139 97 < 0.5 > 4Hemax 2 132 101 < 0.5 > 4Hemax 3 141 90 < 0.5 > 4Hypercryte 153 113 < 0.5 > 4Renogen 110 108 < 0.5 > 4Vepox 177 57 > 2.5 > 4Zirop 142 Two failures < 0.5 > 4
  18. 18. Epokim 123Epokrin 123EporonEpovet 12Espogen 123GeerepoHemax 123Hypercryte 12VepoxZirop 12Alkali isoformsAcid isoforms0 1 2 3 4 5Total quantity of additional isoformsAlpha Epoietin Drug Comparative Study Findings(continued)
  19. 19. Conclusions on Alpha Epoietin drugComparative Study Findings: Several out of the tested epoietin biosimilars had variable quality and efficacy;42 out of 47 samples did not meet all European Requirements to alphaepoietin 34 samples contained additional alkali isoforms that may reduce clinical drugefficacy 2 samples contained bacterial endotoxin that poses risk for the patient’s safety 22 samples contained more than 2% aggregates that may influence the drugimmunological profile Detected differences lead to unpredictable adverse events in clinical practice Studied biosimilars had differences in various series of one and the same drugSpecialists applying epoietin generics in their practice should track theirefficacy and safety attentivelySingh AK. Poster presented at the World Congress of Nephrology, 21-25 April 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  20. 20. 20July 09ASHAbstract &Poster #Immunogenicity of Low Molecular Weight Heparins and TheirBiosimilarsW.P.JeskeJ.WalengaHIT Antibodies Synthesis InductionIn Vitro Cross-Reactivity of Branded LMWHs (1 g/mL) withHIT Antibodies in the Platelet Aggregation Assay1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8%Aggregation02 55 07 51. Saline 5. Reviparin2. Dalteparin 6. Parnaparin3. Enoxaparin 7. Tinzaparin4. Nadroparin 8. HeparinIn Vitro Cross-Reactivity of Branded LMWHs (1 g/mL) withHIT Antibodies in the Platelet Aggregation Assay1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8%Aggregation02 55 07 51. Saline 5. Reviparin2. Dalteparin 6. Parnaparin3. Enoxaparin 7. Tinzaparin4. Nadroparin 8. HeparinIn Vitro Cross-Reactivity of Biosimilar Versions of Enoxaparin andDalteparin (1 g/mL) with HIT Antibodies in thePlatelet Aggregation Assay1 2 3 4 5 6 7%Aggregation02 55 07 51. Saline 5. Dilutol2. Clenox 6. Lupenox3. Cutenox 7. Daltehep4. DripaninaIn Vitro Cross-Reactivity of Biosimilar Versions of Enoxaparin andDalteparin (1 g/mL) with HIT Antibodies in thePlatelet Aggregation Assay1 2 3 4 5 6 7%Aggregation02 55 07 51. Saline 5. Dilutol2. Clenox 6. Lupenox3. Cutenox 7. Daltehep4. Dripanina
  21. 21. Clinical case: Clexansubstitution with a genericA patient had taken Clexan for 4 yearswithout complications. Upon transitionto the enoxaparin biosimilar, thepatient experienced 2 life-threatening haemorrhages within 4months from the onset of use.This case suggests that FDA should followEMA recommendation to have a morestringent biosimilar approval procedure:bioequivalency and the studies that displaysafety and efficacy similar to those of theoriginator before approval of thebiosimilar.Biologicals and BiosimilarsClinical Case
  22. 22. М.V. Belov, A.S. Petrochenko, E.M. Pozdnyakova, V.V. Yakusevich. Efficacy of different tromboembolic complication prevention methods in clinical practice(retrospective study). Clinical Pharmacology and Treatment, 2012, 21 (4)Biologicals and BiosimilarsClinical Pre-Surgical Practice FindingsGoal. Assessing the efficacy of tromboembolicconsequences prevention in the pre-surgeryperiod using unfractionated heparin andenoxaparin biosimilar.Findings. Frequency of LLVT did not reliably differin the patients receiving unfractionated heparinand enoxaparin biosimilar.Opinion. Lack of pronounced advantages ofenoxaparin biosimilar to unfractionated heparinmay be due to heterogeneity of the raw materialsused for manufacturing of the originator andenoxaparin and biosimilar.Enoxaparin biosimilar did not differ fromunfractionated heparin in terms of LLVT preventionefficacy.Frequency (%) of lower limb venous thrombosisbefore surgery (LLVT)Enoxaparin biosimilarUnfractionatedheparin
  23. 23. Immunogenicity Forecasting Establishment of physical and chemicalproperties Epitope analysis (in silico/in vitro) Reactions with the patient’s serum Animal tests• Conventionally used animals (relativeimmunogenicity?)• Subprimates• Immune tolerant transgenic mice
  24. 24. Biosimilar Immunogenicity Issues The existing analysis methods do not fully predictbiological properties The immune system is able to notice changes in adrug, which are not detected using analytical methods Immunogenicity of biologicals may have significantclinical consequences24
  25. 25. Immunogenicity and BiosimilarAspects Immunogenicity can only be detected in clinicalstudies Problems of trackability and substitutability withsimilars Substitution must not be there the immunogenicityrisk factor is Immunogenicity may make a patient immune to awhole drug class Standardization

×