4.4 Article

Comparative assessment of immune complex-mediated hypersensitivity reactions with biotherapeutics in the non-human primate: Critical parameters, safety and lessons for future studies

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 125-137

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.06.004

关键词

Biopharmaceuticals; Biotherapeutics; Non-clinical safety; Hypersensitivity; Immunogenicity; Immune complex; Monoclonal antibodies; Risk mitigation; Non-human primate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the emergence of novel biotherapeutic formats and immunostimulatory biotherapeutics in cancer immunotherapy, an understanding of immune-complex (IC) mediated hypersensitivity reactions in toxicology studies - and their differentiation from pharmacology - remains key to the preclinical evaluation of these drugs. In this review we provide an in-depth evaluation and comparison of case examples where IC-mediated hypersensitivity reactions were observed in cynomolgus monkeys. We provide details of the parameters evaluated in each study to substantiate and guide the interpretation of these findings. Five study cases (1 therapeutic protein, 4 monoclonal antibodies) are discussed for which effects ranged from minor to fatal. Common characteristics are the high incidence of clinical signs, detectable antidrug antibodies, and accelerated drug clearance up to virtual loss of exposure. In our experience, measurement of cytokine levels in vivo and detection of complement (split products) were supportive markers in situations where coagulopathy was suspected to play a role in the observed effects. Recommendations are outlined to prepare for root-cause analysis of suspected hypersensitivity reactions. Overall, a thorough analysis of the findings has helped to start clinical trials despite major findings. The hypersensitivity reactions with our human(ized) immunoglobulins have not proven to be predictive for humans. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据