+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Case Study: A Phase-Driven Approach to the Development and ... · (Antagonist) Binds. to receptor...

Case Study: A Phase-Driven Approach to the Development and ... · (Antagonist) Binds. to receptor...

Date post: 21-Oct-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
26
Case Study: A Phase-Driven Approach to the Development and Lifecycle Management of Potency Assays CASSS Bioassays 2016: Scientific Approaches & Regulatory Strategies Session−Potency Assays: Cell-based versus Non Cell-based Formats KATHLEEN SHIELDS, ANALYTICAL R&D, BIOTHERAPEUTICS PHARM. SCI., PFIZER INC., ANDOVER, MA. Spring in New England!!!
Transcript
  • Case Study: A Phase-Driven Approach to the Development and Lifecycle Management of Potency Assays

    CASSS Bioassays 2016: Scientific Approaches & Regulatory Strategies Session−Potency Assays: Cell-based versus Non Cell-based Formats

    KATHLEEN SHIELDS, ANALYTICAL R&D, BIOTHERAPEUTICS PHARM. SCI., PFIZER INC., ANDOVER, MA.

    Spring in New England!!!

  • Talk Outline

    • Potency: The What, Why and How of Potency Testing

    • Choosing a Fit-for-Purpose Bioassay

    • Case Study: Evolution of a Bioassay (Phase I to Commercial)

    • Take-Away Messages

    2

  • What is Potency?Definition of Potency (21 CFR 600.3)

    The word potency is interpreted to mean the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to effect a given result.

    Guidance (ICHQ6B)A valid biological assay to measure the biological activity should be provided by the manufacturer. Examples can include: – Animal-based biological assays, which measure an organism's biological

    response to the product

    – Cell culture-based biological assays, which measure biochemical or physiological response at the cellular level

    – Biochemical assays, which measure biological activities such as enzymatic reaction rates or biological responses induced by immunological interactions

    – Other procedures such as ligand and receptor binding assays3

  • Why is Potency Required?– Size and complexity of large bio-molecules necessitate assays beyond traditional

    physicochemical techniques

    – Some changes (chemical or physical) may/or may not impact potency

    – Changes in tertiary/quaternary structure are sometimes difficult to detect with other assays

    – Complex (often multiple) mechanism of action can only be evaluated using well-designed potency assay

    4

    How is Potency/Bioassay Data Used?– Pre-clinical (Guides design and development of candidate drugs)

    – Clinical to Commercial (Increase product and process knowledge)

    • Structure/function studies (identification of critical quality attributes)

    • Formulation development (guides stability/storage decisions)

    • Manufacturing process (clipping, N-Glycans etc)

    • Release/Stability (specification), lot-to-lot comparability

    The Why and How of Potency Assays?

  • A “Phase-Driven” Approach to Bioassay Lifecycle Management

    5

    • Multiple bioassays are used throughout the product development life-cycle

    • Bioassay strategy is continually evolving and driven by increased product knowledge and critical method performance evaluation

  • •Target Binding (All mAbs)•ELISA•SPR

    •Functional Cell-based Assays•MOA(s)

    •Functional Cell-based Assays•MOA(s)

    •Fc Effector Functions•SPR

    •FcγR•C1q•Functional Assays

    •ADCC•CDC•ADCP

    •FcRn≥ 14 methods may be applied based on MOA

    Bioassay Strategy is Guided by mAb Design

    6

  • Select Bioassay Based on mAb Design

    7

    Primary MOA1 Description

    Bioassay Selection Strategy

    ELISA(FIH to P2)

    Introduce Cell BasedEarly

    (When developed) Later (P2)

    Bind and Block(Antagonist)

    Binds to receptor on cell surface and blocks binding to its cognate

    ligand

    Bind and Signal(Agonist)

    Binds to receptor on cell surface and transduces an intracellular

    signal

    Ligand TrapBinds to soluble ligand and prevents

    (traps) it from binding to cognate receptor on cell surface

    1. Assumes low/no effector function (mAbs with effector function require early introduction of Cell-based assay)

  • Case Study: Evolution of a Bioassay

    8

    • Mechanism of Action (MOA)– Binds to receptor on surface of cell A and blocks

    binding of co-receptor on surface of cell B thereby preventing cell-cell interaction

    – mAb Design: IgG2 (low/no effector function) Cell A

    MOA

    mAbCell B

    Cell B

    Cell B

    • Early Stage Bioassay Selection (Pre-FIH) – Early engagement of Research Unit

    • Review bioassays used for clinical candidate selection and delineation of MOA

    – Evaluate bioassay “readiness” (Phase 1 enabling)

  • 9

    Assay Parameter Non Cell-Based (ELISA) Cell-Based

    Development Time 1-3 months 6-12+ months

    Reagents Readily available (often commercial) Require time to develop (eg. engineered cell lines)Assay Performance

    (Target) Precision < 5% Precision < 10%

    Robustness Less variable/easily transferable Requires more time to optimize/control variabilityThroughput Single plate assay Often multi-plate assay

    Reflects Drugs MOA Fab binding (essential MOA but may not be complete) Likely more reflective of

    complete MOA

    Stability Indicating Fab binding to antigen (may be influenced by assay design) Evaluates entire molecule

    Non Cell- Based

    Cell-Based

    Regulatory expectations for registration

    Considerations for Early Stage Bioassay Selection

  • Early Stage Bioassay Strategy (Pre-Clinical Through Phase II)

    10

    • Non Cell-Based Ligand Binding Assay (ELISA)– Target antigen is receptor on Cell A

    – Qualified method

    ELISA

    Release/Stability Comparability Forced DegradationProduct/Process

    Development

    ELISA

    Characterization FIO

    • Characterization Assays– Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) Affinity and

    Kinetics (ligand binding, FcRn binding)

    – Cell-based ELISA

    • Non-qualified method

    Cell-based Competitive ELISA

    B B

    B

    Cell A

    MOA

    mAb Cell B

    Cell B

    Cell B

  • Bioassay Drives Product Knowledge and Understanding of Method Capabilities

    11

    • Sample Testing– Development

    • Structure-Function studies: identify potential quality attributes impacting potency

    • Increase process understanding

    – Forced degradation • Guide formulation development

    • Relevant degradation pathways that impact potency

    • Early evaluation stability-indicating capabilities of bioassay

    – Clinical Stability DS/DP • Final formulation/presentation (most relevant)

    Makes bioassay suitability/selection a data-driven decision

  • ELISA vs. Cell-Based ELISA: Forced Degradation Study

    12

    Forced Degradation Method ELISA Cell-BasedELISA

    Deamidation(pH 9.0, 37ºC, 4 days) 82% 92%

    Oxidation (H2O2 30-120 min) 70% 73%

    Control Acidic = 18%

    Deamidated, Acidic = 71%

    Abso

    rban

    ce

    pI

    ELISA and Cell-Based ELISA Results are Comparable– Deamidation does not impact to potency

    – Oxidation (100%) marginally impacts potency

    – Thermal stress significant loss of potency at 16 weeks• Cell-based ELISA detects changes resulting from thermal stress earlier than ELISA

    Thermal Stress

    Weeks @ 50ºC ELISA Cell-Based ELISA

    2 101 96

    4 85 83

    6 82 68

    16 Non bio-equivalent Non bio-equivalent

    iCE

  • Summary Comparison of ELISA vs. Cell-Based ELISA

    13

    • Antibody fairly stable – Clinical stability shows no significant change in potency at -20ºC,

    5ºC and 25ºC for over one year.

    • Required stressed conditions to see differences in activity– 50ºC for 4 months

    Advancements in mAb design and formulation increase stability and make assessment of bioassay stability-indicating capabilities more challenging

    Cell-based ELISA more sensitive to changes

  • Later Stage Bioassay Development(Pivotal Study to Commercial)

    • Regulatory Expectation:– Potency assay reflective of drugs MOA is required before pivotal

    clinical trial

    • Links potency assay to clinical efficacy• Data driven bioassay design

    – Stability indicating

    14

  • Develop and Qualify Cell-Based Assay(Phase 2)

    15

    Design Mimics MOA

    Assay PerformanceParameter ELISA1 Cell-Based2

    Precision (historical) 4.9% (n = 123) 9.2%(n = 210)

    Accuracy (historical) 100% 97%

    Linearity at Range (50-150%), r2 0.992 0.994

    1. ELISA is single plate assay (failure rate < 2%)

    2. Cell-Based is two plate assay (failure rate ~10-20%)

    Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A

    Cell Based Assay

    B B B B

    Cell A

    MOA

    mAb Cell B

    Cell B

    Cell B

  • Introduce Cell-Based Potency Assay Early as Characterization Assay

    • Replace cell-based ELISA with more mechanistically relevant cell-based assay – Increased biological relevance of assay format

    • Include cell-based assay in on-going stability studies (FIO)– Trend data and compare results with non cell-based (ELISA)

    • Begin testing forced degradation samples– Early assessment of stability-indicating capabilities

    • Comparability testing– Process change

    – Testing of retains from early clinical development

    16

  • ELISA vs Cell-Based: On-going Clinical Stability (FIO)

    • Condition = 5ºC

    • 4 stability programs (2x DS/2x DP)

    • 48 Months

    • ELISA and Cell Based comparable

    – No drop in potency

    17

    5ºCELISACell-Based

    • Condition = 25ºC

    • 2 stability programs (1x DS/1x DP)

    • 6 Months

    • ELISA and Cell Based comparable

    – No drop in potency ELISACell-Based

    25ºC

    70

    130

    70

    130

  • ELISA vs. Cell Based: Differences detected at 40°C

    • ELISA shows no decrease in potency at 40ºC over 6 months– Lacks stability-indicating properties

    • Cell-based assay at 40ºC for 6 months is non-bioequivalent– Demonstrates stability-indicating properties

    18

    DS 6 months at 40°C/75%RH

    Non-bioequivalent

    No change in potency

  • Cell-Based vs. ELISA: Forced Degradation Studies Compare Stability-Indicating Potential of Bioassays

    19

    Forced degradation studies

    • Photostability

    • Forced deamidation

    • Oxidation

    • Thermal Stress - only condition that impacts potency

    Potency: ELISA vs Cell-Based

    Bioassay is not a stand alone analytical tool

    All methods show evidence of product degradation after 8 weeks @ 40ºC except the ELISA

    ELISA is not a stability-indicating method

    Analytical Methods

    • Charge heterogeneity (iCE)

    • Aggregates (SEC-HPLC)

    • Oxidation (RP-HPLC)

    • Fragments (r/nr CGE)

    • Potency (Bioassay)

  • Introduce Cell Based Functional Assay – Reflects drug MOA (Clinical data supports MOA)

    – Is stability-indicating

    – Two Potency Assays for Release/Stability (Bridge assays)• ELISA

    • Cell Based

    – Increase experience with method • Robustness (#analysts/labs,etc)

    • Trend data (SPC)

    Data Driven Bioassay Strategy (Pivotal Study to Commercial)

    20

    Further evaluate and compare

    Prepare for Validation

    Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A

    Cell Based Assay

    B B B B

  • 21

    ELISA vs Cell-Based: Phase 3 Clinical Stability (DS)

    ELISA Cell-Based

    0 1 3 60 1 3 6 0 1 3 60 1 3 60 1 3 6 0 1 3 6

    -40°C -20°C5°C

    -40°C -20°C 5°C

    Summary• Potency results are comparable between both assays

    • No loss of potency at storage temps

    • Biochemical methods support DS stability

  • 22

    ELISA vs. Cell-Based: Phase 3 Clinical Stability (DP)

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    Rela

    tive

    Pote

    ncy

    (%)

    Months on Stability

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    Rela

    tive

    Pote

    ncy

    (%)

    Months on Stability

    ELISA Cell-Based

    0 1 3 60 1 3 6 0 1 3 60 1 3 60 1 3 6 0 1 3 6

    5°C 30°C 40°C 5°C 30°C 40°C

    Summary• Stressed samples show difference in potency between ELISA and cell-based

    assay– ELISA shows no change in potency at storage temps

    – Cell-based shows significant decrease in potency @ 40°C for 6 months and trend @ 30°C

    – Biochemical methods detect DP degradation @ 40°C for 6 months

  • Data Driven Bioassay Strategy: Commercial

    23

    • Potency Assay: Cell-Based Functional Assay – One assay for release/stability

    • Meets Regulatory Expectations for Potency– Reflects the drug mechanism of action

    – Proven to be stability-indicating

    Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A Cell A

    Cell Based Assay

    B B B

    B

  • Take-Away Messages

    • Bioassay strategy is an evolutionary process that changes as product knowledge increases and new methods are developed

    • Initial potency assay is often a simple ligand binding assay – Guided by mAb design and proposed MOA

    – Multiple assays/formats may be required (Jackie Gallant, Poster)

    – May or may not reflect the complete MOA of the drug

    – Stability-indicating potential not fully understood

    – Early stage programs rely heavily on orthogonal methods to increase product/process knowledge and ensure product quality/safety

    24

    Case Study:Application of Pfizer’s Bioassay Strategy for a Combination Monoclonal Antibody

  • Take-Away Messages Continued..

    • Later in development when more is known about the product a functional assay (cell-based) is introduced– Method is designed to reflect MOA

    • Selection of potency assay(s) for Commercial release are a data driven decision– Reflects the MOA of the drug

    – Is stability-indicating

    – Performance is acceptable/amenable to QC environment

    25

  • 26

    Acknowledgements

    Richard CornellDavid CirelliSara HanscomJennifer SmithDenise KwokAparna DeoraRichard JeromeNed Mozier

    Case Study: A Phase-Driven Approach to the Development and Lifecycle Management of Potency AssaysTalk OutlineWhat is Potency?The Why and How of Potency Assays?A “Phase-Driven” Approach to Bioassay Lifecycle ManagementBioassay Strategy is Guided by mAb DesignSelect Bioassay Based on mAb DesignCase Study: Evolution of a BioassayConsiderations for Early Stage Bioassay SelectionEarly Stage Bioassay Strategy �(Pre-Clinical Through Phase II)Bioassay Drives Product Knowledge and Understanding of Method CapabilitiesELISA vs. Cell-Based ELISA: Forced Degradation StudySummary Comparison of ELISA vs. Cell-Based ELISALater Stage Bioassay Development�(Pivotal Study to Commercial) Develop and Qualify Cell-Based Assay�(Phase 2)Introduce Cell-Based Potency Assay Early as Characterization AssayELISA vs Cell-Based: On-going Clinical Stability (FIO)ELISA vs. Cell Based: Differences detected at 40°CCell-Based vs. ELISA: Forced Degradation Studies Compare Stability-Indicating Potential of BioassaysData Driven Bioassay Strategy �(Pivotal Study to Commercial)ELISA vs Cell-Based: Phase 3 Clinical Stability (DS)ELISA vs. Cell-Based: Phase 3 Clinical Stability (DP)Data Driven Bioassay Strategy: CommercialTake-Away MessagesTake-Away Messages Continued..Acknowledgements


Recommended