$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Described here are methods of measuring cytokine release from PBMCs and WB following antibody-mediated stimulation from an antibody-coated plate or with antibody in solution, using a panel of reference reagents for positive and negative controls. Each of these assays have their own associated strengths and weaknesses. PBMC and WB assays are complementary since the proportion of various immune cells such as lymphocytes, monocytes and granulocytes are different in the two experimental matrices used for CRAs. It is interesting to observe that although a WB assay might better represent the in vivo condition as opposed to PBMC monoculture, the former platform is less predictive of T-cell mediated CRS risk from TGN1412 and OKT315; a result of glycophorin A on RBCs inhibiting IL-2 mediated T-cell expansion16. Nevertheless, the prediction of CRS risk from anti-CD52 remains intact in WB CRA, owed to the presence of neutrophils (lost during conventional density gradient methods described in step 2, used for PBMC isolation).
The format of the CRA (SP or AQ presentation) is critical for detection of specific mechanism of CRS. For example, aqueous phase presentation of the mAb to human lymphocytes17,18, employed during pre-clinical in vitro safety tests of TGN1412 failed to identify CRS risk likely due to lack of localized cell receptor clustering and engagement19 and consequent T cell activation mediated by antibody in aqueous phase. In fact, TGN1412-mediated CRS could only be accurately detected in SP format that artificially replicates Fc-gamma receptor (FcγR) cross-linking, as presented here, or by contact-dependent priming in PBMC preculture at high density and Fc interaction with CD32+ immune cells (such as B-cells20 and monocytes21).
In addition to these platforms, there are other ways of performing CRA with more complex co-culture systems. An example of an alternative CRA to those described in these methods is to co-culture PBMCs with autologous blood outgrowth endothelial cells (BOECs)22. This assay was described in 2015 as an improvement to the then conventional mixed-donor HUVEC:PBMC assay by removing the confounding tissue mismatch. It demonstrates better sensitivity to anti-CD28SA CRS than the WB assay, and also overcomes the limitation of the PBMC monoculture assay by mimicking the combination of endothelial cells and leukocytes present in vivo, but at the cost of more lengthy procedural steps requiring specialized cell culture techniques22.
Furthermore, while this protocol focuses specifically on IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-6 and TNF-α release, colleagues at MHRA have previously looked at IL-12 and others in this setting23. IL-12 production is increased by these positive control CRS antibodies, although it isn't particularly sensitive, and therefore perhaps not a great predictor of CRS in this modality. Some cytokines, such as IL-15 among others, were never tested although the 4 cytokines evaluated in our protocol provide a good indication of potential risk of CRS. Of course, depending on the modality and antibodies tested other cytokines could be assessed.
Combined, these observations highlight the importance of noting that although the use of reference reagents can help to identify CRS risk of new antibodies, care should be taken to avoid a sub-optimal CRA platform which might fail to identify CRS potential. Crucially, the predicted mechanism of action of a therapeutic, whether via its Fc region or its hypothesized action upon antigen-expressing cells, must match the biology of the assay. Therefore, while differences in the mechanism of action of the test therapeutic and reference reagents discussed in this article may pose a potential limitation in such a way that a relevant CRA for the test antibody might be incompatible with the biology of the reference reagents, the assay provides a robust, reliable platform for hazard identification. Results from several CRA formats covering various mechanisms of actions and immune cell subsets may however be necessary for optimal confidence in the safety evaluation data.