Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5943_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
References 111
https://t.me/medicina_free
9 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2015). Design and analysis of shedding
studies for virus or bacteria‐based gene therapy and oncolytic products: guidance
for industry. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C%20blood%20
%26%20biologics/published/DesignVirus-
or- Bacteria- Based- Gene- Therapy- and- Oncolytic- Products- - Guidance- for-
Industry.pdf.
10 International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for
Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use considerations: General
principles to address virus and vector shedding. EMEA/CHMP/
ICH/449035/2009. (2009). Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/
documents/scientific- guideline/international- conference- harmonisationtechnical- requirements- registration- pharmaceuticals- human- use_en- 10.pdf.
11 International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for
Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Final Concept Paper, M6:
Guideline on Virus and Gene Therapy Vector Shedding and Transmission. (2009).
Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/M6_Concept
_Paper.pdf.
12 International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (2018). Expectations for
Biodistribution (BD) Assessments for Gene Therapy (GT) Products. Available
from: https://admin.iprp.global/sites/default/files/2018_ReflectionPaper_BD_Final_2018_0713.pdf.
13 Assaf, B.T. and Whiteley, L.O. (2018). Considerations for preclinical safety
assessment of adeno‐associated virus gene therapy products. Toxicol. Pathol.
46 (8): 1020–1027.
14 Korneyenkov, M.A. and Zamyatnin, A.A. Jr. (2021). Next step in gene delivery:
modern approaches and further perspectives of AAV Tropism modification.
Pharmaceutics 13 (5): 750.
15 Bolt, M.W., Whiteley, L.O., Lynch, J.L. etal. (2020). Nonclinical studies that
support viral vector‐delivered gene therapies: an EFPIA gene therapy working
group perspective. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 19: 89–98.
16 Wright, J.F. (2014). Product‐related impurities in clinical‐grade recombinant AAV
vectors: characterization and risk assessment. Biomedicine 2 (1): 80–97.
17 Saraiva, J., Nobre, R.J., and Pereira de Almeida, L. (2016). Gene therapy for the
CNS using AAVs: the impact of systemic delivery by AAV9. J. Control. Release
241: 94–109.
18 Samaranch, L., Salegio, E.A., San Sebastian, W. etal. (2012). Adeno‐associated
virus serotype 9 transduction in the central nervous system of nonhuman
primates. Hum. Gene Ther. 23 (4): 382–389.
19 Miyake, N., Miyake, K., Yamamoto, M. etal. (2011). Global gene transfer into the
CNS across the BBB after neonatal systemic delivery of single‐stranded AAV
vectors. Brain Res. 1389: 19–26.
and- Analysis- of- Shedding- Studies- for-
09/IPRP_GTWG
https://t.me/medicina_free
112
20 Schenk‐Braat, E.A., van Mierlo, M.M., Wagemaker, G. etal. (2007). An inventory
of shedding data from clinical gene therapy trials. J. Gene Med. 9 (10): 910–921.
21 Gorovits, B., Azadeh, M., Buchlis, G. etal. (2021). Evaluation of the humoral
response to adeno‐associated virus‐based gene therapy modalities using total
antibody assays. AAPS J. 23 (6): 108.
22 Gorovits, B., Fiscella, M., Havert, M. etal. (2020). Correction to:
recommendations for the development of cell‐based anti‐viral vector neutralizing
antibody assays. AAPS J. 22 (2): 42.
23 Gorovits, B., Fiscella, M., Havert, M. etal. (2020). Recommendations for the
development of cell‐based anti‐viral vector neutralizing antibody assays. AAPS
J. 22 (2): 24.
24 Gorovits, B., Marshall, J.C., Smith, J. etal. (2019). Bioanalysis of adeno‐associated
virus gene therapy therapeutics: regulatory expectations. Bioanalysis 11 (21):
2011–2024.
25 Ferla, R., Alliegro, M., Marteau, J.B. etal. (2017). Non‐clinical safety and efficacy
of an AAV2/8 vector administered intravenously for treatment of
mucopolysaccharidosis Type VI. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 6: 143–158.
26 Favaro, P., Downey, H.D., Zhou, J.S. etal. (2009). Host and vector‐dependent
effects on the risk of germline transmission of AAV vectors. Mol. Ther. 17 (6):
1022–1030.
27 Nathwani, A.C., Rosales, C., McIntosh, J. etal. (2011). Long‐term safety and
efficacy following systemic administration of a self‐complementary AAV vector
encoding human FIX pseudotyped with serotype 5 and 8 capsid proteins. Mol.
Ther. 19 (5): 876–885.
28 Pasi, K.J., Rangarajan, S., Mitchell, N. etal. (2020). Multiyear Follow‐up of
AAV5‐hFVIII‐SQ Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 (1): 29–40.
29 Manno, C.S., Pierce, G.F., Arruda, V.R. etal. (2006). Successful transduction of
liver in hemophilia by AAV‐Factor IX and limitations imposed by the host
immune response. Nat. Med. 12 (3): 342–347.
30 Nathwani, A.C., Reiss, U.M., Tuddenham, E.G. etal. (2014). Long‐term safety and
efficacy of factor IX gene therapy in hemophilia B. N. Engl. J. Med. 371 (21):
1994–2004.
31 Brunetti‐Pierri, N., Ferla, R., Ginocchio, V.M. etal. (2022). Liver‐directed adeno‐
associated virus‐mediated gene therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis Type VI.
NEJM Evidence 1 (7): https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2200052.
32 Duan, D. and Systemic, A.A.V. (2018). Micro‐dystrophin gene therapy for
Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Mol. Ther. 26 (10): 2337–2356.
33 uniQure Announces Second Quarter 2022 Financial Results and Highlights
Recent Company Progress. (2022). Available from: https://www.globenewswire
.com/en/news- release/2022/08/08/2493736/0/en/uniQure- Announces- SecondQuarter- 2022- Financial- Results- and- Highlights- Recent- Company- Progress.html.
References 113
https://t.me/medicina_free
34 Chand, D.H., Zaidman, C., Arya, K. etal. (2021). Thrombotic microangiopathy
following onasemnogene Abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy: a case series.
J. Pediatr. 231: 265–268.
35 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2021). Cellular, Tissue, and Gene
Therapies Advisory Committee (CTGTAC) meeting #70, transcript for day 2 open
session. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/154121/download.
36 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2021). Cellular, Tissue, and Gene
Therapies Advisory Committee (CTGTAC) meeting #70: Toxicity Risks of
Adeno‐associated Virus (AAV) Vectors for Gene Therapy (GT), briefing
document. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/151599/download.
37 Watkins, P.B. (2021). Liver injury due to drugs and viruses: mechanistic
similarities and implications for AAV gene therapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
112: 751–753.
38 Chand, D., Mohr, F., McMillan, H. etal. (2021). Hepatotoxicity following
administration of onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS‐101) for the treatment of
spinal muscular atrophy. J. Hepatol. 74 (3): 560–566.
39 Galletta, F., Cucinotta, U., Marseglia, L. etal. (2022). Hemophagocytic
lymphohistiocytosis following gene replacement therapy in a child with type 1
spinal muscular atrophy. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 47 (9): 1478–1481.
40 Flanigan, K.M., Campbell, K., Viollet, L. etal. (2013). Anti‐dystrophin T cell
responses in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: prevalence and a glucocorticoid
treatment effect. Hum. Gene Ther. 24 (9): 797–806.
41 Leavitt, A.D., Konkle, B.A., Stine, K. etal. (2020). Updated follow‐up of the Alta
study, a phase 1/2 study of Giroctocogene Fitelparvovec (SB‐525) gene therapy in
adults with severe hemophilia a. Blood 136.
42 Ertl, H.C.J. (2019). Preclinical models to assess the immunogenicity of AAV
vectors. Cell. Immunol. 342: 103722.
43 Evers, M., de Haan, M., Valles‐Sanchez, A. etal. (2019). Translating preclinical
data to a human equivalent dose for AMT‐130 AAV gene therapy for early
manifest Huntington’s disease. Mov. Disord. 34: S7–S8.
44 Rodrigues, F.B. and Wild, E.J. (2020). Huntington’s Disease clinical trials corner:
April 2020. J. Huntingtons Dis. 9 (2): 185–197.
45 (2019). Safety and Proof‐of‐Concept (POC) Study With AMT‐130in Adults With
Early Manifest Huntington Disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04120493.
Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04120493.
46 EMA/CHMP/571076/2022: assessment report for Upstaza, International
non‐proprietary name: eladocagene exuparvovec (2022). Available from: https://
www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment- report/
upstaza- epar- public- assessment- report_en.pdf.
https://t.me/medicina_free
114
47 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2019). ZOLGENSMA (onasemnogene
abeparvovec‐xioi): highlights of prescribing information. Available from: https://
www.fda.gov/media/126109/download.
48 Spronck, E.A., Liu, Y.P., Lubelski, J. etal. (2019). Enhanced factor IX activity
following administration of AAV5‐R338L "Padua" factor IX versus AAV5WT
human factor IX in NHPs. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 15: 221–231.
49 uniQure and CSL Behring Announce Primary Endpoint Achieved in HOPE‐B
Pivotal Trial of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Gene Therapy in Patients with
Hemophilia B. (2021). Available from: https://www.cslbehring.com/
newsroom/2021/hope-
50 Bunting, S., Zhang, L., Xie, L. etal. (2018). Gene therapy with BMN 270 results in
therapeutic levels of FVIII in mice and primates and normalization of bleeding in
hemophilic mice. Mol. Ther. 26 (2): 496–509.
51 Long, B.R., Sandza, K., Holcomb, J. etal. (2019). The impact of pre‐existing
immunity on the non‐clinical pharmacodynamics of AAV5‐based gene therapy.
Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 13: 440–452.
52 Rangarajan, S., Walsh, L., Lester, W. etal. (2017). AAV5‐factor VIII gene transfer
in severe hemophilia A. N. Engl. J. Med. 377 (26): 2519–2530.
53 Ozelo, M.C., Mahlangu, J., Pasi, K.J. etal. (2022). Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec
gene therapy for hemophilia A. N. Engl. J. Med. 386 (11): 1013–1025.
54 Meyer, K. (2019). SB‐525, a novel gene therapy for treatment of hemophilia
A. Presented at the NorCal SOT meeting. Available from: https://www.toxicology
.org/groups/rc/NorCal/docs/NorCalPresentation.pdf.
55 Yasuda, M., Huston, M.W., Pagant, S. etal. (2020). AAV2/6 gene therapy in a
murine model of fabry disease results in supraphysiological enzyme activity and
effective substrate reduction. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 18: 607–619.
56 Sangamo Investor Presentation (May 2022). Available from: https://investor
.sangamo.com/static-
57 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020). Human gene therapy for hemophilia:
guidance for industry. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/113799/
download.
58 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2021). Human gene therapy for
neurodegenerative diseases: draft guidance for industry. Available from: https://
www.fda.gov/media/144886/download.
59 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020). Human gene therapy for rare
diseases: guidance for industry. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/
113807/download.
60 Chen, N., Sun, K., Chemuturi, N.V. etal. (2022). The perspective of DMPK on
recombinant adeno‐associated virus‐based gene therapy: past learning, current
support, and future contribution. AAPS J. 24 (1): 31.
b- gene- therapy- for- hemophilia- b- topline- results.
SOT- 2019- Fall- Symposium- Meyer-
files/79ddb512- 5379- 4537- 8e55- 1e8903e9763d.
References 115
https://t.me/medicina_free
61 Von Drygalski, A., Giermasz, A., Castaman, G. etal. (2019). Etranacogene
dezaparvovec (AMT‐061 phase 2b): normal/near normal FIX activity and bleed
cessation in hemophilia B. Blood Adv. 3 (21): 3241–3247.
62 Fong, S., Yates, B., Sihn, C.R. etal. (2022). Interindividual variability in transgene
mRNA and protein production following adeno‐associated virus gene therapy for
hemophilia A. Nat. Med. 28 (4): 789–797.
63 Der, K., Wada, R., Huston, M. etal. (2022). ST‐920 translational pharmacokinetic–
pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model from mouse to human in Fabry disease. In:
Poster #066 Presented at the 18th Annual WORLDSymposium, February 2022, San
Diego, CA, USA.
64 Narula, J., Luo, H.B., Ko, G. etal. (2022). A quantitative systems pharmacology
(QSP) model for design and species‐translation of bio‐distribution studies of
AAV‐based gene therapies. Mol. Ther. 30 (4): 199–200.
65 Sun, K.F., Zhang, Z.W., Ko, G. etal. (2021). Physiologically based
pharmacokinetic modeling for the biodistribution of adeno‐associated virus
serotype 8 after intravenous administration in mice and non‐human primates.
Mol. Ther. 29 (4): 129–130.
66 Fong, S., Handyside, B., Sihn, C.R. etal. (2020). Induction of ER stress by an
AAV5 BDD FVIII construct is dependent on the strength of the hepatic‐specific
promoter. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 18: 620–630.
67 Roctavian: EPAR– Product Information. (2022). Available from: https://www
.ema.europa.eu/documents/product information_en.pdf.
68 Verdera, H.C., Kuranda, K., and Mingozzi, F. (2020). AAV vector immunogenicity
in humans: a long journey to successful gene transfer. Mol. Ther. 28 (3): 723–746.
69 Nathwani, A.C., Reiss, U., Tuddenham, E. etal. (2018). Adeno‐associated
mediated gene transfer for hemophilia B:8 year follow up and impact of
removing "Empty Viral Particles" on safety and efficacy of gene transfer. Blood
132 (Suppl 1): 491.
70 Leebeek, F.W.G., Meijer, K., Coppens, M. etal. (2021). Amt‐060 gene therapy in
adults with severe or moderate‐severe hemophilia B confirm stable fix expression
and sustained reductions in bleeding for up to 5 years. Haemophilia 27: 41.
71 Mendell, J.R., Al‐Zaidy, S.A., Lehman, K.J. etal. (2021). Five‐year extension
results of the phase 1 START trial of Onasemnogene Abeparvovec in spinal
muscular atrophy. JAMA Neurol. 78 (7): 834–841.
information/roctavian- epar- product-
5
https://t.me/medicina_free
Immunogenicity of AAV Gene Therapy Products
Vibha Jawa1 and Bonnie Wu
1
Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacometrics and Bioanalysis (CPPB), Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA
2
Biologics Discovery and Development Sciences, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Spring
House, PA, USA
Immune response to recombinant AAV (rAAV) based therapies has been well
characterized through preclinical and clinical experience [1]. The immune
response can be mediated by product‐associated risks that include viral capsids,
genome containing the nucleic acid as well as the transgene product. Each of these
structural components can induce either an innate or adaptive phase immune
response. In addition, the clinical risks can be related to the nature of genetic
mutation, disease state, route of administration, and site of injection as well as any
standard of care treatments that can contribute to the risks[1].
2
117
5.1 Innate and Adaptive Immunity Induced by
AAV-Based Gene Therapies
5.1.1 Innate Immune Response
The adeno‐associated virus (AAV) vectors were not considered very strong elicitors of innate or adaptive immune response when compared to Adenovirus
(Adv) [2]. However, preclinical and clinical observations have shown that the
AAV‐derived content (capsids, nucleic acid content, translated gene product, etc.)
may be recognized as foreign. The membrane bound as well as intracellular pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) on innate immune cells like macrophages and
Drug Development for Gene Therapy: Translational Biomarkers, Bioanalysis, and Companion
Diagnostics, First Edition. Edited by Yanmei Lu and Boris Gorovits.
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5 Immunogenicity of AAV Gene Therapy Products
https://t.me/medicina_free
118
dendritic cells can react with AAV and related content if they have structural
motifs/patterns [pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)] similar to
pathogenic organisms[3].
Multiple mechanisms of action have been identified by which rAAV can activate
innate immune response. This includes (1) AAV capsid inducing Toll‐like receptor
2 (TLR2) present on cell surface or endosomal membrane, (2) AAV packaged
genome is hydrolyzed in lysosome or endosome to release viral nucleic acid content triggering a Toll‐like receptor 9 (TLR9) mediated response, (3) activation of
stimulator of interferon genes (STING)/interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) pathway by mitochondrial DNA that triggers cytosolic sensors leading to upregulation
of type I interferons (IFNs), (4) additional pathways like inflammasome formation
and viral RNA sensors retinoic acid‐inducible gene I (RIG‐1) and anti‐melanoma
differentiation‐associated gene‐5 (MDA‐5) induced IFNs[4, 5]. All pathways lead
to release of proinflammatory chemokines like tumor necrosis factor‐alpha
(TNF‐α) and interleukin (IL‐6) through engagement of myeloid differentiation primary response 88 (MyD88)/interleukin‐1 receptor‐associated kinase (IRAK) pathways while inflammasome maturation leads to IL‐1β and IL‐18 production[6]. An
activation of innate immune response through IF‐stimulated genes (ISGs) can
cause inhibition of viral replication and consequent spreading. In addition, innate
phase cytokines and chemokines can prime a T‐cell‐mediated adaptive immune
response that could also induce a long‐term memory response[7].
An additional pathway that can induce innate response could be complement‐
dependent activation triggered by pre-existing anti‐AAV antibodies (PEA) complexed with AAV capsids[8, 9]. High‐dose AAV complexed with PEA can activate
classical complement cascade leading to cell lysis through membrane attack complex (MAC)[10]. Low‐dose AAV leads to generation of complement factors C3b
and C3d that opsonize AAV and can interact with their respective receptors CR1
and CR3 expressed on macrophages[8]. This leads to an enhanced uptake and
antigen presentation which can further recruit T cells. B cells can also uptake C3d
opsonized viral particles through CR2 and cross‐link with B cells to induce effector and memory B cells (Figure5.1).
The innate immune response mediated by complement activation (complement
proteins C3 and its cleaved products C3b, C3bi, C3d) can be activated by direct
interaction with AAV capsid or through pre-existing anti‐capsid antibodies complexed with low doses of AAV capsid. The complement cascade can eventually
lead to formation of the MAC that can lyse the cell. The anaphylactic fragments
C3a and C5a generated during cleavage can induce inflammatory responses.
Other innate pathways include engagement and activation of the toll‐like receptors TLR 3,7,8 TLR 9 by viral capsid and genome respectively that further prime
the adaptive phase immune response.
Innate immune system
Complexed capsid/
pre-existing anticapsid antibodies
C3b
https://t.me/medicina_free
High AAV
C3a
5.2 Preclinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment 119
C6-9/MAC
C5b
C5b
C5a
dose
TLR 9
TLR 2, 3 7 8
Proinflammatory cytokines stimulate adaptive immune system
C3
C3
Opsonization
C3b
C3b
Factor I/Factor H
C3a
Low AAV dose
C3bi
Adaptive immune system
Target cell
MHC I
TCR
MHC II
APC
CR1
CR2
CR3
C3d
TCR
CD8 T cell
CD4 T cell
Granzymes and perforins
MHC I
Anti-capsid Abs
TCR
CD8 T cell
Target cell
Cellular immune response to target tissue
Anti-transgene antibodies
Humoral immune response to transgene and capsid
Figure5.1 AAV-mediated activation of innate and adaptive phase immune responses.
APC, antigen-presenting cell (Macrophage/Dendritic cell/B-cell); CR1, complement
receptor recognizing complement fragment C3b on macrophages; CR2, complement
receptor recognizing complement fragment C3d on B-cells and dendritic cells; CR3,
complement receptor recognizing the inactivated C3b (C3bi) on macrophages; and
dendritic cells; TCR: T-cell receptor; MHC: major histocompatibility complex;
MAC: membrane attack complex.
5.1.2 Adaptive Immune Response
Both humoral and cell‐mediated immune responses can occur following the administration of AAV‐based gene therapies. The humoral response includes pre‐existing
antibodies (PEAs) to AAV capsids that can limit the viral transduction as well as
treatment emergent antibody response to capsid‐specific epitopes[11]. The transgene
expression in the targeted cells or tissues can also be associated with an antibody
response. Both capsid proteins and transgene product can also elicit MHC Class I
and Class II‐driven cellular response. MHC Class 1 activates a cytotoxic CD8+ driven
T‐cell response while MHC Class 2leads to a CD4+ driven Teffector response.
5.2 Preclinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment
The immune response to AAV gene therapies (GTs) can occur at any stage of
development. Hence, a comprehensive risk assessment is needed that will identify
the relevant risk factors. The risk factors can be product, process, and patient
derived as summarized in sections below.
5 Immunogenicity of AAV Gene Therapy Products
https://t.me/medicina_free
120
5.2.1 Product-related Risk Factors
Product‐related risk factors can arise from the vector genome, viral capsid serotype,
and transgene product. The capsid‐associated risk factors include post‐
modified capsid‐derived peptides and aggregation[12–14]. Similarly, vector genome‐
related risk factors include unmethylated CpG motifs, self‐complementary DNA, as
vector DNA and viral dsDNA that can engage PRRs like TLR9[15–17]. The serotype
of capsids and their related transduction efficiencies in different tissues can also
contribute to the risk[18–20]. The choice of serotypes can impact clinical outcomes
such as safety, vector clearance, treatment eligibility, occurrence of transaminase
elevations, activation of capsid‐directed cytotoxic T‐cell responses, and clinical efficacy. There is a similarity in several structural features responsible for tissue specificity and transduction across serotypes. However, there are distinct features that
can also impact gene transfer and immunogenicity. Among the 13 AAV serotypes
that have been identified, AAV5 is the most distinct and has the least homology to
more common serotypes like AAV2, AAV8, and AAV10. Based on these homologies,
the risk of cross‐reactive sero‐reactivity also varies [21] and selection of capsids
where the least pre-existing immunogenicity risk is anticipated can help mitigate
any potential immune‐mediated vector clearance.
Similarly, serotype tropism can limit the non‐specific uptake of the vector and
ensures the targeting and concentration in the relevant tissue. While primary
receptors influence binding, the secondary receptors support internalization and
can influence tropism across the viral vector serotypes[22]. One way to ensure the
targeted delivery of the vector is through use of tissue specific promoters as
observed in some recent clinical trials where liver‐specific promoters were used to
treat FVIII and FIX gene defects.
Such strategies can reduce the overall risk of pre-existing antibody cross‐
reactivity that can lead to elimination of transduced vector and loss of efficacy.
Additionally, limited and targeted high level of transgene expression using the
tissue‐specific serotype can ensure less toxicity due to complement activation and
cytotoxic T‐cell mediated elimination of off‐target cells. There may be differences
in capsid‐specific T‐cell responses based on serotypes. While AAV2, 8, and 10were
associated with elevated liver transaminases, increased capsid‐specific cytotoxic
T‐lymphocyte (CTL) responses, and elimination of transduced gene product in
liver cells, AAV5 did not elicit any CTL responses even with or without increase of
liver ALT (amino alanine transferase) and AST (aspartate aminotransferase) levels.
translationally
5.2.2 Process and Manufacturing-Related Risk Factors
The empty capsid content in the final packaged AAV‐GT product can change from
lot to lot as part of purification process[23–26]. Additional impurities include the
biosynthetic intermediates and incorrectly composed viral particles, AAV
5.2 Preclinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment 121
https://t.me/medicina_free
encapsidated host DNA fragment from different species like insect cell DNA,
nuclease‐
and plasmid DNA, etc.[27, 28]. New analytical characterization approaches have
pointed to presence of partially packaged viral genomes even in fully packaged
capsids.
sensitive nucleic acids, helper components, viruses relevant to cell lines
5.2.3 Patient-Related Risk Factors
The capsid‐derived peptides are presented in the context of Class I and Class II
human leukocyte antigen (HLA)/major histocompatibility complex (MHC) that
are used interchangeably. The risk of such peptides driving a CTL (CD8+) or
Teffector (CD4+) response depends on the HLA alleles of the patients and their
affinity to these peptides[29]. The genetic associations with an inflammatory
diseased state can also enhance the risk[30].
The transgene‐driven protein expression and the consequent immune response
could differ based on the nature of gene defects (null vs. point mutation vs.
spliced). The engineered protein expressed by transgene has a much higher risk
compared to the endogenous protein that is close to self [31]. Based on regional
ex
posure and patient demographics, the pre-existing capsid‐specific sero‐ reactivity
can be different. The disease severity and the immune robustness of the patient
can also change the risk due to underlying disease that can exacerbate the immune
response to the AAV‐GT vectors. The highly vascularized nature of site where the
GT vector is delivered vs. immune suppressed/immune deficient site can change
the risk of immunogenicity. Based on the age of patient (pediatric vs. adult vs.
seniors), seroprevalence to the capsid serotypes may differ and can change the
risk for reduction of transgene expression due to complement fixing anti‐capsid
immune complexes. The high dose of AAV genomes has also been associated with
adverse events, especially in patients with a severe disease that cannot tolerate the
high viral burden[32]. Lastly, the administration through an IV route compared
to a local delivery into the subretinal space or liver or muscle may change the risk
and is dependent on the immune‐privileged state of the site and presence of
tissue‐associated professional antigen‐presenting cells [33]. The administration
route will be further discussed in clinical section below.
5.2.4 Nonclinical Assessment ofImmunogenicity
Nonclinical studies to assess immune response to rAAV‐based GTs can provide an
understanding of immune‐mediated adverse events and pharmacology as well as
biodistribution. These observations also provide a better understanding of the
adverse events due to different routes of administration (intra‐thecal, subcutaneous, etc.), dose‐dependent immune‐ and geno‐toxicities due to viral vector capsids
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана