Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody interference with blood compatibility testing: Differentiating isatuximab and daratumumab via functional epitope mapping.
Journal
Transfusion
ISSN: 1537-2995
Titre abrégé: Transfusion
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
02
08
2022
received:
20
08
2021
accepted:
20
08
2022
pubmed:
15
10
2022
medline:
10
11
2022
entrez:
14
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are two FDA-approved anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies for treatment of multiple myeloma: isatuximab and daratumumab. Owing to expression of CD38 on reagent red blood cells (RBCs), these antibodies interfere with indirect antiglobulin tests (IATs). We sought to understand differences in such interference by performing binding experiments. In vitro experiments to compare the binding to RBCs of isatuximab and daratumumab alone or in the presence of a mouse anti-human CD38 antibody (HB-7 or AT13/5) or a nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide-analog CD38 inhibitor were performed and quantified by flow cytometry, imaging, mass spectrometry, surface plasmon resonance, and LigandTracer technologies. Serologic testing was performed on plasma samples spiked with isatuximab or daratumumab. CD38 expressed on RBCs can be directly bound by daratumumab, whereas isatuximab requires a co-factor, such as HB-7, AT13/5, or a CD38 inhibitor, suggesting that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro. Daratumumab samples more frequently showed interference and had stronger reactions than isatuximab samples. Dithiothreitol treatment was equally effective in mitigating the interference caused by either drug. Both isatuximab and daratumumab interfere with IATs but at different magnitudes, reflecting distinct binding to CD38 on RBCs. From the binding studies, we conclude that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro and binding requires a certain CD38 conformation or co-factor. This circumstance may explain why interference is seen only in a subset of patients receiving isatuximab when compared with interference seen in most patients on daratumumab therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There are two FDA-approved anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies for treatment of multiple myeloma: isatuximab and daratumumab. Owing to expression of CD38 on reagent red blood cells (RBCs), these antibodies interfere with indirect antiglobulin tests (IATs). We sought to understand differences in such interference by performing binding experiments.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
In vitro experiments to compare the binding to RBCs of isatuximab and daratumumab alone or in the presence of a mouse anti-human CD38 antibody (HB-7 or AT13/5) or a nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide-analog CD38 inhibitor were performed and quantified by flow cytometry, imaging, mass spectrometry, surface plasmon resonance, and LigandTracer technologies. Serologic testing was performed on plasma samples spiked with isatuximab or daratumumab.
RESULTS
CD38 expressed on RBCs can be directly bound by daratumumab, whereas isatuximab requires a co-factor, such as HB-7, AT13/5, or a CD38 inhibitor, suggesting that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro. Daratumumab samples more frequently showed interference and had stronger reactions than isatuximab samples. Dithiothreitol treatment was equally effective in mitigating the interference caused by either drug.
DISCUSSION
Both isatuximab and daratumumab interfere with IATs but at different magnitudes, reflecting distinct binding to CD38 on RBCs. From the binding studies, we conclude that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro and binding requires a certain CD38 conformation or co-factor. This circumstance may explain why interference is seen only in a subset of patients receiving isatuximab when compared with interference seen in most patients on daratumumab therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36239134
doi: 10.1111/trf.17137
pmc: PMC9828815
doi:
Substances chimiques
daratumumab
4Z63YK6E0E
isatuximab
R30772KCU0
ADP-ribosyl Cyclase 1
EC 3.2.2.6
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Epitopes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2334-2348Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AABB.
Références
J Immunol. 2011 Feb 1;186(3):1840-8
pubmed: 21187443
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015 Nov;15(11):635-45
pubmed: 26443328
Blood. 2017 Jun 1;129(22):3033-3037
pubmed: 28373263
Asian J Transfus Sci. 2017 Jul-Dec;11(2):209-211
pubmed: 28970695
Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter. 2017 Oct - Dec;39(4):375-378
pubmed: 29150115
Pathology. 2021 Apr;53(3):427-437
pubmed: 33707006
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2019 Oct;33(5):797-811
pubmed: 31466605
Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter. 2018 Jan - Mar;40(1):25-29
pubmed: 29519368
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Apr;39(4):424-436
pubmed: 29482842
Leukemia. 2016 Feb;30(2):399-408
pubmed: 26338273
Transfus Med. 2019 Jun;29(3):193-196
pubmed: 29369430
Transfus Clin Biol. 2018 Feb;25(1):2-7
pubmed: 29336950
Semin Oncol. 2016 Dec;43(6):676-681
pubmed: 28061985
Transfusion. 2022 Nov;62(11):2334-2348
pubmed: 36239134
Front Immunol. 2018 Nov 15;9:2616
pubmed: 30498492
Transfusion. 2015 Jun;55(6 Pt 2):1555-62
pubmed: 25988285
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jan;18(1):44-51
pubmed: 29054515
Cells. 2019 Nov 26;8(12):
pubmed: 31779273
Transfusion. 2019 Jul;59(7):2248-2254
pubmed: 31183877
Lancet. 2021 Jun 19;397(10292):2361-2371
pubmed: 34097854
Transfusion. 2016 Dec;56(12):2964-2972
pubmed: 27600566
Transfusion. 2015 Jun;55(6 Pt 2):1545-54
pubmed: 25764134
Lancet. 2019 Dec 7;394(10214):2096-2107
pubmed: 31735560
Biochemistry. 2002 Jul 2;41(26):8455-63
pubmed: 12081495
Front Immunol. 2017 Apr 24;8:455
pubmed: 28484455