Abstract
The human complement system constitutes a Janus-faced part of our immune machinery, which confers rapid protection against microbial intruders but can quickly turn against the host and contribute to inflammatory, immune-, age- and foreign body-related clinical complications1 The defence–offence profile often tilts unfavourably during ageing, traumatic insults or genetic dysregulation of the cascade. The list of disorders with known complement contribution is growing constantly, and with it the incentive to control complement activation therapeutically1–3. Since the introduction of complement-specific drugs in 2007, and the generally positive experience in the clinic, the interest in developing new therapeutic inhibitors has been growing constantly and has led to a cornucopious pipeline2–3. While the clinically available arsenal is currently limited to a few targets and mostly orphan and rare indications, it is expected that the recently sparked confidence and commercial interest will soon lead to a significant broadening of treatment options and, consequently, clinical conditions in which complement-targeted drugs will be applied2. New frontiers, such as applications in the therapy of cancer or neurological diseases are already on the horizon4,5.
Targeting the initiation pathways
In some complement-related diseases, the complement response is triggered by one dominant pathway. Specific blockage of one pathway may offer the means of halting detrimental complement activation while keeping some of the defensive reactivity intact. However, the triggering pathway needs to be identified and the approach may be insufficient during a complex activation pattern3. The only clinically approved member of this category is C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH), which blocks C1s, C1r and MASPs but also other serine proteases. In fact, its approved indication (hereditary angioedoema) is not complement related, but trials in transplantation and other indications are ongoing2. Two therapeutic antibodies targeting the classical (anti-C1s) and lectin (anti-MASP2) pathways are in clinical development2.
Targeting the amplification loop
Independent of the triggering pathway, a majority of the measurable complement response is often derived from the amplification loop of the alternative pathway8. When compared with CP/LP inhibition, central blockage may theoretically have a more profound impact on defence functions, although such risks can largely be mitigated. Inhibiting this loop confers a particularly attractive option in cases of complex, AP-specific and/or acute situations, since it effectively prevents opsonization and effector generation2,3. Currently, there is no approved member of this class but several candidates are in clinical development. Whereas FD inhibitors and FB RNAi prevent convertase formation, FB inhibitors and regulator-based convertase inhibitors block its activity. C3 inhibitors of the compstatin family prevent C3 activation by all convertases and reach beyond AP inhibition2.
Targeting the effector pathways
Owing to their detrimental biological activity, the effectors of the terminal pathway (i.e. C5a and MAC) often contribute most visibly to the clinical manifestation of complement-mediated diseases1. Prevention of C5 activation via clinically available anti-C5 mAbs (eculizumab, ravulizumab) has proved effective in rare diseases of the haemolytic and inflammatory spectrum. Encouraged by this success, several C5 modulators (mAb, inhibitors, RNAi) are currently in clinical trials2,3. Moreover, specific blockage of the C5a–C5aR1 signalling axis is assessed using anti-C5a mAb and C5aR1 antagonists2,5. Finally, a MAC inhibitor based on the regulator CD59 is being evaluated. Of note, all inhibitors of effector functions leave upstream complement activation intact, which may have some benefits but may also lead to an accumulation of opsonized cells2,3.
The complement cascade in host defence
Under physiological circumstances, complement acts as a pillar of host defence by assisting in the rapid recognition and elimination of microbial intruders1,6. Pattern recognition receptors sense danger (antibody-antigen complexes or pathogen-associated molecular pattern) and engage an enzyme-driven and self-amplifying cascade that leads to the opsonization of the microbe, attraction of immune cells, adhesion and shuttling to lymphoid organs, phagocytic uptake, stimulation of adaptive immune responses and direct killing through lysis. The generation of effector molecules such as the anaphylatoxins C3a and C5a helps orchestrate a comprehensive immune response1,6.
Can and should we inhibit a host defence pathway?
Despite the early recognition that complement is a contributor to many clinical conditions, the development of therapeutic complement inhibitors was initially hindered by concerns about interfering with host defence functions1,2. Indeed, patients with complement deficiencies often face episodes of infection; however, with the strengthening of adaptive immunity during childhood the defence role of complement gradually subsides7. At the same time, ageing often imposes a risk for inadvertent complement activation that can trigger or exacerbate disease1. Alongside the positive clinical experience with complement inhibitors in the clinic and the realization that residual risks can largely be controlled by anti-infective strategies and the choice of administration regimen (systemic vs. local; acute vs. chronic), this led to a new confidence in the approach and a surge in complement-targeted therapeutics2,3.
Excessive and erroneous complement activation
Whereas complement-mediated sensing is ideally directed against microbial intruders, there are other targets that can trigger an unwanted response1. This is particularly true for surfaces that are brought into contact with blood during medical procedures, such as biomaterials (e.g. haemodialysis filters) and cell or organ transplants1. In the latter case, the recognition of mismatch antigens (ABO, HLA) by natural antibodies induces the classical pathway and leads to hyperacute rejection. In addition, the unavoidable ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) during transplant transfer typically causes exposure of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that are sensed by the lectin pathway1. IRI is also a driving force during stroke or myocardial infarction. In many autoimmune diseases, such as myasthenia gravis (MG), autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA), or cold agglutinin disease (CAD), classical pathway activation is strongly involved2. In IgA nephropathy, the autoimmune trigger is mediated by aberrant glycans via the lectin pathway. During certain age-related diseases, accumulating debris may also trigger any of the initiation pathways1. Finally, in conditions related to systemic inflammatory response syndrome, an excessive complement response to the right target, i.e. microbes (sepsis) or injured cells (trauma) can start a vicious hyperinflammatory cycle1.
Dysregulation and insufficient control
On healthy host cells, a panel of soluble or membrane-bound regulators of complement activation (RCA) keeps background and bystander activation in check6. However, any imbalance caused by missing or insufficiently active regulators may favour the development of complement-mediated diseases. The eyes and kidneys appear to be particularly affected by such dysregulation, even if systemic1. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a typical example, in which the insufficient regulation of complement activity was found to be a major risk factor for the loss of retinal cells11. Poorly controlled fluid-phase activation of complement can lead to dense opsonin deposits in the kidney, manifesting in C3 glomerulopathy (C3G)2. Another complement-mediated kidney disease, atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), is also caused by complement dysregulation but typically involves membrane-bound or membrane-directed regulators12. In most of these cases, more than one factor determines the susceptibility and onset of a disorder; this includes combinations of polymorphisms (termed ‘complotype’), deletions or deficiencies, or autoantibodies against complement regulators1.
Dam aging effector functions and exacerbation
Regardless of which specific initiation pathway gets triggered, amplification of the response via the alternative pathway and the associated generation of effector molecules by the terminal and breakdown pathways are typically the routes that cause most damage and may exacerbate the disorder1. Perhaps the most profound example is sepsis, in which the release of the C5a anaphylatoxin is known as one of the major factors fuelling hyperinflammatory states that can lead to multi-organ failure and death1. The membrane-attack complex (MAC) is the main contributor to haemolytic disorders such as PNH, AIHA or CAD. Both C5a and MAC appear to be largely responsible for clinical manifestations of autoimmune diseases such as anti-neutrophil circulating antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) or some forms of generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optica3. In aHUS, the generation of C5-derived effectors is thought not only to cause tissue damage but also to contribute to thrombotic microangiopathies (TMA) in conjunction with platelet activation and haemolysis, which can serve as a second hit for the disorder2. Complement-related TMA is also observed in other disorders, e.g. as complication during haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
Alexion
Alexion is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare diseases through the discovery, development and commercialization of life-changing medicines. Our innovation begins with understanding people living with rare diseases, which fuels all of our efforts, beginning with our own medicine discovery efforts, as well as collaboration with external partners. This allows us to innovate and evolve into new areas, where there is great unmet need and opportunity to help patients and families fully live their best lives. For more information about Alexion, please visit www.Alexion.com.
Roche
Roche is a global pioneer in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics focused on advancing science to improve people’s lives. For more than 20 years, Roche has been pioneering haematology science and has achieved approvals for multiple medicines spanning both malignant haematology and rare blood disorders. Roche is currently investigating complement inhibition in paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria.
Founded in 1896, Roche continues to search for better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat diseases and make a sustainable contribution to society. For more information, please visit www.roche.com.
Novartis
Novartis is reimagining medicine to improve and extend people’s lives. A s a leading global medicines company, it uses innovative science and digital technologies to create transformative treatments in areas of great medical need. In its quest to find new medicines, it consistently ranks among the world’s top companies investing in research and development. Novartis products reach more than 750 million people globally and the company is finding innovative ways to expand access to its latest treatments. About 105,000 people of more than 140 nationalities work at Novartis around the world. Find out more at www.novartis.com.
Drug (Company) | Target | Indication | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Targeting pathway initiation | |||
C1-Inhibitor: Cinryze (Shire), Berinert (CSL), Cetor (Sanquin), Ruconest (Pharming)b | C1r, C1s, MASPs, other proteases |
|
|
Sutimlimab (Sanofi) | C1s |
|
|
Narsoplimab (Omeros) | MASP-2 |
|
|
Targeting the alternative pathway and amplification loop | |||
APL-2/pegcetacoplan (Apellis) | C3 |
|
|
AMY-101 (Amyndas) | C3 |
|
|
Mirococept | Convertase | Kidney transplantation | Phase II |
LNP023 (Novartis) | FB |
|
|
IONIS-FB-LRx (lonis/Roche) | FB | AMD (GA) | Phase II |
Danicopan (Achillion) | FD |
|
|
CLG561 (Alcon) | FP | AMD (GA) | Phase II |
Targeting the terminal pathway effectors | |||
Soliris, Eculizumab (Alexion)c | C5 |
|
|
Ultomiris, Ravulizumab (Alexion) | C5 |
|
|
ABP 959 (Amgen) | C5 | PNH | Phase III |
Nomacopan (Akari) | C5 |
|
|
Pozelimab (Regeneron) | C5 | PNH | Phase I |
Crovalimab (Roche) | C5 | PNH | Phase I |
Tesidolumab (Novartis) | C5 | PNH | Phase II |
Zilucoplan (Ra) | C5 |
|
|
Cemdisiran (Alnylam) | C5 | IgA nephropathy | Phase II |
Zimura (lveric) | C5 | AMD (GA), Stargardt | Phase II |
IFX-1 (lnflaRx) | C5a | HS, AAV | Phase II |
Avacopan (ChemoCentryx) | C5aR1 |
|
|
HMR59 (Hemera) | MAC | AMD (GA, CNV) | Phase I |
For a comprehensive overview of drug candidates and clinical trials, the authors refer to Refs. 2 and 3.
For each company, the approved drugs or the candidate in furthest clinical development is shown.
Distinct C1-INH preparations are involved in the listed clinical trials.
Alongside the improved indications, eculizumab is also clinically evaluated in a series of other indications.
Abbreviations
- AAV
anti-neutrophil antibody-associated vasculitis
- aHUS
atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome
- AIHA
autoimmune haemolytic anaemia
- AKC
atopic keratoconjunctivitis
- AMD
age-related macular degeneration
- AP
alternative pathway
- BP
bullous pemphigoid
- Cl-INH
C1 esterase inhibitor
- C3aR
C3a receptor
- C3G
C3 glomerulopathy
- C5aR
C5a receptor
- CAD
cold agglutinin disease
- CL
collectin
- CNV
choroidal neovascularization
- CP
classical pathway
- CR
complement receptor
- DAMP
damage-associated molecular pattern
- FB
factor B
- Fen
ficolin
- FD
factor D
- FI
factor I
- FP
properdin
- CA
geographic atrophy
- HLA
human leukocyte antigen
- HS
hidradenitis suppurtiva
- HSCT
haematopoietic stem cell transplantation
- IMNM
immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy
- IRI
ischaemia-reperfusion injury
- LP
lectin pathway
- MAC
membrane attack complex
- MASPs
MBL-associated serine proteases
- MBL
mannose-binding lectin
- MG
myasthenia gravis
- NOS
nitric oxide synthase
- PAMP
pathogen-associated molecular pattern
- PNH
paroxysm al nocturnal haemoglobinuria
- RCA
regulators of complement activation
- RNAi
RNA interference
- ROS
reactive oxygen species
- TMA
thrombotic microangiopathy
Footnotes
Competing interests statement
J.D.L. is the founder of Amyndas Pharmaceuticals, which is developing complement inhibitors for therapeutic purposes. J.D.L. and D.R. are inventors of patents or patent applications that describe the use of complement inhibitors for therapeutic purposes, some of which are developed by Amyndas Pharmaceuticals. J.D.L. is also the inventor of the compstatin technology licensed to Apellis Pharmaceuticals (that is, 4 (1MeW)7W/POT-4/APL-l and PEGylated derivatives such as APL-2/pegcetacoplan). D.C.M. declares no competing interests. The authors state that they are not affiliated with the companies sponsoring this poster and that this sponsorship does not imply that they are endorsing their clinical programs, objectives or corporate practices.
The poster content is peer reviewed, editorially independent and the sole responsibility of Springer Nature Limited. Edited by Sarah Crunkhorn; copyedited by Carrie Hardy; designed by Daniel Ricklin, Dimitris C. Mastellos and John D. Lambris.
Contributor Information
Daniel Ricklin, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences of the University of Basel, Switzerland;.
Dimitrios C. Mastellos, National Center for Scientific Research ‘Demokritos’ in Athens, Greece;.
John D. Lambris, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, USA..
References
- 1.Ricklin D, Reis ES & Lambris JD Nat. Rev. Nephrol 12, 383–401 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mastellos DC, Ricklin D & Lambris JD Nat. Rev. Drug Discov 18, 707–729 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ricklin D, Mastellos DC, Reis ES & Lambris JD Nat. Rev. Nephrol 14, 26–47 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Reis ES et al. Nat. Rev. Immunol 18, 5–18 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brennan FH, Lee JD, Ruitenberg MJ & Woodruff TM Semin. Immunol 28, 292–308 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ricklin D, Hajishengallis G, Yang K & Lambris JD Nat. Immunol 11, 785–797 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schroder-Braunstein J & Kirschfink M Mol. Immunol 114, 299–311 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Harboe M & Mollnes TE J. Cell. Mol. Med 12, 1074–1084 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Thurman JM & Yapa R Front. Immunol 10, 672 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Schmidt CQ, Lambris JD & Ricklin D Immunol. Rev 274, 152–171 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Park DH, Connor KM, & Lambris JD Front. Immunol 10, 1007 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Noris M & Remuzzi G Am. J. Kidney Dis 66, 359–375 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]