A very recent manuscript discusses the pros and cons of the ECT technique.
29 This manuscript summarizes that “the pinnacle goal of ECT is to provide sustained delivery of fresh therapeutics secreted by the encapsulated cells at the target sites without causing any immune reactions.” We have achieved both of these goals. First, we have confirmed that healthy cells can be recovered from the capsules upon dissolution of the alginate wall, and dot blot analysis of ocular tissues confirmed that CR2-fH is secreted 1 to 2 months post capsule formation and injection. Second, by testing for CR2-fH antibodies (IgG and IgM), we have confirmed that the mouse does not generate antibodies against the active compound (mouse fusion protein) secreted from the ARPE-19 cells. We did not test for antibody formation against ARPE-19 cell epitopes, since in human patients, a number of clinical trials have shown that devices loaded with ARPE-19 cells did not require immunosuppressants.
42–44 As indicated in the introduction, Neurotech has tested ECT devices in the eye using ARPE-19 cells. NT-501 was designed to deliver CNTF and NT-503 a soluble anti-VEGF-R protein. NT-501 had good safety outcomes, but did fail to reach primary clinical endpoints in GA
42 and RP
44 in protecting photoreceptors. This lack of efficacy may be due to the fact that photoreceptor degeneration in mouse or dog versus man has different underlying disease mechanisms and hence the wrong type of therapeutic might have been chosen. Additional trials in glaucoma and Macular Telangiectasia type 2 are currently under way. The phase II trial for NT-503, on the other hand, has been abandoned due to “a larger than anticipated number of patients requiring rescue medication in the treatment arm” (
www.neurotechusa.com, 2016). It has been postulated that the ECT-device did not produce high enough concentrations of anti-VEGF to counteract the amount of VEGF produced under CNV conditions, although their studies in rabbit predicted efficacious VEGF inhibition based on NT-503 over the course of 2 years (Landeros C, et al.
IOVS. 2016;57:ARVO Abstract 4009). However, importantly, and critical for both Neurotech therapeutic targets as well as our approach, ARPE-19 cells consistently secrete proteins other than the therapeutic proteins, which could potentially interfere with the efficacy of the therapeutic, or worse, augment disease. An and coworkers have determined the secretome of APRE-19 cells under resting conditions and have identified ∼200 proteins (146 highly abundant and 43 low abundant proteins),
45 many of which are known to play a role in angiogenesis or the immune response. It is important to note that the composition of the secretome and actual quantities of the specific proteins may differ significantly under ECT conditions and/or in the eyes of a specific disease recipient. We did not attempt to determine the protein profile of the secretome of the ARPE-19 cells under encapsulation conditions, but it seems clear from our own data that ARPE-19 cells present in the mouse eye do not interfere with CNV lesion growth. Rather the injection into the mouse eye alone appears to affect the size of the CNV lesion (a typical CNV lesion in 3-month-old animals using OCT measurements is ∼12,000 μm
2 in size). Nevertheless, against the increased floor of CNV lesions, a protective effect could still be determined when comparing the active compound (CR2-fH) against the inactive compound (CR2), the native cells or the empty capsules (
Fig. 4B). Furthermore, based on the complement C3a measurements, the presence of ARPE-19 cells did not affect complement activation, since there was no difference in C3a levels between CNV animals treated with alginate capsules, capsules loaded with native ARPE-19 cells, or ARPE-19 cells expressing CR2 (
Fig. 4C). In preliminary experiments to determine the optimal concentration of capsules, we observed that a 3-fold higher load of capsules (∼30) completely reduced complement activation in CR2-fH-treated eyes to baseline (no CNV control versus CNV+CR2-fH capsules:
P = 0.14); however, the capsule load interfered negatively with CNV development and masked the protective effect (CR2 versus CR2-fH:
P = 0.40). Finally, it is important to note that the therapeutic dose of CR2-fH delivered via ECT reduced complement activation, but did not reduce complement below baseline levels (i.e., below levels present in animals without CNV). These levels will allow for normal homeostatic functions of the complement system as well as low level surveillance of the immune system.
46