Nirsevimab has a strong neutralizing capacity (superior to that of palivizumab) and a high affinity for FcRn, which prolongs its half-life. Following the failure of inactivated RSV vaccines due to ADE caused by anti-RSV F-protein antibodies, the EMA’s risk management plan for nirsevimab mentions the theoretical possibility of nirsevimab binding to FcγRs (to which FcRn belongs) through increased efficacy [
9]. No ADE has been observed in humans for palivizumab, which has been in use for 20 years; this mAb recognizes F protein in both postfusion and prefusion conformations, whereas nirsevimab is an IgG1 that targets F protein in prefusion conformation only. It also differs in the domain it targets: the conserved Ø epitope of the F protein. It has a much higher affinity for the F protein than palivizumab, and an increased half-life thanks to YTE mutations that enhance FcRn binding [
10]. YTE mutations increase mAb affinity for FcRn at acidic pH [
4] and it has been shown that mAbs with YTE mutations, such as nirsevimab, bind human FcRn with very low affinity at neutral pH [
15]. This pH-dependent affinity has not been shown specifically for nirsevimab, but simply extrapolated from equivalent mAbs (mAb monoclonal antibody) with YTE mutations. All these modifications compared with palivizumab theoretically open up the possibility of an ADE via binding to FcRn or other FcγRs. FcRn allows the passage of free (non-antigen-bound) IgG across mucosal barriers in both apical to basal and reverse directions [
21], particularly in the lungs [
13,
15,
22]. FcRn is also able to bring IgG-antigen complexes into cells such as macrophages [
24] and APCs [
14,
19]. FcRn promotes the entry of free viruses into cells [
20,
27,
28] and also the entry of virion-IgG complexes [
30,
31,
32] with strongly neutralizing antibodies [
31]. FcRn is expressed in endothelial cells and epithelium of many tissues, as well as in hematopoietic cells [
17]. FcRn is expressed by macrophages [
24], including those in the lungs [
13]. FcRn binds to IgG on the surface of mucous membranes when these are acidic [
34]; this is the case of intestinal mucous membranes, of course, but the pH of neonatal pulmonary mucosa is variable and can be acidic in some individuals [
35,
36,
37,
38]. To date little is known about the role of FcRn in a potential IgG active transport mechanism from the general circulation to the lungs [
15]. These properties of FcRn and its localization make it capable of facilitating the entry of an IgG antibody-linked virus into the monocytic lineage and lung epithelial cells (extrinsic ADE). In many viral infections, ADE following binding between FcγRs and the virus-antibody complex occurs at sub-neutralizing antibody concentrations. Extrinsic ADE promotes infection of myeloid cells: as early as 1984, Halstead [
55] proposed that monocytes were involved in ADE during dengue fever. This has been confirmed for other viruses [
56], particularly RSV [
39,
52,
53,
54,
57,
58,
59,
60,
61]. Internalization of virus-antibody complexes can also modulate the expression of the innate cytokine response to the virus (this is intrinsic ADE, dependent on the ratio of activating FcγRs to inhibitors of cytokine production) [
43]. The binding of mAbs to complement components and FcγRs can induce ADE, but the therapeutic activity of mAbs also depends on their effector functions (binding to FcγRs) and complement activation [
51], but this activation can also induce intrinsic ADE [
18,
43]. FcγRI binds preferentially to IgG1 with high avidity and is present exclusively on the monocytic lineage; nirsevimab is an IgG1. The other two receptors, FcγRII and FcγRIII, are found on monocytes, macrophages, eosinophils, neutrophils, NK cells, B lymphocytes and T lymphocytes. Both receptors have relatively low specificity and relatively low avidity for IgG compared with FcγRI [
45]. All these mechanisms have been proposed to explain ADE during RSV infection [
39,
52,
53,
54,
57,
58,
59,
60,
61] and this ADE has been shown in vitro on a monocyte line in the presence of anti-F antibodies [
39,
58,
66]. ADE has been shown ex vivo with sera from children naturally immunized against RSV when low levels of neutralizing antibodies are present; these sera nevertheless displayed strong anti-F activity [
60]. Binding to the FcRn of a mAb injected in large quantities could also disrupt the overall response to infections through an immunosuppressive effect [
34], thrombotic [
41] and autoimmune phenomena [
42], and lead to non-specific worsening of infections. In an inflammatory context (e.g. infection by a respiratory virus), in the presence of high quantities of nirsevimab (IgG1 with high affinity for FcRn), FcRn saturation could lead to a high concentration of low-affinity IgG in the lung lumen, a process that could damage the lungs [
40]. mAbs with high anti-viral activity could contribute to inflammation in the advanced stages of the disease, which is probably why they are not used therapeutically [
39].
7.2.1. Gaps Remain in the Study of the Effector Functions of Nirsevimab In Vitro
The conclusions of the EMA-EPAR [
74] are contradictory when it comes to studying the effector functions of nirsevimab. For the EMA, nirsevimab should exhibit normal Fc-mediated effector functions (complement activation, mediation of phagocytosis, antibody-mediated destruction of virus-infected cells, etc.). Nirsevimab does not prevent virions from attaching to cells. The EMA considers that effector functions are not part of nirsevimab’s mechanism of action (page 18 of EPAR), yet writes that the contribution of Fc-mediated effector functions to protection against RSV disease cannot be excluded (in the rapporteur’s opinion, preclinical data from the cotton rat model seem ambiguous in this respect, [
74, page 15]). Mechanisms other than virus neutralization would be necessary for the therapeutic effect, such as viral clearance and killing of infected cells [
4]. In rats, these effector functions are not necessary for protection against RSV infection, but higher concentrations of nirsevimab are required in humans for optimal protection [
82]. The EMA reiterates the importance of studying them for their involvement in a possible ADE [
74, p 29]. However, the EMA does not report any study of ADCC or the role of NK cells, which are nevertheless suspected of playing a primordial role in the balance between protection and pathology following the use of passive immunization [
39]. Other study [
15] not cited in EPAR-EMA concern FcγR binding with mAbs close to but different from nirsevimab (including motavizumab) and confirm that YTE mutations that increase FcRn binding do not affect the virus’ neutralizing power. However, the clinical trials carried out with this motavizumab have not been published; we don’t know why: were the adverse effects significant? Was the efficacy too low? It is therefore difficult to extrapolate these results to nirsevimab. Dall’Acqua [
15] has also shown with a mAb other than nirsevimab that YTE mutations reduce FcγRIIIA binding by a factor of 2, as well as its ADCC activity by a factor of 100. Can we extrapolate this reduction in ADCC to nirsevimab, and what influence will it have on the therapeutic effect? Indeed, the role of FcγRIIIa would be double-edged: it may be pro-inflammatory and contribute to RSV disease, or it may be anti-inflammatory [
46,
47].
It would therefore have been necessary to study the binding of nirsevimab itself to FcγRIIIA. The assay was performed on the F158 allotype of FcγRIIIA, which is the most common: individuals with the other V158 allotype might react differently to nirsevimab. The presence of Valine increases IgG1 affinity for FcγRIII [
138] and there are discrepancies between in vitro (IgG affinity) and in vivo (viral clearance) functional activity according to FcγRIIIa polymorphisms (V/F158). In vivo, however, this difference in affinity would not lead to differences in ADCC activity, but other FcγR receptors could modulate this ADCC capacity of NK cells [
131]. In 2023, i.e. after the clinical trials and approval of nirsevimab, Brady [
82] published a study of effector functions with this molecule, confirming previous results (on the increased half-life and reduced ADCC in vitro). The in vitro results show that nirsevimab binds to activating and inhibitory FcγRs (the result of these activating and inhibitory functions could vary according to the level of mAb present in the serum); Brady points out that Fc effector functions are linked to the exacerbation of symptoms due to RSV. The ex vivo study (using sera from immunized children) is carried out at a single point in time, without taking into account any variations in concentration over time (maximum levels are known to be reached in infants within 8 days); pooling sera for analysis is likely to mask disparities due to different levels of nirsevimab; effector functions cannot be predicted beyond 150 days post-injection. Nirsevimab promotes beneficial ADNP, but neutrophilic inflammation with infiltration is associated with severe RSV disease. Phagocytosis by macrophages, which can be double-edged, is favored only at certain dilutions. Nirsevimab activates less ADCC in vitro than palivizumab, and in vivo the ADCC of nirsevimab is identical to that of placebo. Complement deposition is strongly increased by nirsevimab at certain dilutions, further underlining the importance of detailed pharmacokinetic studies. Furthermore, no trials have been carried out in the presence of immune complexes of nirsevimab bound to F protein or virus: all trials are performed in the absence of antigen; antigen binding could modify Fc effector functions [
18]. CDC is not studied, which is unfortunate as Brady reminds us that complement can have a protective or pathogenic role in viral infections [
82]. Lee [
51] proposes methods for studying the effector functions of mAbs by complement activation. In a mouse model, certain complement components are required for the development of VAERD and this would be the case for infections aggravated by inactivated RSV vaccine in children. The authors point out that ADCC by NKs could be involved in exaggerating the immune response to influenza virus. The level of ADCC activity in vitro does not correlate with clinical symptoms in primary RSV infection, and the role of ADCC in the protection or pathogenesis of RSV infection remains to be determined (also confirmed by [
39]). Brady stresses the importance of phagocytosis by macrophages, which requires further research [
82]. Experimental methods have been proposed in the past, but seem to have been overlooked: as early as 1989, Gimenez describes an assay for evaluating ADE, which quantifies it by assessing the amount of virus released by U937 cells (a macrophagic line) [
58]. Gimenez [
58] and Bournazos [
46] also recall the gap between in vitro ADE assays and experimental in vivo systems. Glycosylation of nirsevimab is not described, although it may play a role in mAb binding to FcRγ and C1q [
131,
132]. In particular, non-fucosylated IgGs bind more strongly to human FcγRIIIA and ADCC assays may show enhanced cytotoxicity [
19]. Glycosylation of the Fc region affects mAb stability, and plays a role in CDC and ADCC functions by modulating binding to the Fcγ receptor [
133]. The role of glycosylation on FcγR and C1q binding and the consequences thereof have not been studied in detail. Sialylation would not affect FcγRIIIa binding, but afucosylated IgG would have no ADCC activity. Galactosylation of IgG1 positively influences C1q binding and CDC, and sialylation increases C1q binding of galactosylated IgG [
131]. Most mAbs have a glycosylation site in the Fc region. The type of glycosylation (mannose, sialic acid, N-acetylneuraminic acid,) can influence pharmacokinetics and in particular binding to FcγIIIa; mAbs produced from Chinese hamster CHO cell can produce afucosylated mAbs with reduced ADCC activity [
134]. According to EPAR [
74], nirsevimab is produced on CHO and has a glycosylation site in the Fc domain (Asn-306); this glycosylation is of the complex type (EPAR specifies that it has been characterized without further precision). Other specific studies should have been carried out in the presence of other antibodies, neutralization and ADE activities are modified when two mAbs are mixed, and a synergistic ADE effect may occur in the presence of different antibodies) [
66]. It is important to study the binding of mAb to FcRn when it is bound to antigen, as this binding is capable of causing structural changes in the region of IgG that binds to FcRn and its interaction with complement [
17,
135]. The binding of nirsevimab to FcRn should therefore have been studied in the presence of RSV virus or F protein.
Binding to FcγRs depends on the conformational state of IgG (open or closed) [
5]: a possible conformational change in nirsevimab when bound to F antigen or virus could alter its binding to FcγRIII and consequently its effector functions and hence its therapeutic effect. mAb D25 is a precursor of nirsevimab (like nirsevimab, it is directed against the Ø epitope of F, unlike palivizumab, which is directed against another epitope). In 2016 Van Mechelen [
69] showed in vitro that D25 induced a stronger ADE effect than palivizumab when binding to the FcγR of cells: the ADE effect outweighed the neutralizing power. Van Mechelen’s experiments should have been reproduced with nirsevimab: is nirsevimab capable of inducing an ADE at low concentrations, unlike palivizumab under the conditions of these experiments?
Many unknowns therefore remain, and it’s a pity that some of the preclinical in vitro experiments were carried out only after the clinical trials, and were incomplete.
7.2.2. Animal Studies In Vivo
Assessment of ADE in preclinical trials has been incomplete, using animals that do not allow it to be characterized, with mAbs other than nirsevimab (although close to it) and with doses higher than those used in humans. According to the EMA, no ADE was observed in preclinical trials. However, no histopathological evaluation was carried out in rats in the trials (in particular to look for alveolitis and neutrophilic infiltration, which are the signs of ADE in this animal model). The EMA stresses that as the rats were mature, the translability of the finding to highly immature infants is unknown [
74]. The choice of animals to test for ADE is also problematic. The animals usually used to study hRSV (non-human primates, cotton rats, mice and lambs) are semi-permissive to virus replication and experimental infection. Only chimpanzees are completely permissive to hRSV [
136]. Cynomolgus macaques do not usually produce signs of disease unless infected with a high titer inoculum. In the VAERD study in cynomolgus monkeys immunized with inactivated RSV virus, pulmonary pathology was not associated with increased viral replication, suggesting that the pathology was due to non-viral antigens. In cotton rats, too, the severity of alveolitis, used as a primary marker of VAERD with inactivated vaccine, depends on the response to non-viral antigens.
Furthermore, in rat trials, it is necessary to use a mAb without YTE mutations, as these increase the affinity of FcRn in rats at neutral pH and suppress the protective effect of FcRn binding [
80,
82]. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate the results in these models to assess the absence of VAERD in humans. Zhu [
4] studied pulmonary viral loads in cotton rats with an antibody almost identical to nirsevimab (lacking the YTE mutations). After viral challenge the day after IM injection, the rats were sacrificed 4 days after challenge. Viral titres in the lungs and nose were greatly reduced after treatment compared with controls who had not received antibodies, and the reduction was dose-dependent, confirming the efficacy of nirsevimab and ruling out ADE a priori. However, we do not know what effect the increased affinity of YTE mutations has on these viral loads. The effect of nirsevimab is being studied in cynomolgus monkeys, which are receiving much higher doses than in clinical trials (300mg/kg IM and IV). The monkeys are not challenged with the virus, so the possible VAERD effect is not studied. A study of VAERD in cotton rats with the nirsevimab substitute lacking YTE mutations is published in 2023 [
82]. Viral titer in lung and nasal fluid, measured 4 days after viral challenge, was reduced with the nirsevimab surrogate compared with untreated controls, confirming the efficacy of the product. The authors note that the reduction in viral loads does not depend on Fc effector functions. However, in humans, Fc effector functions are linked to exacerbation of RSV symptoms [
5,
52,
138]. It is difficult to extrapolate these data to humans.
7.2.3. The Pharmacokinetic Study is Incomplete and Shows Periods when Nirsevimab Levels may be Sub-Neutralizing in Some Individuals
The EMA report [
74] points out that in ADE trials, rats treated with nirsevimab are exposed to RSV at the time of peak antibody concentration. Indeed, it has been known since 1984 that ADE can occur with a strongly neutralizing antibody if it is present in low concentration in dengue virus infections [
55]. Aggravated infections have been reported after immunization with a vaccine containing RSV F protein, when antibody levels were low [
82]. For RSV disease, the severity of illness may depend on maternal antibody levels: the variation in levels during the first months of life could explain the contradictory results [
57,
69,
71,
72] concerning the protection conferred by these antibodies (as shown for dengue): ADE may be mediated by antibodies within a narrow range of sub-neutralizing antibody levels [
18,
74]. A rigorous pharmacokinetic study is therefore necessary. In animals, pharmacokinetic studies have been carried out with different antibodies to nirsevimab, using IV doses far higher than those used in humans, with only 2 points of measurement [
15], and therefore do not allow extrapolation to humans. The monkey study [
4] shows great individual variability, with a nasal fluid level of only 1/10,000 of the serum concentration. The EMA [
74] also points to the risk of circulation of a mutant strain of RSV requiring higher serum levels to prevent viral replication. Sub-optimal concentrations of neutralizing antibodies could therefore cause ADE in the lungs, even in the presence of neutralizing serum levels. In adult humans, the maximum concentration of nirsevimab is reached in 3 days, whereas peak neutralizing activity is reached 6 days after IM [
73]: sub-neutralizing antibody concentrations could therefore be circulating in the first few days after injection. The pharmacokinetic study in children [
78] shows that the maximum level of nirsevimab is reached after 8 days in 95% of subjects. However, 5% of subjects do not reach this level after 8 days, and in 10% of children the level of 4 times the baseline is not maintained at 151 days post-injection. It is therefore possible that low levels of neutralizing antibodies circulate within the first 8 days post-injection (and even for a longer period) in rare subjects. Pharmacokinetic studies have not been carried out in healthy neonates a few days old, who represent the target population for the 2023-2024 campaign. According to the EMA [
74], a small proportion of subjects in clinical studies do not reach the concentration required for clinical efficacy. This was confirmed by Hammit [
77] in infants a few months old. The pharmacokinetics at birth may differ from those observed in infants a few months old, but the recommendations concern newborns in the first few days of life (on leaving the maternity ward in France [
100], on the first day of life in Galicia [
114] and in the first 7 days of life in Navarre, Spain [
116] and in the USA from birth [
137]. As the maximum concentration is reached in infants within a few days, it is possible that in some infants, the protective concentration is not reached as quickly, and that sub-neutralizing doses of antibodies circulate in the blood (or lungs) for some time, thus favoring ADE in epidemic periods in the event of an encounter with the virus. Similarly, neutralizing serum levels may not be maintained in all infants during the epidemic season, due to the waning immunity conferred by nirsevimab. Pharmacokinetic studies should be performed in the presence and absence of viral infection to determine the effect of infection on antibody persistence: The half-life in uninfected and infected animals may differ [
18]. No studies of ADE by immune system disruption have been carried out in preclinical trials, and respiratory infections not caused by RSV or not corresponding to the protocol have been neglected in clinical trials [
76,
90,
92]. We found in the results of the immunization campaign that all-cause hospitalizations were not reduced compared with previous seasons.