Preclinical characterization of IBD0333 shows enhanced anti-tumor effects in cancer models, indicating its potential for immunotherapy.
Background The immunosuppressive nature of tumor microenvironment (TME) limits the efficacy of current immunotherapies. Bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) offer a promising strategy to overcome this challenge by enabling localized immune activation. Specifically, simultaneously targeting the "don't eat me" signal CD24 on tumor cells and the co-stimulatory receptor 4-1BB on immune cells may provide potent anti-tumor effects while mitigating the systemic toxicity typically associated with conventional 4-1BB agonists. Here, we present the preclinical evaluation of IBD0333, a novel bsAb targeting CD24 and 4-1BB. Methods The binding affinity of IBD0333 to CD24 and 4-1BB was evaluated, and its pharmacodynamic effects were assessed through multiple in vitro assays. Anti-tumor efficacy of IBD0333 was evaluated using C57BL/6J-h4-1BB humanized mouse models in vivo, while pharmacokinetic and safety profiles were further investigated in cynomolgus monkeys. Results IBD0333 exhibited high-binding affinity to both human and cynomolgus monkey CD24 and 4-1BB proteins. Its agonistic activity toward 4-1BB was strictly dependent on CD24, as evidenced by potent NF-κB activation and cytokine induction only in the presence of CD24-positive tumor cells. IBD0333 also demonstrated appropriate FcγR binding and no-detectable ADCC/CDC activity. In a syngeneic tumor model, complete tumor regression was achieved at doses of 1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg. Furthermore, IBD0333 was well tolerated in cynomolgus monkeys with no observed immunotoxicity or hepatotoxicity, and the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) following repeated administration was established as 120 mg/kg. Conclusion IBD0333 is a tumor-conditionally activated anti-CD24×4-1BB bsAb that demonstrates potent antitumor efficacy along with a favorable safety and pharmacokinetic profile. These findings support its further clinical development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: