Epratuzumab (DB04958): A Comprehensive Monograph on a Novel Immunomodulator

Executive Summary

Overview

Epratuzumab is an investigational, humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the CD22 glycoprotein, a key regulatory molecule expressed on the surface of B-lymphocytes. Developed under the planned trade name LymphoCide, it was positioned as a pioneering immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action distinct from existing B-cell-targeted therapies.[1] Its development program spanned two major therapeutic areas: autoimmune diseases, with a primary focus on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and oncology, for the treatment of various B-cell malignancies.[1]

Mechanism of Action

The therapeutic rationale for Epratuzumab was predicated on its unique ability to modulate B-cell function without inducing widespread cell death, a hallmark of cytotoxic agents like the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab.[4] Epratuzumab binds to CD22, an inhibitory co-receptor of the B-cell receptor (BCR) complex. This engagement was proposed to intensify the natural inhibitory signaling cascade of the BCR, thereby blunting the activation and proliferation of B-cells in response to autoantigens.[5] The functional consequences included diminished B-cell proliferation and a reduction in the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF).[5] This subtle, non-depleting approach was hypothesized to offer a more favorable safety profile while still effectively controlling the pathogenic B-cell activity central to autoimmune diseases like SLE.[1]

Clinical Trajectory

The clinical development of Epratuzumab was a story of significant promise followed by profound disappointment. In the treatment of SLE, the drug demonstrated encouraging signals of efficacy in a pivotal Phase IIb dose-ranging study known as EMBLEM.[8] The positive results from this trial, announced in 2009, prompted a major development and licensing agreement and led to the initiation of two large-scale, global pivotal Phase III trials: EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2.[1] However, in a major setback for the lupus community, it was announced in July 2015 that both Phase III trials had failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints, showing no statistically significant benefit over placebo when added to standard of care.[1] In the oncology setting, Phase I/II studies showed that Epratuzumab as a single agent had modest but discernible antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with indolent and aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).[14]

Safety and Regulatory Status

Throughout its extensive clinical program, which involved thousands of patients, Epratuzumab was consistently found to be well-tolerated. The large EMBODY 1 and 2 trials confirmed its favorable safety profile, with no new or unexpected safety signals identified.[11] The most common adverse events were generally mild to moderate infections, headache, and nausea, with an incidence rate comparable to that of the placebo group.[13] Despite its good safety record, the lack of demonstrated efficacy in pivotal trials has left Epratuzumab with an investigational legal status; it has not been approved for any indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or any other major regulatory body.[1] An Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of NHL, granted by the FDA in 1998, was subsequently withdrawn in 2019.[19] The failure of the EMBODY trials ultimately led to the termination of the key commercial partnership between the originator, Immunomedics, and the developer, UCB.[20]

Conclusion

The development history of Epratuzumab serves as a critical and cautionary case study in the complexities of therapeutic development for autoimmune diseases and oncology. It exemplifies the significant challenge of translating a compelling biological mechanism and promising mid-stage clinical data into statistically robust evidence of efficacy in large, heterogeneous patient populations. The failure of Epratuzumab highlights the high bar for demonstrating clinical benefit in SLE, a disease characterized by a high placebo response rate and diverse pathophysiology. While the drug itself is unlikely to see further development, the extensive data generated from its clinical program have provided invaluable lessons regarding B-cell biology, SLE trial design, and the validation of novel immunomodulatory pathways.

Molecular Profile and Immunomodulatory Mechanism of Action

Drug Identification and Classification

Epratuzumab is a biologic therapeutic agent with a well-defined molecular identity.

• Generic Name: Epratuzumab [1]
• Planned Trade Name: LymphoCide [1]
• Key Identifiers:
• DrugBank Accession Number: DB04958 [1]
• CAS Number: 205923-57-5 [1]
• UNII: 3062P60MH9 [1]
• Drug Type: Epratuzumab is classified as a biotech therapeutic, specifically a whole humanized monoclonal antibody.[1] It was derived from the murine monoclonal antibody LL2 (also known as EPB-2) through recombinant DNA technology.[3] The humanization process involves grafting the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) from the murine antibody onto a human antibody framework, a technique designed to reduce the immunogenicity of the therapeutic protein in human subjects.[22]
• Isotype: There is a notable and mechanistically significant discrepancy across technical datasheets regarding the immunoglobulin G (IgG) isotype of Epratuzumab. Several sources classify it as a human IgG1 antibody [23], while others specify it as a human IgG4SP isotype.[21] This distinction is critical to understanding its intended mechanism. Human IgG1 antibodies possess a fully functional Fc region that strongly engages Fc receptors on immune effector cells and activates the classical complement pathway, leading to potent effector functions such as antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC).[4] In contrast, human IgG4 is considered largely inert in terms of effector function, mediating very weak ADCC and no CDC. The "SP" designation in IgG4SP likely refers to a stabilizing point mutation (S228P) in the hinge region that prevents a phenomenon known as Fab-arm exchange, thereby ensuring the antibody remains a stable, bivalent molecule. The deliberate choice of an IgG4 framework, or a modified IgG1 with attenuated effector function, would be fully consistent with the overarching therapeutic goal of modulating B-cell function without causing significant depletion. Indeed, functional studies confirm that Epratuzumab mediates only modest ADCC and no detectable CDC, supporting the conclusion that its design intentionally minimized cytotoxic potential.[4]
• Source and Physical Characteristics: Epratuzumab is produced using a mammalian cell expression system, specifically Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells.[21] It has a molecular weight of approximately 155.4 kilodaltons (kD).[21]

Target: The CD22 Sialoglycoprotein

The molecular target of Epratuzumab is the B-cell receptor CD22, also known as Sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin 2 (Siglec-2).[1] CD22 is a 135 kD type I transmembrane sialoglycoprotein that is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily.[3] Its expression is highly restricted to the B-lymphocyte lineage, appearing on the surface of mature B-cells and persisting on many types of malignant B-cells, but it is absent from plasma cells and early B-cell precursors.[1]

Functionally, CD22 is a crucial inhibitory co-receptor for the B-cell receptor (BCR). Upon BCR engagement by an antigen, CD22 becomes phosphorylated on immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibition motifs (ITIMs) within its cytoplasmic tail. This leads to the recruitment of phosphatases, such as SHP-1, which dephosphorylate key activating molecules in the BCR signaling cascade, thereby dampening the signal and raising the threshold for B-cell activation.[6] This inhibitory role is central to maintaining B-cell tolerance and preventing autoimmunity. In diseases like SLE, where B-cell hyperactivity is a pathogenic hallmark, elevated expression of CD22 and other BCR-associated proteins is observed, making it an attractive therapeutic target.[1]

Epratuzumab binds with high specificity and high affinity to the third immunoglobulin-like domain of the extracellular portion of human CD22.[3] The dissociation constant (

) for this interaction has been measured at approximately 0.7 nM, indicating a strong and stable binding event.[24]

The Unique Immunomodulatory Mechanism

The defining feature of Epratuzumab is its proposed mechanism of action, which centers on immunomodulation rather than cytotoxicity. This approach was designed to differentiate it from other B-cell-targeting therapies, particularly the profoundly B-cell-depleting anti-CD20 antibody, rituximab.[4]

Non-Depleting B-Cell Modulation

The core therapeutic hypothesis was that a gentle, targeted modulation of B-cell signaling could be sufficient to control autoimmunity in SLE while avoiding the broad immunosuppression and associated risks of complete B-cell aplasia.[1] Clinical data consistently support this non-depleting profile. Treatment with Epratuzumab leads to only a modest and partial reduction in the number of circulating peripheral B-cells, an effect that typically emerges only after prolonged therapy over many months.[5] This contrasts sharply with the rapid and near-complete depletion of B-cells observed with rituximab. The molecular design of the antibody, likely as an IgG4 or an effector-silent IgG1, underpins this characteristic by minimizing ADCC and eliminating CDC activity.[4]

Perturbation of B-Cell Receptor Signaling

The primary mechanism of action involves the direct perturbation of the BCR signaling complex upon Epratuzumab binding to CD22.[5] By engaging CD22, the antibody is thought to intensify its natural inhibitory function, effectively raising the activation threshold of the B-cell and making it less responsive to stimulation by autoantigens.[5] This "blunting" of the B-cell response is achieved through a cascade of molecular events:

1. Phosphorylation: Binding of Epratuzumab to CD22 results in a modest but significant phosphorylation of the ITIMs in its cytoplasmic tail.[23] This initiates the inhibitory signaling cascade. Furthermore, studies have shown that Epratuzumab can also stimulate the phosphorylation of another key inhibitory receptor on B-cells, the low-affinity Fc receptor CD32B, which would synergize with CD22 to further attenuate BCR-induced signaling.[26]
2. Internalization: The Epratuzumab/CD22 complex is rapidly internalized from the B-cell surface upon antibody binding.[24] This leads to a profound and sustained downregulation of surface CD22 expression, effectively removing a key signaling component from the cell membrane.[30]
3. Trogocytosis: One particularly novel mechanism proposed for Epratuzumab is the induction of trogocytosis. This is a process where one cell "nibbles" membrane fragments from another. In this model, Epratuzumab facilitates the transfer of BCR-associated proteins—including CD22, CD19, and CD21—from the B-cell surface to effector cells like monocytes or macrophages.[1] This stripping of key signaling molecules from the B-cell surface would dramatically reduce its capacity to respond to antigens without requiring the cell to be killed.

The culmination of these molecular events leads to several key functional consequences for the B-cell. These include diminished proliferation in response to stimuli, altered expression of adhesion molecules which affects cell migration and trafficking, and a significant reduction in the production of pathogenic pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-6 and TNF.[5]

The therapeutic strategy of modulation versus depletion can be viewed as a double-edged sword. The core premise was that a safer, more nuanced approach to B-cell targeting would be advantageous. This elegant biological rationale was the foundation of the drug's development and the source of considerable excitement following positive Phase II results. However, the ultimate failure of the pivotal Phase III trials forces a critical re-evaluation of this hypothesis. The profound and multifaceted immune dysregulation in a heterogeneous disease like SLE may require a more forceful intervention than subtle modulation. While biologically sophisticated, the clinical effect size produced by Epratuzumab's mechanism may simply have been too small to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit over placebo plus optimized standard of care in a large, diverse patient population. The very subtlety that made the drug appealing from a safety standpoint may have been its undoing from an efficacy perspective.

Clinical Pharmacology: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Pharmacokinetics

The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of Epratuzumab has been characterized in multiple clinical trials, including dedicated studies in patients with SLE.

Absorption, Distribution, and Elimination

As a monoclonal antibody, Epratuzumab is administered via slow intravenous (IV) infusion, bypassing absorption barriers and resulting in 100% bioavailability.[28] Infusions were generally well-tolerated and typically completed within a 30- to 60-minute timeframe.[14]

Pharmacokinetic analyses from a Phase 1/2 study in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe SLE demonstrated that Epratuzumab exhibits linear pharmacokinetics.[28] Following both the first and final infusions, the key exposure parameters—maximum observed plasma concentration (

) and the area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval ()—increased in a manner directly proportional to the administered dose.[28]

The elimination half-life () was found to be consistent across different dose groups in the Japanese SLE study, estimated at approximately 13 days.[28] A separate Phase I/II trial conducted in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma reported a somewhat longer mean serum half-life of 23.9 days.[14] This variation could be attributable to differences in the patient populations (autoimmune vs. oncology), disease burden and its impact on target-mediated drug disposition, or variations in analytical methodologies between the studies.

Immunogenicity

The development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) can significantly impact the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of biologic therapies. In the Japanese PK study, two patients in the 100 mg dose group developed detectable ADAs. The presence of these antibodies was associated with a markedly shorter elimination half-life of approximately 6 days, demonstrating that immunogenicity can lead to accelerated clearance and reduced drug exposure.[28]

Pharmacodynamics

The pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of Epratuzumab—the direct effects of the drug on the body—have been extensively studied through the analysis of B-cell biomarkers in clinical trial participants. These studies reveal a distinct and time-dependent pattern of activity.

Effect on Target Expression (CD22)

The most immediate and dramatic pharmacodynamic effect of Epratuzumab administration is the downregulation of its target, CD22, on the surface of circulating B-lymphocytes. Flow cytometry analyses from the EMBLEM Phase IIb study and its open-label extension showed a rapid, profound, and sustained decrease in CD22 expression.[30] A reduction of approximately 80% in CD22 surface density was observed on naive, memory, and transitional B-cell subsets at the very first post-treatment assessment (one week).[30] This loss of the target molecule was maintained for the duration of long-term treatment and is primarily attributed to the drug-induced internalization of the Epratuzumab/CD22 complex from the cell surface.[28]

Effect on B-Cell Populations

In stark contrast to the rapid effect on CD22 expression, the impact of Epratuzumab on the number of circulating B-cells is both modest and significantly delayed. Initial studies reported only small-to-moderate decreases in total B-cell (CD20+) counts.[28] Data from long-term open-label extension studies provided a clearer picture of the kinetics of this effect. In these studies, total B-cell numbers were observed to decline gradually over time, reaching a median decrease of 50-60% only after 9 to 12 months of continuous treatment. After this point, the B-cell counts appeared to stabilize with no further significant decline.[5]

Furthermore, long-term treatment with Epratuzumab was associated with a gradual decline in a specific subset of activated memory B-cells, defined as CD27-/IgD- B-cells that express the activation marker CD95. This B-cell population is known to be expanded in patients with SLE and has been linked to disease flares, suggesting that Epratuzumab may preferentially impact pathogenic B-cell subsets over time.[30]

The observed pharmacodynamic profile reveals a critical temporal disconnect. The drug engages its target and removes it from the cell surface almost immediately, confirming biological activity at the molecular level. However, the key downstream cellular effect—a modest reduction in B-cell numbers—takes nearly a year to reach its plateau. This slow biological response may not be sufficient to induce the rapid and robust clinical improvement needed to meet a primary endpoint at 48 weeks, particularly in a population of patients with active, flaring SLE. This significant lag between target engagement and maximal cellular effect could be interpreted as an early warning signal, suggesting that the chosen biological pathway, while active, might not be a potent enough driver of clinical remission within the timeframe of a typical pivotal trial.

Additionally, in vitro data have suggested a "bell-shaped" concentration-response curve for some of Epratuzumab's effects, a phenomenon often seen with bivalent antibodies that require receptor cross-linking for optimal activity.[6] This implies the existence of an optimal biological dose, beyond which higher concentrations could become paradoxically less effective. This raises a critical question about the dose selection for the Phase III program. If the high doses used in the EMBODY trials (600 mg weekly and 1200 mg every other week) were on the descending slope of this activity curve, they might have been less effective than the optimal dose identified in Phase II, potentially contributing to the trial's failure.

The Clinical Development Program in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

The investigation of Epratuzumab for the treatment of SLE was extensive, progressing from early-phase studies that showed initial promise to a large-scale pivotal program that ultimately failed to confirm its efficacy.

Early Promise: Phase II Studies

The initial optimism surrounding Epratuzumab in SLE was built upon the results of several Phase II trials.

• ALLEVIATE-1 and -2 Trials (NCT00111306, NCT00383214): These were two of the earliest international, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of Epratuzumab in patients with moderately-to-severely active SLE.[33] Both trials were terminated prematurely due to an interruption in the drug supply, which limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. However, exploratory pooled analyses of the available data provided the first signals of potential efficacy. At week 12, the BILAG-defined response rate was numerically higher in patients receiving Epratuzumab 360 mg/m² (44.1%) compared to those receiving placebo (30.0%).[8] While not statistically robust due to the premature termination, these findings were encouraging enough to support the continued development of the drug for SLE.[33]
• EMBLEM Study (Phase IIb, NCT00624351): This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study was the key trial that propelled Epratuzumab into Phase III development. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of several different dosing regimens in 227 patients with moderate-to-severe SLE.[9] The primary endpoint was a novel composite measure, the BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA).[8] While the test for an overall treatment effect across all dose groups was not statistically significant ( ), exploratory pairwise analyses revealed clinically and statistically significant improvements at specific doses.[8] A cumulative dose (cd) of 2400 mg per cycle was identified as the most effective. Patients receiving 600 mg weekly (2400 mg cd) showed a significantly higher response rate than placebo (Odds Ratio 3.2, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1 to 8.8; nominal ).[8] A strong positive trend was also seen for the 1200 mg every other week (EOW) dose (2400 mg cd) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 7.1; nominal ).[8] The overall treatment advantage of Epratuzumab over placebo reached 24.9% at week 12.[9] These positive results, announced in August 2009, were widely seen as a breakthrough and provided the direct impetus for launching the large-scale Phase III program.[1]
• Open-Label Extension (OLE) Studies (e.g., SL0008/NCT00660881): Patients who completed parent studies like EMBLEM were eligible to enroll in long-term OLE studies, where all participants received active treatment. Data from these extensions showed that the clinical improvements in disease activity were sustained over a period of up to 3.2 years.[30] Furthermore, long-term treatment was associated with a reduction in the use of corticosteroids, a key goal in SLE management.[34] The safety profile remained consistent and favorable throughout this extended exposure.[34]

Other Studies in SLE

Beyond these key trials, the clinical development program for Epratuzumab in SLE was broad, encompassing a number of other studies. These included Phase I trials, dedicated pharmacokinetic studies, and trials conducted in specific geographic populations, such as a Phase 1/2 study in Japanese patients.[36] The development history was complex, with several of these ancillary studies being terminated for various reasons, reflecting the challenges inherent in such a large and ambitious program.[38]

The decision to advance Epratuzumab into a large and costly Phase III program appears to have been based heavily on the promising, yet qualified, results of the EMBLEM study. The statistically significant findings in EMBLEM were derived from exploratory, pairwise analyses of specific dose groups, not from the pre-specified primary analysis of the overall treatment effect, which was not significant.[8] This represents a classic scenario in drug development where a promising signal detected in a subgroup or post-hoc analysis of a smaller study is used to justify a major pivotal program. The subsequent failure of the Phase III trials suggests that these initial signals may not have been as robust as they appeared, potentially representing an overestimation of the true effect size or a chance finding.

Furthermore, the EMBLEM study was one of the first major trials in lupus to utilize the novel BICLA composite endpoint.[8] While the development of more sensitive, multidimensional endpoints like BICLA is a scientifically sound approach to capturing the heterogeneous nature of SLE, its use as the primary basis for a go/no-go decision for Phase III introduced an additional layer of risk, as the endpoint itself was relatively new and less validated than traditional measures.

The following table provides a summary of the major clinical trials that defined the development trajectory of Epratuzumab across its investigated indications.

Table 1: Summary of Major Clinical Trials of Epratuzumab

Indication	Trial Identifier (NCT #)	Phase	Patient Population	Key Dosing Regimen(s)	Primary Endpoint	Outcome Summary
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus	ALLEVIATE (NCT00111306, etc.)	2	Moderate-to-severe SLE	360 mg/m², 720 mg/m²	BILAG Response at Week 12	Terminated early; exploratory analysis showed numerically higher response rate with 360 mg/m² vs. placebo.33
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus	EMBLEM (NCT00624351)	2b	Moderate-to-severe SLE	Multiple doses; 2400 mg cd (600 mg QW or 1200 mg EOW) most effective	BICLA Response	Overall test not significant; exploratory analysis showed significant improvement with 2400 mg cd vs. placebo, prompting Phase 3.8
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus	EMBODY 1 (NCT01262365)	3	Moderate-to-severe SLE	600 mg QW or 1200 mg EOW vs. Placebo	BICLA Response at Week 48	Failed to meet primary endpoint; no significant difference from placebo.1
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus	EMBODY 2 (NCT01261793)	3	Moderate-to-severe SLE	600 mg QW or 1200 mg EOW vs. Placebo	BICLA Response at Week 48	Failed to meet primary endpoint; no significant difference from placebo.1
Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma	Leonard et al. (2004)	1/2	Relapsed/refractory indolent NHL	Dose escalation (120-1000 mg/m²)	Objective Response Rate (ORR)	18% ORR overall; 24% ORR in follicular lymphoma (43% at 360 mg/m² dose).15
Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma	Leonard et al. (2004)	1/2	Relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL	Dose escalation (120-1000 mg/m²)	Objective Response Rate (ORR)	10% ORR overall; 15% ORR in DLBCL.14
Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)	Micallef et al. (NCT00301821)	2	Previously untreated DLBCL	Epratuzumab + R-CHOP (ER-CHOP)	Event-Free Survival	High activity; 96% ORR (74% CR/CRu).39
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)	NCT01219816	2	Relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL	Epratuzumab monotherapy	Not specified	Completed; results showed initial activity.1

A Critical Analysis of the EMBODY 1 & 2 Trial Failures

The definitive clinical assessment of Epratuzumab in SLE came from the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials, a large, well-controlled Phase III program that ultimately failed to demonstrate the drug's efficacy.

Study Design

The EMBODY program consisted of two identically designed, global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trials: EMBODY 1 (NCT01262365) and EMBODY 2 (NCT01261793).[11]

• Patient Population: The trials collectively enrolled over 1,500 patients (793 in EMBODY 1, 791 in EMBODY 2) with a diagnosis of moderately to severely active SLE.[12] Eligible patients were required to be receiving stable doses of standard of care (SOC) therapies, which could include corticosteroids, antimalarials, and/or immunosuppressants.[11]
• Treatment Arms: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three treatment arms, all administered in addition to their ongoing SOC therapy:

1. Placebo
2. Epratuzumab 600 mg administered intravenously every week (QW)
3. Epratuzumab 1200 mg administered intravenously every other week (QOW) The treatment was delivered in an intermittent "pulsing" schedule. For each 12-week treatment cycle, infusions were given only for the first four weeks. This cycle was repeated four times, for a total treatment duration of 48 weeks.11 Both active treatment arms delivered the same cumulative dose of 2400 mg of Epratuzumab per cycle, the dose that had shown the most promise in the Phase IIb EMBLEM study.

• Primary Endpoint: The primary efficacy endpoint for both studies was the responder rate at Week 48, as defined by the BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) composite endpoint.[11] A BICLA response required a patient to meet all of the following criteria: improvement in BILAG-2004 score with no worsening, no worsening in the SLEDAI-2K score, no worsening in the physician's global assessment of disease activity, and no disallowed changes in concomitant medications.[11]

Efficacy Results: A Decisive Failure

In July 2015, UCB announced that both the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials had failed to meet their primary endpoint.[1] The results were unequivocal: the BICLA response rates in the groups receiving Epratuzumab plus SOC were not statistically significantly different from the response rate in the group receiving placebo plus SOC.[11]

Analysis of the primary endpoint data revealed a complete lack of separation between the treatment arms. Across both studies, the Week 48 BICLA response rates ranged from 33.5% to 39.8% in all groups, including the placebo arms.[12] This indicated that adding Epratuzumab to standard therapy provided no additional benefit. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in any of the secondary efficacy endpoints that were assessed.[11]

Safety Results

Despite the lack of efficacy, the EMBODY program confirmed the favorable safety profile of Epratuzumab. A comprehensive review of the safety data from the nearly 1,600 patients enrolled in the two trials did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.[11] The overall safety profile was consistent with that observed in the earlier Phase II studies.[11]

The most commonly reported adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, headache, and nausea.[13] Importantly, the incidence of overall adverse events, serious adverse events (SAEs), and infusion-related reactions was similar between the Epratuzumab-treated groups and the placebo group, indicating that the drug was well-tolerated and did not add significant toxicity to standard of care.[8]

The following table provides a direct comparison of the key efficacy results from the promising Phase IIb EMBLEM study and the failed Phase III EMBODY trials, starkly illustrating the disconnect between mid-stage and late-stage clinical outcomes.

Table 2: Comparative Efficacy Endpoints: EMBLEM (Phase IIb) vs. EMBODY 1 & 2 (Phase III)

Trial	Phase	N (patients)	Treatment Arm	Primary Endpoint	Week 48 Response Rate (%)	Odds Ratio vs. Placebo (95% CI)	P-value
EMBLEM	2b	227	Placebo	BICLA Response (Week 12)	21.1%	-	-
			Epratuzumab 2400 mg cd (pooled)	BICLA Response (Week 12)	43.2%	2.9 (1.2 to 7.1)	0.02 (post-hoc)
EMBODY 1	3	793	Placebo	BICLA Response (Week 48)	35.3%	-	-
			Epratuzumab 600 mg QW	BICLA Response (Week 48)	39.8%	1.21 (0.83 to 1.76)	NS
			Epratuzumab 1200 mg EOW	BICLA Response (Week 48)	38.7%	1.16 (0.80 to 1.69)	NS
EMBODY 2	3	791	Placebo	BICLA Response (Week 48)	39.9%	-	-
			Epratuzumab 600 mg QW	BICLA Response (Week 48)	33.5%	0.76 (0.53 to 1.10)	NS
			Epratuzumab 1200 mg EOW	BICLA Response (Week 48)	35.1%	0.81 (0.56 to 1.17)	NS
NS: Not Significant. EMBLEM data based on exploratory/post-hoc analysis.8 EMBODY data adapted from published results.12

Deconstructing the Failure

The failure of the EMBODY program can be attributed to a confluence of factors that are common challenges in SLE drug development.

1. The High Placebo Response Rate: A critical factor was the remarkably high response rate observed in the placebo arms of both EMBODY trials, which ranged from 35% to 40%.[12] This phenomenon is a well-documented obstacle in SLE clinical trials. The intensive monitoring, protocol-mandated optimization of standard care, and patient expectations inherent in a major clinical study can lead to substantial clinical improvement that is independent of the investigational drug's activity. When the background improvement in the placebo group is this high, it creates an extremely high statistical bar for a drug with a modest effect size to demonstrate a significant difference. The failure may therefore be less a reflection of Epratuzumab having no biological effect and more a result of its effect being too small to be detected against the high "noise" of the placebo response.
2. Suboptimal Dosing Regimen: The EMBODY trials employed an intermittent dosing schedule, with a four-week "pulse" of treatment at the beginning of each 12-week cycle.[11] Given the drug's long half-life and, more importantly, its very slow pharmacodynamic effect on B-cell numbers (taking 9-12 months to reach a plateau) [30], this intermittent regimen may have been suboptimal. It is plausible that a more continuous dosing strategy would have been necessary to achieve and maintain the level of sustained immunomodulation required to drive a robust clinical response over a 48-week period. While the regimen was based on the successful Phase II study, it may not have been the ideal strategy for demonstrating long-term efficacy.
3. Patient Heterogeneity and Lack of Stratification: SLE is a notoriously heterogeneous disease, with different immunopathological pathways driving the disease in different patients. The "one size fits all" approach of enrolling a broad, unselected population of patients with moderate-to-severe SLE may have been a critical flaw. A compelling post-hoc analysis of the pooled EMBODY trial data revealed a potential signal of efficacy, but only in a specific subgroup of patients: those with SLE who also had a diagnosis of associated Sjögren's syndrome.[22] In this subset, but not in the overall trial population, treatment with Epratuzumab resulted in improved clinical outcomes. This suggests that Epratuzumab's mechanism of action may be effective only in a specific immunophenotype of SLE, perhaps one more fundamentally driven by the B-cell pathways that the drug targets. The failure to enrich the trial population for these potential responders likely diluted this signal to the point of non-significance in the overall analysis. This finding provides a crucial lesson for future SLE trial design, strongly advocating for the use of biomarker-based patient stratification to identify subgroups most likely to benefit from a targeted therapy.

Clinical Investigations in B-Cell Malignancies

In parallel with its development in autoimmune disease, Epratuzumab was also investigated as a therapeutic agent for various B-cell cancers, leveraging its ability to target the CD22 antigen expressed on malignant lymphocytes.

Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

A Phase I/II clinical trial evaluated Epratuzumab as a monotherapy in 55 heavily pretreated patients with recurrent indolent NHL.[15]

• Efficacy: Among the 51 patients assessable for response, the overall objective response rate (ORR) was 18% (9 patients), which included three complete responses (CRs).[15] Notably, all of the observed responses occurred in the subset of patients with follicular lymphoma, the most common type of indolent NHL. In this subgroup, the ORR was 24%. The study also explored different dose levels, and a dose of 360 mg/m² administered weekly for four weeks was associated with the highest response rate, achieving an ORR of 43% in patients with follicular lymphoma.[15]
• Durability and Safety: The responses were notably durable, with a median duration of response of 79.3 weeks (approximately 18 months).[15] The drug was well-tolerated across all dose levels, up to 1,000 mg/m², with no dose-limiting toxicities reported.[15]

Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Epratuzumab was also tested in patients with more aggressive forms of NHL, primarily diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

• Monotherapy: A Phase I/II trial evaluated single-agent Epratuzumab in 56 heavily pretreated patients with aggressive NHL.[14] The overall ORR was 10% (5 patients), including three CRs.[14] In the specific subset of patients with DLBCL, the ORR was 15%. Similar to the indolent NHL trial, some responses were remarkably durable, with two responses ongoing for more than 34 months, including in one patient who was refractory to prior rituximab therapy.[14]
• Combination Chemoimmunotherapy (ER-CHOP): Recognizing the modest single-agent activity, a Phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining Epratuzumab with the standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy regimen, R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).[39] This study enrolled 107 patients with previously untreated DLBCL. The addition of Epratuzumab to R-CHOP (the ER-CHOP regimen) was found to be safe, with a toxicity profile similar to that of standard R-CHOP.[40] The efficacy results were highly encouraging, with an overall response rate of 96% and a complete response (or unconfirmed CR) rate of 74% in the 81 eligible patients.[40]

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

The high expression of CD22 on lymphoblasts in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) made it another logical indication for Epratuzumab. The drug was investigated in clinical trials for patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL, including a completed Phase II trial (NCT01219816) that reported initial positive results.[1] Additionally, a large, randomized Phase III trial combining Epratuzumab with chemotherapy in pediatric patients with relapsed ALL was sponsored by the IntreALL Inter-European study group.[20]

The clinical data from the oncology program paint a clear picture. As a monotherapy, Epratuzumab has modest activity in heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory NHL, with ORRs in the 10-20% range.[14] While some of these responses are impressively durable, this level of activity is generally insufficient to support regulatory approval as a single agent in the modern era. However, the compelling results of the ER-CHOP trial in first-line DLBCL, with a 96% ORR, suggest that the primary value of Epratuzumab in oncology may lie in its use as a component of combination chemoimmunotherapy.[40] Its immunomodulatory mechanism, distinct from the cytotoxic action of rituximab, might create a synergistic effect, potentially by altering the tumor microenvironment or sensitizing malignant B-cells to the effects of chemotherapy and rituximab-mediated cytotoxicity.

Despite this potential, the development of Epratuzumab in oncology has been largely superseded by the evolution of the therapeutic landscape for B-cell malignancies. While Epratuzumab helped to validate CD22 as a viable therapeutic target, the field has rapidly advanced to more potent modalities. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that target CD22, such as inotuzumab ozogamicin (approved for ALL) and moxetumomab pasudotox, have demonstrated much higher rates of single-agent efficacy by delivering powerful cytotoxic payloads directly to the CD22-expressing cancer cells.[25] The "naked," purely immunomodulatory approach of Epratuzumab, while offering a better safety profile, is far less potent than these next-generation agents, limiting its competitive potential in the oncology space.

Integrated Safety and Tolerability Profile

A comprehensive review of the safety data accumulated from numerous clinical trials in both SLE and B-cell malignancies, encompassing thousands of patients and significant long-term exposure, reveals that Epratuzumab has a consistent and generally favorable safety and tolerability profile.

Overall Assessment

The large, placebo-controlled Phase III EMBODY trials, which enrolled nearly 1,600 patients with SLE, served as the definitive assessment of the drug's safety. These trials confirmed the safety profile seen in earlier studies and, importantly, did not identify any new or unexpected safety signals.[11] The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between patients treated with Epratuzumab and those receiving placebo, indicating that the drug adds minimal toxicity to standard of care therapies.[8]

Common Adverse Events

Across the extensive SLE clinical program, the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity. A pooled analysis of data from open-label extension studies, representing 726 patient-years of exposure, provides a clear summary of these events.[16]

• The most common adverse events (by incidence) were:
• Upper respiratory tract infection (17.0%)
• Urinary tract infection (13.9%)
• Headache (12.3%)
• Nausea was also frequently reported in the EMBODY trials.[13]

Serious Adverse Events and Deaths

The rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the pooled OLE analysis was 21.1 events per 100 patient-years.[16]

• The most common SAEs (occurring in  patients) were:
• Worsening of SLE (1.8%)
• Pneumonia (0.6%)
• Sepsis (0.6%)
• Cholelithiasis (gallstones) (0.6%)
• Depression (0.6%)
• Dyspnea (shortness of breath) (0.6%)
• Serious infections were reported in 6.9% of patients in one long-term OLE study.[34] The most common serious infections were pneumonia and sepsis.[16]
• Malignancies were reported in three patients in the pooled OLE analysis (one CNS lymphoma, one squamous cell carcinoma, and one patient with multiple skin and breast cancers).[16]
• A total of six deaths were reported in the OLE pooled analysis. The known causes were bilateral pneumonia, pneumonia with septic shock, chronic heart failure, polydrug overdose, and stroke; the cause was unknown in one case.[16]

Infusion Reactions

Infusion-related reactions, a common concern with monoclonal antibody therapies, were observed with Epratuzumab but were typically mild and manageable.[45] The rate of infusion reactions in the pooled OLE analysis was 23.1 events per 100 patient-years.[16]

Laboratory Parameters

Consistent with its non-depleting mechanism, treatment with Epratuzumab was not associated with clinically significant decreases in total immunoglobulin levels, a potential concern with B-cell targeted therapies that can lead to hypogammaglobulinemia and increased infection risk.[8]

The overall safety profile of Epratuzumab is a direct reflection of its intended mechanism of action. The absence of widespread, severe opportunistic infections or significant hypogammaglobulinemia, which can be complications of profoundly B-cell-depleting agents, supports the conclusion that Epratuzumab is a gentler immunomodulator. The most common adverse events—standard infections like URTIs and UTIs—are typical for an immunomodulatory drug being studied in an autoimmune patient population that is already receiving background immunosuppressive therapies. The excellent tolerability was a key strength of the drug. However, this favorable safety profile could not ultimately compensate for the lack of demonstrated efficacy in its primary indication. This presents a classic drug development conundrum: a very safe therapeutic that is not effective enough to gain regulatory approval.

Table 3: Consolidated Safety Profile: Common Adverse Events Across Key Studies

Adverse Event (System Organ Class)	EMBODY 1 & 2 Pooled: Epratuzumab 2400mg (N=1049) - Rate (%)	EMBODY 1 & 2 Pooled: Placebo (N=526) - Rate (%)	OLE Pooled Analysis (N=488) - Rate per 100 Pt-Yrs
Any Adverse Event	82.5%	82.3%	457.6
Any Serious Adverse Event	17.1%	18.4%	21.1
Discontinuation due to AE	9.0%	11.2%	- (8.2% of pts)
Infusion Reaction	14.1%	12.5%	23.1
Infections & Infestations
Upper Respiratory Tract Infection	14.0%	13.9%	- (17.0% of pts)
Urinary Tract Infection	13.5%	11.2%	- (13.9% of pts)
Pneumonia (SAE)	0.8%	0.6%	0.6
Sepsis (SAE)	0.5%	0.4%	0.4
Nervous System Disorders
Headache	10.9%	13.5%	- (12.3% of pts)
Gastrointestinal Disorders
Nausea	10.9%	11.2%	-
General Disorders
Worsening of SLE (SAE)	-	-	- (1.8% of pts)
EMBODY data represents events reported in >10% of any group. OLE data from pooled analysis as of April 2013. Rates are not directly comparable due to different study designs (controlled vs. open-label) and reporting methods (incidence vs. rate per patient-year). Sources:.12

Regulatory and Commercial Trajectory

The journey of Epratuzumab through regulatory channels and its commercial partnerships is a compelling narrative of the interplay between clinical data, corporate strategy, and the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical development.

Regulatory Status

Despite extensive clinical investigation, Epratuzumab remains an unapproved, investigational drug.

• Overall Status: Epratuzumab has not received marketing authorization from the U.S. FDA, the EMA, or any other major global regulatory authority for any indication.[1] Its legal status is "Investigational".[1]
• Orphan Drug Designation: On July 13, 1998, the FDA granted Epratuzumab an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[19] This designation provides incentives for the development of drugs for rare diseases. However, on May 15, 2019, this designation was officially withdrawn or revoked by the FDA, a move that likely reflects the lack of continued development and progress toward a marketing application for that indication.[19]
• EMA Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP): In April 2013, the EMA's Paediatric Committee (PDCO) agreed to a PIP for Epratuzumab for the treatment of SLE in the pediatric population.[46] The plan included a deferral for conducting the pediatric studies until after adult data was available and a waiver for the youngest age group (birth to less than 5 years), as SLE is rare in this population. The agreed-upon completion date for the pediatric plan was March 2021.[46] However, the subsequent failure of the adult Phase III trials in 2015 effectively rendered this pediatric plan moot.

The Immunomedics-UCB Partnership: A Timeline

The commercial development of Epratuzumab was defined by a major partnership between its originator, the U.S. biotech company Immunomedics, Inc., and the Belgian biopharmaceutical company UCB.

• Origination: Epratuzumab was discovered and developed through early clinical stages by Immunomedics.[9]
• May 2006 - The Initial Agreement: Driven by compelling early- and mid-stage clinical data in SLE, Immunomedics entered into a major collaboration and license agreement with UCB. The deal granted UCB exclusive worldwide rights to develop, market, and sell Epratuzumab for all autoimmune disease indications. In return, Immunomedics received initial cash payments totaling $38 million and was eligible to receive substantial future payments based on regulatory and sales milestones, as well as royalties on net sales.[10]
• December 2011 - The Restructuring: The partnership was amended. UCB returned its buy-in right for the oncology indications to Immunomedics, consolidating Immunomedics' control over the cancer applications of the drug. In exchange, UCB gained the flexibility to sublicense its rights to Epratuzumab in certain territories.[48] This move suggests that UCB, facing the immense cost of the two ongoing global Phase III EMBODY trials, was seeking a partner to share the financial burden and risk of late-stage development.
• July 2015 - The Phase III Failure: UCB publicly announced that both the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials had failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints.[13] This clinical failure was the pivotal event that sealed the drug's fate in SLE.
• February 2016 - The Termination: Following the trial failures, UCB provided Immunomedics with a formal notice of termination for the May 2006 licensing agreement. All worldwide rights for Epratuzumab in all non-cancer indications were returned to Immunomedics, officially ending the collaboration.[20]

The Epratuzumab saga serves as a textbook example of the high-risk, high-reward nature of biotech-pharma partnerships. For Immunomedics, the deal with UCB was initially a major success, providing significant non-dilutive funding and external validation for their lead asset, allowing it to be advanced through the most expensive phase of clinical development without draining the company's own resources. However, the ultimate clinical failure meant that the full potential of the deal, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in milestones and long-term royalties, was never realized. For UCB, the failure represented a significant R&D write-off and a major setback for its immunology pipeline.

The return of the Epratuzumab rights to Immunomedics in 2016 was a pivotal moment for the smaller company. While a disappointment, it allowed the company to refocus its strategy and resources. This event should be viewed in the context of Immunomedics' broader pipeline at the time, which included a promising antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) platform. The failure of Epratuzumab, their lead autoimmune candidate, may have served as a catalyst for the company to pivot and fully commit its resources to its oncology ADC programs. This strategic shift ultimately led to the development and approval of the highly successful drug Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan), culminating in the acquisition of Immunomedics by Gilead Sciences for $21 billion. Thus, the failure of Epratuzumab had profound second-order consequences, indirectly paving the way for the company's future success in a different therapeutic area.

Concluding Analysis and Future Perspectives

Synthesis of the Epratuzumab Story

Epratuzumab represents a compelling and cautionary tale in modern drug development. It was born from a highly rational and scientifically elegant concept: the targeted, non-depleting modulation of B-cell function as a safer alternative to profound immunosuppression. This differentiated mechanism of action, combined with a consistently favorable safety profile and promising signals of efficacy in mid-stage trials, positioned it as a potential breakthrough therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus. However, its journey from the promise of the Phase II EMBLEM study to the definitive failure of the Phase III EMBODY program underscores the immense challenges of translating a biological hypothesis into a clinically and statistically validated therapeutic. The core premise—that gentle immunomodulation is sufficient to control a complex, heterogeneous autoimmune disease—remains biologically appealing but was not validated by the rigorous standards of pivotal clinical trials.

Lessons for SLE Drug Development

The development and failure of Epratuzumab have contributed significantly to the collective understanding of how to approach clinical research in SLE. Several key lessons have emerged:

1. Managing the Placebo Response: The high placebo response rate observed in the EMBODY trials remains one of the most significant obstacles in SLE drug development. Future trial designs must incorporate strategies to mitigate this effect, such as stricter entry criteria, objective, biomarker-based endpoints, and potentially novel trial designs like withdrawal studies.
2. The Imperative of Patient Stratification: The post-hoc finding of potential efficacy in the subgroup of SLE patients with associated Sjögren's syndrome is a powerful reminder that SLE is not a monolithic disease. Future clinical trials for targeted therapies must move beyond the "one size fits all" model and incorporate biomarker-based strategies to identify and enroll patient subgroups who are most likely to respond to a specific mechanism of action.
3. Aligning Mechanism with Trial Design: The choice of clinical endpoints and trial duration must be carefully aligned with the drug's known pharmacology. A slow-acting immunomodulatory agent like Epratuzumab, whose full cellular effects take many months to manifest, may be disadvantaged by a trial with a 48-week primary endpoint designed to capture improvement from an active flare. Longer trial durations or endpoints that measure sustained disease control rather than rapid flare resolution may be more appropriate for such agents.

The Future of the CD22 Target

The failure of Epratuzumab in SLE should not be interpreted as an invalidation of CD22 as a therapeutic target. Rather, it represents the failure of one specific therapeutic approach—gentle, non-depleting immunomodulation—to demonstrate efficacy in this disease. The CD22 molecule remains a valid, B-cell-specific target for therapeutic intervention.

In oncology, the clinical utility of targeting CD22 has been unequivocally proven by the success of antibody-drug conjugates like inotuzumab ozogamicin. These agents leverage the specificity of an anti-CD22 antibody to deliver a potent cytotoxic payload directly to malignant B-cells, achieving high response rates in diseases like ALL. Future research may explore the potential of next-generation anti-CD22 molecules, such as novel ADCs with different payloads, bispecific antibodies designed to engage T-cells, or CAR-T cells directed against CD22, for both hematologic malignancies and potentially for severe autoimmune diseases where a more profound B-cell depleting effect is desired.

Final Perspective

The legacy of Epratuzumab is not one of absolute failure, but rather one of invaluable scientific and clinical learning. The extensive dataset generated from its comprehensive clinical program—spanning thousands of patients, multiple diseases, and years of follow-up—has significantly enriched the scientific community's understanding of B-cell biology in health and disease, the complex pathophysiology of SLE, and the myriad challenges of clinical trial design in immunology. Epratuzumab stands as a critical data point that will continue to inform the design, execution, and interpretation of future clinical studies aiming to modulate the B-cell axis for the treatment of autoimmune and malignant diseases.

Works cited

1. Epratuzumab - Wikipedia, accessed October 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epratuzumab
2. Epratuzumab - Immunomedics - AdisInsight - Springer, accessed October 2, 2025, https://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800013806
3. Epratuzumab: Uses, Interactions, Mechanism of Action | DrugBank Online, accessed October 2, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB04958
4. Epratuzumab, a CD22-targeting recombinant humanized antibody with a different mode of action from rituximab - PubMed, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16814387/
5. The mechanistic impact of CD22 engagement with epratuzumab on B cell function: Implications for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus - PubMed, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26212727/
6. The proposed unique mode of action of epratuzumab: BCR modulation leading to diminished B-cell activation. - ResearchGate, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-proposed-unique-mode-of-action-of-epratuzumab-BCR-modulation-leading-to-diminished_fig1_280497080
7. en.wikipedia.org, accessed October 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epratuzumab#:~:text=%22Epratuzumab's%20mechanism%20of%20action%20transfers,which%20compromises%20the%20immune%20system.
8. Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus - Harvard DASH, accessed October 2, 2025, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037d-13ad-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
9. UCB and Immunomedics announce positive results for epratuzumab phase IIb study in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) | Fierce Biotech, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/ucb-and-immunomedics-announce-positive-results-for-epratuzumab-phase-iib-study-systemic
10. UCB Group And Immunomedics, Inc. Announce Worldwide Development Collaboration And License Agreement For Epratuzumab - BioSpace, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.biospace.com/ucb-group-and-immunomedics-inc-announce-worldwide-development-collaboration-and-license-agreement-for-epratuzumab-b-immunomedics-b-to-receive-in
11. Efficacy and Safety of Epratuzumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results from Two Phase 3 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials - ACR Meeting Abstracts, accessed October 2, 2025, https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/efficacy-and-safety-of-epratuzumab-in-patients-with-moderate-to-severe-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-results-from-two-phase-3-randomized-placebo-controlled-trials/
12. (PDF) Efficacy and Safety of Epratuzumab in Moderately to Severely ..., accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307885419_Efficacy_and_Safety_of_Epratuzumab_in_Moderately_to_Severely_Active_Systemic_Lupus_Erythematosus_Results_from_the_Phase_3_Randomized_Double-blind_Placebo-controlled_Trials_EMBODY_1_and_EMBODY_2
13. UCB announces Phase 3 clinical trial program for epratuzumab in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus did not meet primary endpoint | Fierce Pharma, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.fiercepharma.com/drug-delivery/ucb-announces-phase-3-clinical-trial-program-for-epratuzumab-systemic-lupus
14. Epratuzumab, a humanized anti-CD22 antibody, in aggressive non ..., accessed October 2, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15328168/
15. Phase I/II Trial of Epratuzumab (Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody) in ..., accessed October 2, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2003.01.082
16. Overview Of The Safety Of Epratuzumab In Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - ACR abstract, accessed October 2, 2025, https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/overview-of-the-safety-of-epratuzumab-in-systemic-lupus-erythematosus/
17. Efficacy and Safety of Epratuzumab in Moderately to Severely Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From Two Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials. - Scholars@Duke publication, accessed October 2, 2025, https://scholars.duke.edu/publication/1176261
18. ACR: Epratuzumab falls flat in phase III lupus trials | MDedge - The Hospitalist, accessed October 2, 2025, https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/acr-epratuzumab-falls-flat-phase-iii-lupus-trials
19. Search Orphan Drug Designations and Approvals - FDA, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/detailedIndex.cfm?cfgridkey=113298
20. Immunomedics Announces Termination of Epratuzumab Licensing, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/02/26/814443/0/en/Immunomedics-Announces-Termination-of-Epratuzumab-Licensing-Agreement-With-UCB.html
21. Epratuzumab (Anti-Siglec-2 / CD22) CD markers inhibitor | Read Reviews & Product Use Citations - Selleck Chemicals, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.selleckchem.com/products/epratuzumab-anti-siglec-2-cd22.html
22. Epratuzumab – Knowledge and References - Taylor & Francis, accessed October 2, 2025, https://taylorandfrancis.com/knowledge/Medicine_and_healthcare/Oncology/Epratuzumab/
23. Anti-Siglec-2/CD22 Antibody (Epratuzumab), accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.apexbt.com/downloader/document/F1187/Datasheet.pdf
24. Epratuzumab | CAS NO.:205923-57-5 - GlpBio, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.glpbio.com/epratuzumab.html
25. Epratuzumab (Synonyms: Antibody hLL 2) - MedchemExpress.com, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.medchemexpress.com/epratuzumab.html
26. Epratuzumab, a Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Targeting CD22 Characterization of in Vitro Properties | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5884494_Epratuzumab_a_Humanized_Monoclonal_Antibody_Targeting_CD22_Characterization_of_in_Vitro_Properties
27. Epratuzumab (Anti-Siglec-2 / CD22) Datasheet - Selleck Chemicals, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.selleckchem.com/datasheet/epratuzumab-anti-siglec-2-cd22-A305601-DataSheet.html
28. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of epratuzumab ..., accessed October 2, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/mr/article-pdf/26/1/87/39316457/mr0087.pdf
29. Efficacy of Epratuzumab, an Anti‐CD22 Monoclonal IgG Antibody, in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients With Associated Sjögren's Syndrome: Post Hoc Analyses From the EMBODY Trials - PubMed Central, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5947119/
30. Pharmacodynamic Effects of the CD22-Targeted Monoclonal Antibody Epratuzumab on B Cells in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - ACR Meeting Abstracts, accessed October 2, 2025, https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/pharmacodynamic-effects-of-the-cd22-targeted-monoclonal-antibody-epratuzumab-on-b-cells-in-patients-with-systemic-lupus-erythematosus/
31. Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study | Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, accessed October 2, 2025, https://ard.bmj.com/content/73/1/183
32. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of epratuzumab in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus: Results from a phase 1/2 randomized study - PubMed, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26382733/
33. Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe flaring systemic lupus erythematosus: results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre studies (ALLEVIATE) and follow-up | Rheumatology - DOI, accessed October 2, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093%2Frheumatology%2Fket129
34. Long‐Term Safety and Efficacy of Epratuzumab in the Treatment of Moderate‐to‐ Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From an Open‐Label Extension Study - ResearchGate, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281337313_Long-Term_Safety_and_Efficacy_of_Epratuzumab_in_the_Treatment_of_Moderate-to-_Severe_Systemic_Lupus_Erythematosus_Results_from_an_Open-Label_Extension_Study
35. Epratuzumab - New Drug Approvals, accessed October 2, 2025, https://newdrugapprovals.org/tag/epratuzumab/
36. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Completed Phase 1 Trials for Epratuzumab (DB04958) | DrugBank Online, accessed October 2, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/indications/DBCOND0027960/clinical_trials/DB04958?phase=1&status=completed
37. Epratuzumab Completed Phase 2 Trials for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatment, accessed October 2, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB04958/clinical_trials?conditions=DBCOND0027960&phase=2&purpose=treatment&status=completed
38. Epratuzumab | UCB, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.ucb.com/innovation/clinical-studies/clinical-studies-index/epratuzumab
39. Epratuzumab Completed Phase 2 Trials for Lymphoma Treatment | DrugBank Online, accessed October 2, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB04958/clinical_trials?conditions=DBCOND0006647&phase=2&purpose=treatment&status=completed
40. Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma - PubMed Central, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3204728/
41. Epratuzumab Completed Phase 2 Trials for Refractory B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) / CD22-positive / B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment - DrugBank, accessed October 2, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB04958/clinical_trials?conditions=DBCOND0034372%2CDBCOND0165826%2CDBCOND0138007&phase=2&purpose=treatment&status=completed
42. Efficacy and Safety of Epratuzumab in Moderately to Severely Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From Two Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials - PubMed, accessed October 2, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27598855/
43. B cell Inhibition with Epratuzumab Fails in Two Phase III Lupus Trials | RheumNow, accessed October 2, 2025, https://rheumnow.com/content/b-cell-inhibition-epratuzumab-fails-two-phase-iii-lupus-trials
44. Epratuzumab - Drug Targets, Indications, Patents - Patsnap Synapse, accessed October 2, 2025, https://synapse.patsnap.com/drug/f8957954f9884c7382e01817e367452d
45. Epratuzumab (Anti-CD22 Humanized Monoclonal Antibody) Is an Active and Well-Tolerated Therapy for Refractory/Relapsed Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma - CGTLive®, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.cgtlive.com/view/epratuzumab-anti-cd22-humanized-monoclonal-antibody-active-and-well-tolerated-therapy
46. European Medicines Agency decision P/0109/2013 of 30 April 2013 on the agreement of a paediatric investigation plan and on the g, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/pip-decision/p-0109-2013-ema-decision-30-april-2013-agreement-paediatric-investigation-plan-granting-deferral-granting-waiver-epratuzumab-emea-001295-pip01-12_en.pdf
47. EMEA-001295-PIP01-12-M01 - paediatric investigation plan - European Medicines Agency, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/paediatric-investigation-plans/emea-001295-pip01-12-m01
48. Immunomedics and UCB Announce Restructuring of Epratuzumab License Agreement, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/722830/000117184311003785/newsrelease.htm