Reformation of a Clinical Anti-Drug Antibody Assay to Enable the Immunogenicity Assessment of a Bispecific Antibody Biotherapeutic.

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Wenyu Liu, Jie Yang, Weili Yan, Kun Peng
{"title":"Reformation of a Clinical Anti-Drug Antibody Assay to Enable the Immunogenicity Assessment of a Bispecific Antibody Biotherapeutic.","authors":"Wenyu Liu, Jie Yang, Weili Yan, Kun Peng","doi":"10.1208/s12248-024-00996-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay was developed to support the clinical development of a bispecific antibody biotherapeutic anti-A/B. This anti-A/B clinical ADA Version 1 (V1) assay was successfully validated initially using commercial samples from the target indication. However, applying the validation cut point factors (CPFs) led to a high untreated ADA positive rate in the Phase 1 study baseline sample analysis. While implementing the in-study CPFs was effective to mitigate the high baseline prevalence, this led to unfavorable assay sensitivity with no drug tolerance, which necessitated an assay re-optimization. The re-optimized Version 2 assay (V2) was able to mitigate the matrix interference observed in the clinical sample testing using the V1 assay, proven to be a more suitable method. The V2 assay optimization work was discussed, and the performance of the V1 and V2 assays during validation and clinical sample analysis was compared. Preliminary sample testing results generated using the two versions of the assay were compared and the ADA clinical impact was discussed. Our experience insinuates that a successfully validated method does not guarantee to be appropriate for sample testing. Adjustments of the method may be required to ensure that it performs as expected during sample testing and throughout the assay's lifecycle. This work highlights the importance of verifying the assay suitability during clinical sample testing and making appropriate adjustments as needed, especially in the first clinical study and the first study for a new indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00996-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay was developed to support the clinical development of a bispecific antibody biotherapeutic anti-A/B. This anti-A/B clinical ADA Version 1 (V1) assay was successfully validated initially using commercial samples from the target indication. However, applying the validation cut point factors (CPFs) led to a high untreated ADA positive rate in the Phase 1 study baseline sample analysis. While implementing the in-study CPFs was effective to mitigate the high baseline prevalence, this led to unfavorable assay sensitivity with no drug tolerance, which necessitated an assay re-optimization. The re-optimized Version 2 assay (V2) was able to mitigate the matrix interference observed in the clinical sample testing using the V1 assay, proven to be a more suitable method. The V2 assay optimization work was discussed, and the performance of the V1 and V2 assays during validation and clinical sample analysis was compared. Preliminary sample testing results generated using the two versions of the assay were compared and the ADA clinical impact was discussed. Our experience insinuates that a successfully validated method does not guarantee to be appropriate for sample testing. Adjustments of the method may be required to ensure that it performs as expected during sample testing and throughout the assay's lifecycle. This work highlights the importance of verifying the assay suitability during clinical sample testing and making appropriate adjustments as needed, especially in the first clinical study and the first study for a new indication.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信