皮下注射与静脉注射治疗蛋白的抗药性抗体发生率比较。

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen
{"title":"皮下注射与静脉注射治疗蛋白的抗药性抗体发生率比较。","authors":"Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen","doi":"10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"26 3","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence Comparison of Therapeutic Proteins Administered Via Subcutaneous vs. Intravenous Route.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"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/s12248-024-00930-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w","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

摘要

与静脉注射(IV)给药途径(RoA)相比,皮下注射(SC)给药被认为具有更高的免疫原性风险。然而,目前还缺乏支持这种说法的系统性临床数据评估。本荟萃分析旨在比较同一种治疗性蛋白质通过静脉注射和体外给药的免疫原性。分析了 48 个治疗组中通过静脉注射和皮下注射两种途径给药的 7 种治疗蛋白的抗药抗体 (ADA) 数据和控制变量。RoA是主要的自变量,而治疗蛋白、患者人群、调整剂量和ADA样本数量则是控制变量。方差分析用于比较静脉注射和静脉注射 RoA 的 ADA 发生率,同时考虑控制变量和潜在的相互作用。随后,在上述 7 种治疗蛋白的基础上,又增加了 10 种已公布了静脉注射和皮下注射 ADA 数据的治疗蛋白,并对其 ADA 发生率进行了评估。对于最初的 7 种治疗蛋白数据集,RoA 对 ADA 发生率没有统计学意义上的显著影响(p = 0.55)。唯一对 ADA 发生率有明显影响的变量是治疗蛋白。其他控制变量(包括与 RoA 的交互作用)均不显著。将 17 种治疗蛋白的所有数据汇总后发现,RoA 对 ADA 发病率的影响在统计学上并不显著(p = 0.81)。总之,根据对 17 种治疗蛋白的临床 ADA 数据的分析,静脉注射和静脉注射 RoA 之间的 ADA 发生率没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence Comparison of Therapeutic Proteins Administered Via Subcutaneous vs. Intravenous Route.

Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence Comparison of Therapeutic Proteins Administered Via Subcutaneous vs. Intravenous Route.

Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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