A bridging immunogenicity assay for monoclonal antibody: case study with SHR-1222

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Lewiecki EM. Monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of osteoporosis. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 13(2), 183–196 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2 Paszty C, Turner CH, Robinson MK. Sclerostin: a gem from the genome leads to bone-building antibodies. J. Bone Miner. Res. 25(9), 1897–1904 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3 Zhong ZD, Dinnogen S, Hokom M et al. Identification and inhibition of drug target interference in immunogenicity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 355(1–2), 21–28 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4 Goupille P. Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: which consequences during the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rev. Med. Intern. 37(5), 343–349 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5 Wang Yow-Ming C, Jawa V, Ma Mark. Immunogenicity and PK/PD evaluation in biotherapeutic drug development: scientific considerations for bioanalytical methods and data analysis. Bioanalysis 6(1), 79–87 (2014). •• Illustrates key challenges with regard to understanding the relationship between anti-drug antibody (ADA) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 6 Gunn George R, Evans C, Yang Eric. Immunogenicity and biomarkers: bioanalytical challenges and considerations. Bioanalysis 9(22), 1729–1732 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7 Hoofring SA, Lopez R, Hock MB et al. Immunogenicity testing strategy and bioanalytical assays for antibody–drug conjugates. Bioanalysis 5(9), 1041–1055 (2013). • Indicates that anti-drug antibody produced in the subject would change the therapeutic pharmacokinetic profile.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 8 Patton A, Mullenix MC, Swanson SJ, Koren E. An acid dissociation bridging ELISA for detection of antibodies directed against therapeutic proteins in the presence of antigen. J. Immunol. Methods 304(1), 189–195 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9 Recknor CP, Recker RR, Benson CT et al. The effect of discontinuing treatment with blosozumab: follow-up results of a phase 2 randomized clinical trial in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. J. Bone Miner. Res. 30(9), 1717–1725 (2015). • Indicates that the therapeutic targeted to sclerostin may lead to sclerostin elevation in the subject.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10 Partridge MA, Pham J, Dziadiv O et al. Minimizing target interference in PK immunoassays: new approaches for low-pH-sample treatment. Bioanalysis 5(15), 1897–1910 (2013). • Develops two low-pH-sample-pretreatment techniques to minimize target interference.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 11 US FDA. Guidance for Industry: Assay Development and Validation for Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products (2016). www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM192750.pdf. • Guidance article provides experimental and statistical methodologies for the validation of critical performance characteristics of antitherapeutic antibody immunoassays.
  Google Scholar
• 12 Mire-Sluis AR, Barrett YC, Devanarayan V et al. Recommendations for the design and optimization of immunoassays used in the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J. Immunol. Methods 289(1–2), 1–16 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13 Wadhwa M, Knezevic I, Kang HN, Thorpe R. Immunogenicity assessment of biotherapeutic products: an overview of assays and their utility. Biologicals 43(5), 298–306 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14 Thway TM. Fundamentals of large-molecule protein therapeutic bioanalysis using ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 8(1), 11–17 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 15 Menendez AT. Strategic selection and development of immunogenicity binding methods. Bioanalysis 4(12), 1491–1508 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 16 Bütikofer L, Lemaillet G, Faust H. Strategies to estimate and improve drug tolerance in anti-drug antibody assays. Bioanalysis 4(16), 1999–2012 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 17 Sloan JH, Conway RG, Pottanat TG et al. An innovative and highly drug-tolerant approach for detecting neutralizing antibodies directed to therapeutic antibodies. Bioanalysis 8(20), 2157–2168 (2016). •• Provides details of affinity capture elution bridging immunogenicity assay format.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 18 Zoghbi J, Xu Y, Grabert R, Theobald V, Richards S. A breakthrough novel method to resolve the drug and target interference problem in immunogenicity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 426, 62–69 (2015). •• Provides details of precipitation and acid dissociation immunogenicity assay format.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19 Spriggs Franklin P, Duriga N, Rathi Alok, Qu Qiang. Resolution of matrix interference: quantitative and quasi-quantitative ligand-binding assays case studies. Bioanalysis 6(8), 1093–1101 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 20 Carrasco-Triguero Montserrat, Mahood C, Milojic-Blair M et al. Overcoming soluble target interference in an anti-therapeutic antibody screening assay for an antibody drug conjugate therapeutic. Bioanalysis 4(16), 2013–2026 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 21 Dai S, Schantz A, Clements-Egan A, Cannon M, Shankar G. Development of a method that eliminates false-positive results due to nerve growth factor interference in the assessment of fulranumab immunogenicity. AAPS J. 16(3), 464–477 (2014). • Provides details to improve target interference.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar