Re-thinking the current paradigm for clinical immunogenicity assessment: an update from the discussion in the European Bioanalysis Forum

References

• United States Food and Drug Administration: Immunogenicity Information in Human Prescription Therapeutic Protein and Select Drug Labeling – Content and Format [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/155871/download
   Google Scholar
• Bergrem H, Danielson BG, Eckardt K-U, Kurtz A. Stridsberg M: a case of antierythropoietin antibodies following recombinant human erythropoietin treatment. In: Bauer C, Koch KM, Scigalla P, editors. Erythropoietin: Molecular Physiology and Clinical Application. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker; 1993. p. 266–275.
   Google Scholar
• Peces R, de la Torre M, Alcazar R, et al. Antibodies against recombinant human erythropoietin in a patient with erythropoietin-resistant anemia. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:523–524. doi:10.1056/NEJM199608153350717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabhakar SS, Muhlfelder T. Antibodies to recombinant human erythropoietin causing pure red cell aplasia. Clin Nephrol. 1997;47(5):331–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casadevall N, Nataf J, Viron B, et al. Pure red-cell aplasia and antierythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with recombinant erythropoietin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(7):469–475. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gribben JG, Devereux S, Thomas NS, et al. Development of antibodies to unprotected glycosylation sites on recombinant human GM-CSF. Lancet. 1990;335(8687):434–437. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90665-r
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration: Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products - Developing and Validating Assays for Anti-Drug Antibody Detection. Guidance for Industry [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2019. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/119788/download
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency: Guideline on Immunogenicity Assessment of Therapeutic Proteins [Internet]. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/14327/2006 Rev 1 [Internet]. London, United Kingdom; 2017. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-immunogenicity-assessment-therapeutic-proteins-revision-1_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Medical Products Association: Notice of CDE of China NMPA on Issuing the Technical Guidance for Immunogenicity Studies of Drugs [Internet]. Beijing, China; 2021. Available from: https://english.nmpa.gov.cn/2021-03/30/c_654814.htm
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency: request for comments on the draft “Guidelines for Immunogenicity Assessment of Biopharmaceuticals” [Internet]. Tokyo, Japan; 2024. Available from: https://public-comment.e-gov.go.jp/servlet/Public?CLASSNAME=PCMMSTDETAIL&id=495230372&Mode=0
   Google Scholar
• European Bioanalysis Forum Focus Workshop: Challenging the Current Paradigm for ADA testing: A 21st century paradigm: Immunogenicity assays are biomarker assays [Internet]. Malaga, Spain; 2023. https://e-b-f.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/B.-Lauren-Stevenson-Immunologixlabs.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Goodman J, Cowan K, Golob M, et al. Update to the European bioanalysis forum recommendation on biomarkers assays; bringing context of use into practice. Bioanalysis. 2020;12(20):1427–1437. doi:10.4155/bio-2020-0243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan KJ, Golob M, Goodman J, et al. Biomarker context-of-use: how organizational design can impact the implementation of the appropriate biomarker assay strategy. Bioanalysis. 2022;14(13):911–917. doi:10.4155/bio-2022-0143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson LF. Evolving our thinking on biomarker assay validation: are we ready for the next leap? Bioanalysis. 2019;11(7):572–573. doi:10.4155/bio-2019-0008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US); 2016-. Glossary. 2016 Jan 28 [Updated 2020 Mar 3]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338448/ Co-published by National Institutes of Health (US), Bethesda (MD).
   Google Scholar
• Brinks V, Jiskoot W, Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: the use of animal models. Pharm Res. 2011;28(10):2379–2385. doi:10.1007/s11095-011-0523-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) S6(R1). Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Driven Pharmaceuticals [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland; 2011. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S6_R1_Guideline_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Laurén A, Goodman J, Blaes J, et al. A strategic approach to nonclinical immunogenicity assessment: a recommendation from the European Bioanalysis Forum. Bioanalysis. 2021;13(7):537–549. doi:10.4155/bio-2021-0028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büttel IC, Chamberlain P, Chowers Y, et al. Taking immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins to the next level. Biologicals. 2011;39(2):100–109. doi:10.1016/j.biologicals.2011.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain P. Presenting an Immunogenicity Risk Assessment to Regulatory Agencies. In: Weert Mv, Møller EH, editors. Immunogenicity of Biopharmaceuticals. Biotechnology: Pharmaceutical Aspects, vol VIII. New York (NY):Springer; 2008. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-75841-1_13
   Google Scholar
• Kubiak RJ, Zhang L, Zhang J, et al. Correlation of screening and confirmatory results in tiered immunogenicity testing by solution-phase bridging assays. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2013;74:235–245. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2012.10.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starcevic Manning M, Kroenke MA, Lee SA, et al. Assay signal as an alternative to titer for assessment of magnitude of an antidrug antibody response. Bioanalysis. 2017;9(23):1849–1858. doi:10.4155/bio-2017-0185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starcevic Manning M, Hassanein M, Partridge MA, et al. Comparison of titer and signal to noise (S/N) for determination of anti-drug antibody magnitude using clinical data from an industry consortium. AAPS J. 2022;24(4):81. doi:10.1208/s12248-022-00728-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCush F, Wang E, Yunis C, et al. Anti-drug antibody magnitude and clinical relevance using signal to noise (S/N): Bococizumab case study. AAPS J. 2023;25(5):85. doi:10.1208/s12248-023-00846-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrieri D, Horvat M, Fan J, et al. Signal-to-noise ratio to assess magnitude, kinetics and impact on pharmacokinetics of the immune response to an adalimumab biosimilar. Bioanalysis. 2024;16(1):33–48. doi:10.4155/bio-2023-0152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Bioanalysis Forum Focus Workshop: Challenging the Current Paradigm for ADA testing: Regulatory feedback, incl. discussions on S/N as an alternative to titer assessment and the use of integrated PK/PD and titer as an alternative to formal NAb assay assessment, under what conditions that is possible? [Internet]. Malaga, Spain; 2023. Available from: https://e-b-f.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Q.-Joao-Pedras-Vasconcelles-CDER.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) M10: Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland; 2022. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/M10_Guideline_Step4_2022_0524.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barfield M, Goodman J, Hood J, et al. European Bioanalysis Forum recommendation on singlicate analysis for ligand binding assays: time for a new mindset. Bioanalysis. 2020;12(5):273–284. doi:10.4155/bio-2019-0298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark TH, Yates PD, Chunyk AG, et al. Feasibility of singlet analysis for ligand binding assays: a retrospective examination of data generated using the Gyrolab platform. AAPS J. 2016;18(5):1300–1308. doi:10.1208/s12248-016-9944-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myler H, Pedras-Vasconcelos J, Phillips K, et al. Anti-drug antibody validation testing and reporting harmonization. AAPS J. 2021;24(1):4. doi:10.1208/s12248-021-00649-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shankar G, Devanarayan V, Amaravadi L, et al. Recommendations for the validation of immunoassays used for detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008;48(5):1267–1281. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2008.09.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Bioanalysis Forum Focus Workshop: Challenging the Current Paradigm for ADA testing: Clinically relevant ADA testing for monoclonal antibody biologics [Internet]. Malaga, Spain; 2023. Available from: https://e-b-f.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/K.-Karien-Bloem-Sanquin.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bloem K, Hernández-Breijo B, Martínez-Feito A, Rispens T. Immunogenicity of therapeutic antibodies: monitoring antidrug antibodies in a clinical context. Ther Drug Monit. 2017;39(4):327–332. doi:10.1097/FTD.0000000000000404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar