ArticleThe AAPS journal2024
Reformation of a Clinical Anti-Drug Antibody Assay to Enable the Immunogenicity Assessment of a Bispecific Antibody Biotherapeutic.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Fit-for-purpose Strategy for Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment of Multivalent Bispecific Antibodies.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39663290What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.