Search

Immunogenicity testing and characterization is an important part of understanding the immune response to administration of a protein therapeutic. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) assays are used to characterize a positive anti-drug antibody (ADA) response. Harmonization of reporting of NAb assay performance and results enables efficient communication and expedient review by industry and health authorities. Herein, a cross-industry group of NAb assay experts have harmonized NAb assay reporting recommendations and provided a bioanalytical report (BAR) submission editable template developed to facilitate agency filings. This document addresses key bioanalytical reporting gaps and provides a report structure for documenting clinical NAb assay performance and results. This publication focuses on the content and presentation of the NAb sample analysis report including essential elements such as the method, critical reagents and equipment, data analysis, study samples, and results. The interpretation of immunogenicity data, including the evaluation of the impact of NAb on safety, exposure, and efficacy, is out of scope of this publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A clear scientific and operational need exists for harmonized bioanalytical immunogenicity study reporting to facilitate communication of immunogenicity findings and expedient review by industry and health authorities. To address these key bioanalytical reporting gaps and provide a report structure for documenting immunogenicity results, this cross-industry group was formed to establish harmonized recommendations and a develop a submission template to facilitate agency filings. Provided here are recommendations for reporting clinical anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay results using ligand-binding assay technologies. This publication describes the essential bioanalytical report (BAR) elements such as the method, critical reagents and equipment, study samples, results, and data analysis, and provides a template for a suggested structure for the ADA BAR. This publication focuses on the content and presentation of the bioanalytical ADA sample analysis report. The interpretation of immunogenicity data, including the evaluation of the impact of ADA on safety, exposure, and efficacy, is out of scope of this publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During biotherapeutic drug development, immunogenicity is evaluated by measuring anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). The presence and magnitude of ADA responses is assessed using a multi-tier workflow where samples are screened, confirmed, and titered. Recent reports suggest that the assay signal to noise ratio (S/N) obtained during the screening tier correlates well with titer. To determine whether S/N could more broadly replace titer, anonymized ADA data from a consortium of sponsors was collected and analyzed. Datasets from clinical programs with therapeutics of varying immunogenicity risk levels (low to high), common ADA assay platforms (ELISA and MSD) and formats (bridging, direct, solid-phase extraction with acid dissociation), and titration approaches (endpoint and interpolated) were included in the analysis. A statistically significant correlation between S/N and titer was observed in all datasets, with a strong correlation (Spearman’s r > 0.8) in 11 out of 15 assays (73%). For assays with available data, conclusions regarding ADA impact on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were similar using S/N or titer. Subject ADA kinetic profiles were also comparable using the two measurements. Determination of antibody boosting in patients with pre-existing responses could be accomplished using similar approaches for titer and S/N. Investigation of factors that impacted the accuracy of ADA magnitude measurements revealed advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. In general, S/N had superior precision and ability to detect potentially low affinity/avidity responses compared to titer. This analysis indicates that S/N could serve as an equivalent and in some cases preferable alternative to titer for assessing ADA magnitude and evaluation of impact on clinical responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]