Search

Aim: We present a novel methodology to compare results between distinct immunogenicity assays, performed by two laboratories, for the same biotherapeutic. Materials & methods: Human serum pools from clinical trials were generated to provide representative immunogenicity titers. Pools were evaluated at two laboratories in a blinded fashion to assess the effect of assay format and laboratory change on clinical interpretation of immunogenicity results. Results: The laboratories validated two different assay formats and demonstrated comparable sensitivity and drug tolerance. Overall, the comparisons in assay format and laboratory ensured a comparable ability to detect treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies for a biotherapeutic. Conclusion: We have established an approach, using pooling of patient samples, that allows for the interlaboratory comparisons without creating duplicative results.

Over the developmental lifetime of a therapeutic protein, the immunogenicity assay validation history can become substantial, frustrating review of clinical immunogenicity within the biologics license application. In our experience, this can lead to questions by regulators, resulting in numerous information requests during the review process. To address this, we propose a new document, the method history report (MHR), which can comprehensively present the history of the immunogenicity assay for regulators, including assay development and validation. The flexibility of the MHR allows for adaptation to the specific needs of each therapeutic program, while maintaining a consistent template. Here, we detail the rationale, general outline and template for the MHR and recommend others consider adopting it for their biologics license application-related activities.

Background: Accurate measurement of a total protein target (free plus bound) is essential to optimize dose selection for monoclonal antibody drugs. Herein, we describe a novel sandwich immunoassay format in which the biotherapeutic antibody itself serves as the primary detection antibody. A signal is then generated through the addition of a labeled secondary antibody that recognizes the biotherapeutic antibody. The secondary antibody is conjugated with ruthenium to facilitate electrochemiluminescent analysis., Results: Data are presented from the analysis of two protein biomarkers having disparate size and structure; a 4.5 kDa peptide and a 60 kDa protein. In both cases, validated, highly specific assays were developed and shown to be tolerant to elevated levels of the therapeutic monoclonal antibody in question., Conclusion: Our novel format allows drug-tolerant measurement of soluble protein biomarkers targeted by monoclonal antibodies when only two independent epitopes for antibody binding are available and one is recognized by the therapeutic antibody.