Search

Hydrophobicity inherently affects a solutes behavior in water, yet how polymer chain hydrophobicity impacts aggregate morphology during solution self-assembly and reorganization is largely overlooked. As polymer and nanoparticle syntheses are easily achieved, the resultant nanoparticle architectures are usually attributed to chain topology and overall degree of polymerization, bypassing how the chains may interact with water during/after self-assembly to elicit morphology changes. Herein, we demonstrate how block copolymer hydrophobicity allows control over aggregate morphology in water and leads to remarkable control over the length of polymeric nanoparticle worms. Polymerization-induced self-assembly facilitated nanoparticle synthesis through simultaneous polymerization, self-assembly, and chain reorganization during a block copolymer chain extension from a hydrophilic poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide) macro-chain-transfer agent with diacetone acrylamide and N,N-dimethylacrylamide. Slight variations in the monomer feed ratio dictated the block copolymer chain composition and were proposed to alter aggregate thermodynamics. Micelles, worms, and vesicles were synthesized, and the highest level of control over worm elongation attained during a polymerization is reported, simply due to the polymer chain hydrophobicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The utilization of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) has gained considerable attention in the field of targeted cancer therapy due to their ability to synergistically combine the specificity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and the potency of small molecular drugs. However, the immunogenic nature of the antibody component within ADCs warrants the need for robust immunogenicity testing, including a neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay. Since the mechanism of action (MOA) of the ADC is to first bind to the target cells and then release the payload intracellularly to kill the cells, the most relevant NAb assay format would be a cell-based killing assay. However, in this paper, we present a case where a cell-based killing assay could not be developed after multiple cell lines and NAb-positive controls (PC) had been tested. Surprisingly, contrary to our expectations, all NAb PCs tested exhibited an increased killing effect on the target cells, instead of the expected protective response. This unexpected phenomenon most likely is due to the non-specific internalization of drug/NAb complexes via FcγRs, as an excessive amount of human IgG1 and mouse IgG2a, but not mouse IgG1, greatly inhibited drug or drug/NAb complexes induced cell death. To overcome this obstacle, we implemented a novel cell-based binding assay utilizing the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform. We also propose that an in vitro cell killing NAb assay is limited to at best monitoring the target binding and internalization induced cell death, but not by-stander killing induced by prematurely released or dead-cell released payload, hence cannot really mimic the in vivo MOA of ADC., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.)

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized neutralizing antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. A team of experts within the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists' Therapeutic Product Immunogenicity Community across industry and the Food and Drug Administration addressed challenges unique to cell-based and non-cell-based neutralizing antibody assays. Harmonization of validation expectations and data reporting will facilitate filings to health authorities and are described in this manuscript. This team provides validation testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) format selection; (2) cut point; (3) assay acceptance criteria; (4) control precision; (5) sensitivity including positive control selection and performance tracking; (6) negative control selection; (7) selectivity/specificity including matrix interference, hemolysis, lipemia, bilirubin, concomitant medications, and structurally similar analytes; (8) drug tolerance; (9) target tolerance; (10) sample stability; and (11) assay robustness., (© 2023. The Author(s).)