Literature DB >> 21130095

Solution ELISA as a platform of choice for development of robust, drug tolerant immunogenicity assays in support of drug development.

Alvydas Mikulskis1, Dave Yeung, Meena Subramanyam, Lakshmi Amaravadi.   

Abstract

Humanized monoclonal antibody therapeutics are in many ways indistinguishable from the anti-therapeutic/anti-drug antibodies generated in humans. Therefore, immunogenicity assessments to such therapeutics pose unique challenges in clinical trials especially when significant drug interference is encountered. There are several technology platforms based on the bridging immunogenicity assay format, which have been successfully used for detection and quantification of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) in serum or plasma samples. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Electrochemiluminescent (ECL) immunoassay formats are among the most popular technology platforms. Pretreatment of samples with acid can also be used to lower drug interference. While ECL technology platform offered many advantages over traditional solid-phase ELISA methods, reliance on a single (or limited) vendor source became a significant concern within the biopharmaceutical industry especially for immunogenicity assays that need to be implemented over a period of many years in support of a single drug development program. We describe herein a systematic evaluation of solid-phase ELISA, GYROS, AlphaLISA, ECL Immunoassay, and solution ELISA platforms for detection of anti-drug antibodies with the goal of selection and development of a robust technology platform that meets the desired performance characteristics for most immunogenicity assays and can be easily implemented in a typical immunoassay laboratory. As part of this effort the Design of Experiments (DOE) approach was utilized in optimization of sample acid treatment conditions in order to improve drug tolerance in the evaluated assay platforms. After the initial evaluation of various technology platforms, a solution ELISA format was chosen for further development to support clinical trials for a humanized therapeutic antibody. As part of the assay development, flexible use of digoxigenin and 6-(2,4-dinitrophenyl) aminohexanoic acid (DNP) for labeling antibodies was evaluated and is presented in this manuscript. In addition, simple methods for evaluation and qualification of streptavidin-coated plates and overcoming soluble target interference in solution ELISA have also been investigated and highlights of these investigations are discussed. The selection of the solution ELISA format was based on availability of generic reagents, achievement of optimal drug tolerance and robust assay performance on a platform that is readily available in many laboratories. This approach removed the heavy reliance on specialized equipment sourced from a single vendor and assay conditions described here are broadly applicable to other immunogenicity assays across many biologics both during clinical development setting and in the post-marketing arena.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21130095     DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2010.11.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Immunol Methods        ISSN: 0022-1759            Impact factor:   2.303


  14 in total

1.  Ligand binding assays in the 21st Century laboratory: platforms.

Authors:  Franklin P Spriggs; Zhandong Don Zhong; Afshin Safavi; Darshana Jani; Narasaiah Dontha; Anita Kant; Jenny Ly; Lia Brilando; Karolina Österlund; Nathalie Rouleau; Saloumeh Kadkhodayan Fischer; Martin Boissonneault; Chad Ray
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Anti-drug Antibody Assay Validation: Improved Reporting of the Assay Selectivity via Simpler Positive Control Recovery Data Analysis.

Authors:  Boris Gorovits; Marcela Araya Roldan; Daniel Baltrukonis; Chun-Hua Cai; Jean Donley; Darshana Jani; John Kamerud; Frederick McCush; Jeffrey S Thomas; Ying Wang
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  A survey of applications of biological products for drug interference of immunogenicity assays.

Authors:  Yow-Ming C Wang; Lanyan Fang; Lin Zhou; Jie Wang; Hae-Young Ahn
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 4.  Design of Experiments As a Tool for Optimization in Recombinant Protein Biotechnology: From Constructs to Crystals.

Authors:  Christos Papaneophytou
Journal:  Mol Biotechnol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.695

5.  Drug Target Interference in Immunogenicity Assays: Recommendations and Mitigation Strategies.

Authors:  Zhandong Don Zhong; Adrienne Clements-Egan; Boris Gorovits; Mauricio Maia; Giane Sumner; Valerie Theobald; Yuling Wu; Manoj Rajadhyaksha
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 4.009

6.  Practical application of acid dissociation in monitoring patients treated with adalimumab.

Authors:  Francisca Llinares-Tello; José Rosas-Gómez de Salazar; José Miguel Senabre-Gallego; Gregorio Santos-Soler; Carlos Santos-Ramírez; Esteban Salas-Heredia; Xavier Barber-Vallés; Juan Molina-García
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 2.631

Review 7.  Antidrug Antibody Formation in Oncology: Clinical Relevance and Challenges.

Authors:  Emilie M J van Brummelen; Willeke Ros; Gertjan Wolbink; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2016-07-20

Review 8.  Clinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment Strategy for a Low Risk Monoclonal Antibody.

Authors:  Robert Kernstock; Gizette Sperinde; Deborah Finco; Roslyn Davis; Diana Montgomery
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 4.009

9.  Characterization of Thymus-dependent and Thymus-independent Immunoglobulin Isotype Responses in Mice Using Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay.

Authors:  Almin I Lalani; Sining Zhu; Ping Xie
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 10.  Immunogenicity of Protein Pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  Robert Dingman; Sathy V Balu-Iyer
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2018-12-30       Impact factor: 3.534

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.