Yow-Ming C Wang1, Lanyan Fang, Lin Zhou, Jie Wang, Hae-Young Ahn. 1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology III, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA. yowming.wang@fda.hhs.gov
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biological drugs in circulation can interfere with anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays and cause false ADA negatives. We surveyed the applications of biological products approved by FDA during 2005-2011 for prevalence of drug interferences and proposed approaches to address this issue scientifically. METHODS: The immunogenicity assay drug tolerance, steady-state drug concentrations, and immunogenicity rates were reviewed for 26 BLA/NDA and 2 sBLA. RESULTS: Many FDA approved biologics had higher steady-state drug concentrations than the drug tolerance of ADA assays, by 1.2- to 800-fold. Reported immunogenicity rates may be negatively impacted. Some sponsors triaged immunogenicity samples according to the drug tolerance, leaving some samples un-assayed or reporting them as inconclusive ADA; but these samples were interpreted as ADA- for calculating immunogenicity rates. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ADA assays that can tolerate therapeutic drug concentrations is imperative. Given drug interferences, we propose in this paper the following practices: (i) to measure drug concentrations in ADA samples, (ii) to explicitly list all ADA status, including inconclusive ADA and un-assayed samples, (iii) to calculate population immunogenicity rates based on only subjects with confirmed ADA+ and ADA-, and (iv) to make available ADA assay specifics relevant to the use of ADA data in disease management.
PURPOSE: Biological drugs in circulation can interfere with anti-drug antibody (ADA) assays and cause false ADA negatives. We surveyed the applications of biological products approved by FDA during 2005-2011 for prevalence of drug interferences and proposed approaches to address this issue scientifically. METHODS: The immunogenicity assay drug tolerance, steady-state drug concentrations, and immunogenicity rates were reviewed for 26 BLA/NDA and 2 sBLA. RESULTS: Many FDA approved biologics had higher steady-state drug concentrations than the drug tolerance of ADA assays, by 1.2- to 800-fold. Reported immunogenicity rates may be negatively impacted. Some sponsors triaged immunogenicity samples according to the drug tolerance, leaving some samples un-assayed or reporting them as inconclusive ADA; but these samples were interpreted as ADA- for calculating immunogenicity rates. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ADA assays that can tolerate therapeutic drug concentrations is imperative. Given drug interferences, we propose in this paper the following practices: (i) to measure drug concentrations in ADA samples, (ii) to explicitly list all ADA status, including inconclusive ADA and un-assayed samples, (iii) to calculate population immunogenicity rates based on only subjects with confirmed ADA+ and ADA-, and (iv) to make available ADA assay specifics relevant to the use of ADA data in disease management.
Authors: Geertje M Bartelds; Charlotte L M Krieckaert; Michael T Nurmohamed; Pauline A van Schouwenburg; Willem F Lems; Jos W R Twisk; Ben A C Dijkmans; Lucien Aarden; Gerrit Jan Wolbink Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W Miehsler; G Novacek; H Wenzl; H Vogelsang; P Knoflach; A Kaser; C Dejaco; W Petritsch; M Kapitan; H Maier; W Graninger; H Tilg; W Reinisch Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: P Perini; A Facchinetti; P Bulian; A R Massaro; D D Pascalis; A Bertolotto; G Biasi; P Gallo Journal: Eur Cytokine Netw Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: A Vultaggio; A Matucci; F Nencini; S Pratesi; P Parronchi; O Rossi; S Romagnani; E Maggi Journal: Allergy Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Baodong Sun; Andrew Bird; Sarah P Young; Priya S Kishnani; Y-T Chen; Dwight D Koeberl Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-09-21 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jason E Gonzaga; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Mazen Issa; Dawn B Beaulieu; Sue Skaros; Yelena Zadvornova; Kathryn Johnson; Mary F Otterson; David G Binion Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: G Shankar; S Arkin; L Cocea; V Devanarayan; S Kirshner; A Kromminga; V Quarmby; S Richards; C K Schneider; M Subramanyam; S Swanson; D Verthelyi; S Yim Journal: AAPS J Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Zhandong Don Zhong; Lynn L Jiang; Puneet Khandelwal; Adam W Clarke; Ray Bakhtiar; Linglong Zou Journal: AAPS J Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Diwakar Davar; Roberta Zappasodi; Hong Wang; Girish S Naik; Takami Sato; Todd Bauer; David Bajor; Olivier Rixe; Walter Newman; Jingjing Qi; Aliya Holland; Phillip Wong; Lianna Sifferlen; Diane Piper; Cynthia A Sirard; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Jason J Luke Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 13.801
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
Authors: B Rup; M Pallardy; D Sikkema; T Albert; M Allez; P Broet; C Carini; P Creeke; J Davidson; N De Vries; D Finco; A Fogdell-Hahn; E Havrdova; A Hincelin-Mery; M C Holland; P E H Jensen; E C Jury; H Kirby; D Kramer; S Lacroix-Desmazes; J Legrand; E Maggi; B Maillère; X Mariette; C Mauri; V Mikol; D Mulleman; J Oldenburg; G Paintaud; C R Pedersen; N Ruperto; R Seitz; S Spindeldreher; F Deisenhammer Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 4.330