Omoniyi J Adedokun1, George R Gunn2,3, Jocelyn H Leu1, Cynthia Gargano1, Zhenhua Xu1, William J Sandborn4, Paul Rutgeerts5, Gopi Shankar1. 1. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Previously employed by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 5. University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidrug antibody (ADA) detection with standard bridging enzyme immunoassays (EIA) can yield false-negative results or underestimate titers through drug interference. A more sensitive assay was needed to determine clinical impact of antigolimumab antibodies. METHODS: A high-sensitivity, drug-tolerant EIA (DT-EIA) was developed and cross-validated against the original EIA, and samples from induction/maintenance studies in golimumab-treated patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed for ADAs using both methods. Immunogenicity results were compared, and pharmacokinetic, efficacy, and safety associations were evaluated. RESULTS: An 8-fold increase in ADA-positive patients (21.8% DT-EIA vs 2.8% EIA) reflected DT-EIA improved sensitivity and drug tolerance. Most newly detected ADA-positive patients (using DT-EIA) had low antibody titers, whereas most with high antibody titers were ADA-positive with original EIA. With DT-EIA, week 44 median trough serum golimumab concentrations among ADA-positive patients were approximately half vs ADA-negative (0.51 vs 0.85 µg/mL [50 mg q4w]; 0.85 vs 1.60 µg/mL [100 mg q4w]). Antidrug antibody impact on golimumab concentrations was more notable at titers ≥1:100. During induction, ADAs had no notable impact on efficacy. During maintenance, proportions of patients maintaining clinical response through week 54 were lower using DT-EIA: 38.1% ADA-positive and 52.8% ADA-negative. Antidrug antibody status had no impact on injection-site reaction incidence. CONCLUSIONS: A more sensitive DT-EIA identified higher proportions of ADA-positive patients. A trend of decreasing drug concentrations with increasing ADA titers was observed. Pharmacokinetic impact was better elucidated with DT-EIA. Although development of ADA did not preclude efficacy, a trend toward decreased efficacy in ADA-positive vs ADA-negative patients was observed during maintenance treatment. Antidrug antibody status did not impact safety.
BACKGROUND: Antidrug antibody (ADA) detection with standard bridging enzyme immunoassays (EIA) can yield false-negative results or underestimate titers through drug interference. A more sensitive assay was needed to determine clinical impact of antigolimumab antibodies. METHODS: A high-sensitivity, drug-tolerant EIA (DT-EIA) was developed and cross-validated against the original EIA, and samples from induction/maintenance studies in golimumab-treated patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed for ADAs using both methods. Immunogenicity results were compared, and pharmacokinetic, efficacy, and safety associations were evaluated. RESULTS: An 8-fold increase in ADA-positive patients (21.8% DT-EIA vs 2.8% EIA) reflected DT-EIA improved sensitivity and drug tolerance. Most newly detected ADA-positive patients (using DT-EIA) had low antibody titers, whereas most with high antibody titers were ADA-positive with original EIA. With DT-EIA, week 44 median trough serum golimumab concentrations among ADA-positive patients were approximately half vs ADA-negative (0.51 vs 0.85 µg/mL [50 mg q4w]; 0.85 vs 1.60 µg/mL [100 mg q4w]). Antidrug antibody impact on golimumab concentrations was more notable at titers ≥1:100. During induction, ADAs had no notable impact on efficacy. During maintenance, proportions of patients maintaining clinical response through week 54 were lower using DT-EIA: 38.1% ADA-positive and 52.8% ADA-negative. Antidrug antibody status had no impact on injection-site reaction incidence. CONCLUSIONS: A more sensitive DT-EIA identified higher proportions of ADA-positive patients. A trend of decreasing drug concentrations with increasing ADA titers was observed. Pharmacokinetic impact was better elucidated with DT-EIA. Although development of ADA did not preclude efficacy, a trend toward decreased efficacy in ADA-positive vs ADA-negative patients was observed during maintenance treatment. Antidrug antibody status did not impact safety.