Search

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized anti-drug antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. Following debate at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences National Biotechnology Conference, a group was formed to address these gaps. Over the last 3 years, 44 members from 29 organizations (including 5 members from Europe and 10 members from FDA) discussed gaps in understanding immunogenicity assay requirements and have developed harmonization tools for use by industry scientists to facilitate filings to health authorities. Herein, this team provides testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) pre-study validation cut point; (2) in-study cut points, including procedures for applying cut points to mixed populations; (3) system suitability control criteria for in-study plate acceptance; (4) assay sensitivity, including the selection of an appropriate low positive control; (5) specificity, including drug and target tolerance; (6) sample stability that reflects sample storage and handling conditions; (7) assay selectivity to matrix components, including hemolytic, lipemic, and disease state matrices; (8) domain specificity for multi-domain therapeutics; (9) and minimum required dilution and extraction-based sample processing for titer reporting. Graphical Abstract

In September 2018, the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) conducted an Annual Guidance Forum on the considerations related to immunogenicity testing for therapeutic protein products. In addition to a broad representation by the pharmaceutical industry, the event included strong representation by leading scientists from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency and industry perspectives and updates to the guidance were presented. Specific topics that were discussed included the strategies of anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay cut-point assessments, the selection of ADA-positive controls (PCs), and the evaluation of PC performance. Assessment strategies and relevance of ADA assay attributes were also discussed, including assay drug tolerance and ADA assay sensitivity. The following is a summary of the discussion.

Administration of biological therapeutic proteins can lead to unwanted immunogenicity in recipients of these products. The assessment and characterization of such immune reactions can be helpful to better understand their clinical relevance and how they relate to patient safety and therefore, have become an integral part of a product development program for biological therapeutics. Testing for anti-drug antibodies (ADA) to biological/biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins generally follows a tiered approach. Samples are initially screened for binding antibodies; presumptive positives are then confirmed in a confirmatory assay; subsequently, confirmed-positive samples may be further characterized by titration and with a neutralizing antibody (NAb) assay. Regulatory guidances on immunogenicity state that assessing the neutralizing capacity of antibodies should preferably be done using functional bioassays, while recognizing that competitive ligand-binding (CLB) assays may be substituted when neutralizing bioassays are inadequate or not feasible. This manuscript describes case studies from four companies in which CLB assays and functional bioassays were compared for their ability to detect neutralizing ADA against a variety of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. Our findings indicate that CLB assays are comparable to bioassays for the detection of NAbs, in some cases offering better detection sensitivity, lower variability, and less matrix interference.