ArticleThe AAPS journal2007
Specificity and selectivity evaluations of ligand binding assay of protein therapeutics against concomitant drugs and related endogenous proteins.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement of Free Versus Total Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody in Pharmacokinetic Assessment is Modulated by Affinity, Incubation Time, and Bioanalytical Platform.The AAPS journal · 2015Article
- Calculations for Adjusting Endogenous Biomarker Levels During Analytical Recovery Assessments for Ligand-Binding Assay Bioanalytical Method Validation.The AAPS journal · 2015Article
- Large molecule specific assay operation: recommendation for best practices and harmonization from the global bioanalysis consortium harmonization team.The AAPS journal · 2014Article
- Impact of anti-drug antibodies in preclinical pharmacokinetic assessment.The AAPS journal · 2013Article
- "Fit-for-purpose" method validation and application of a biomarker (C-terminal telopeptides of type 1 collagen) in denosumab clinical studies.The AAPS journal · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macromolecule drugs designed against specific target proteins/ receptors have been applied in combination therapies, especially for complex and related diseases such as cancer for synergistic efficacy and alleviation of side effects. Protein therapeutics are typically measured using ligand binding assays (LBA). Evaluating the specificity and selectivity of LBA against their target proteins or in instances where concomitantly administered drugs are given was brought up during a conversation at the 3rd American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists/US Food and Drug Administration Bioanalytical Workshop but was not discussed at the meeting sessions. The purpose of this article is to discuss the challenges related to this issue and present a few approaches and experiences to elicit further discussions. Specificity and selectivity tests should be based on the anticipated levels of the individual therapeutics with reference to the dosing regimens defined in the clinical study protocol. When the concomitantly administered compound is available as a pure or well-defined material, various concentrations from zero to above the expected high levels are added to validation samples of the protein therapeutics to assess specificity. Recovery results from spiked samples of target patient populations on concomitant medications can also be compared with those from normal individuals for selectivity. If the drug has an endogenous counterpart, the baseline concentrations of each lot should be subtracted from the test samples in the selectivity assessment. This article illustrates a flexible approach to evaluating specificity and selectivity on samples from target patient populations receiving multiple medications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.