Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24682765›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2014

A white paper--consensus and recommendations of a global harmonization team on assessing the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetic measurements.

J M Sailstad, L Amaravadi, A Clements-Egan, B Gorovits, H A Myler, R C Pillutla, S Pursuhothama, M Putman, M K Rose, K Sonehara and 3 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Anti-drug antibodies in the current management of cancer.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Immunogenicity of Protein Pharmaceuticals.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2019
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

J M SailstadSailstad and Associates Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA, sailstad@aol.com.
L Amaravadi
A Clements-Egan
B Gorovits
H A Myler
R C Pillutla
S Pursuhothama
M Putman
M K Rose
K Sonehara
L Tang
J T Wustner
Global Bioanalysis Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Global Bioanalysis Consortium (GBC) set up an international team to explore the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments. The intent of this paper is to define the field and propose best practices when developing PK assays for biotherapeutics. We focus on the impact of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) on the performance of PK assay leading to the impact on the reported drug concentration and exposure. The manuscript describes strategies to assess whether the observed change in the drug concentration is due to the ADA impact on drug clearance rates or is a consequence of ADA interference in the bioanalytical method applied to measure drug concentration. This paper provides the bioanalytical scientist guidance for developing ADA-tolerant PK methods. It is essential that the data generated in the PK, ADA, pharmacodynamic and efficacy/toxicity evaluations are viewed together. Therefore, the extent for the investigation of the PK sensitivity to the presence of ADA should be driven by the project needs and risk based.

Indexed as

PharmacokineticsAllergy and ImmunologyAnimalsAntibodies, BlockingConsensusDrug TherapyHumansLegislation, DrugAntibodies, Blocking

Identifiers

PMID24682765
PMCPMC4012055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.