ArticleThe AAPS journal2017
A Proposal to Redefine Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity risk assessment for tailored mitigation and monitoring of biotherapeutics during development: recommendations from the European Immunogenicity Platform.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Safety and efficacy of AMG 820, an anti-colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor antibody, in combination with pembrolizumab in adults with advanced solid tumors.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2020Article
- Reporting, Visualization, and Modeling of Immunogenicity Data to Assess Its Impact on Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies.The AAPS journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With more than 100 therapeutic proteins (TP) approved since the first EMA guidance on immunogenicity in 2007, a vast amount of clinical experience with a variety of therapeutic proteins has been gained. This has provided data on anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and their observed clinical impact, or lack thereof. It has become evident that not all ADA responses are clinically relevant. The current "standard practice" is to test for ADA in all patients on every study. It is essential that we acknowledge the immunogenicity data gained from marketed TPs and that options for immunogenicity testing reflect this information. Improvements in bioanalytical support throughout the drug development process will eliminate extraneous, non-impactful practices. We propose that low-risk therapeutic proteins could be supported with an event-driven ("collect-and-hold") immunogenicity testing strategy throughout early phases of the clinical program. In the absence of an event, only pivotal studies (where ADA incidence and impact can be decisively assessed) would include default ADA testing. In keeping with the "standard practice," immunogenicity risk assessment must be an on-going and real-time evaluation. This approach has the potential to deliver meaningful, clinically relevant immunogenicity results while maintaining an emphasis on patient safety.
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.