ReviewThe AAPS journal2020
Immunogenicity Risk Assessment for PEGylated Therapeutics.
Review in The AAPS journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and short-term outcome of a novel once-weekly PEGylated recombinant human growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Trial
- Anti-drug Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization Addendum.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- IQ Survey Results on Current Industry Practices-Part 1: Immunogenicity Risk Assessment.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Immunogenicity risk assessment for tailored mitigation and monitoring of biotherapeutics during development: recommendations from the European Immunogenicity Platform.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- The AAPS Journal Theme Issue: Compendium of Immunogenicity Risk Assessments: an Industry Guidance Built on Experience and Published Work.The AAPS journal · 2023Article
- The evolution of commercial drug delivery technologies.Nature biomedical engineering · 2021Review
- Engineering Strategies for Immunomodulatory Cytokine Therapies - Challenges and Clinical Progress.Advanced therapeutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this manuscript is to provide the reader with two examples on how to present an immunogenicity risk assessment for a PEGylated therapeutic as part of Investigational New Drug (IND) application or during other stages of the drug development process. In order to provide context to the bioanalytical strategies used to support the PEGylated therapeutics presented here, a brief summary of information available for marketed PEGylated biologics is provided. Two case studies are presented, a PEGylated enzyme and a PEGylated growth factor. For the former, the risk assessment covers how to deal with a narrow therapeutic window and suggestions to utilize a PD marker as surrogate for neutralizing antibody assessments in Phase I. The latter has recommendations on additional analytes that should be monitored to mitigate risk of immunogenicity to endogenous counterparts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31993858What 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.