ReviewThe AAPS journal2020
Clinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment Strategy for a Low Risk Monoclonal Antibody.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Immunogenicity of a Monoclonal Antibody (SCTA01) Targeting SARS-CoV-2 in Healthy Adults: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase I Study.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Trial
- Anti-drug Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization Addendum.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Host Cell Protein Clinical Safety Risk Assessment-An Updated Industry Review.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2025Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides a theoretical case-study risk assessment report for a low-risk monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutic. In terms of risk, there are considerations around risks to safety, but also risks regarding effects on pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy. Much of the discussion in this document is around the risk of immunogenicity incidence. A higher incidence of immunogenicity would necessitate a detailed review of the PK, efficacy and safety in anti-drug antibody (ADA) positive and ADA negative subjects, in order to evaluate potential effects. The publication is intended to provide a framework of some the current thought processes around assessing immunogenicity risk and for building strategies to mitigate those risks. For this example, we have created a hypothetical antibody, ABC-123, targeting a membrane protein on antigen presenting cells, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This hypothetical antibody therapeutic is provided as an example for the purposes of risk assessment for a low risk molecule, although any application of similar approach would be case by case.
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.