Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36315391›Full record

ReviewBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2022

Assessing Immunogenicity of Biologic Drugs in Inflammatory Joint Diseases: Progress Towards Personalized Medicine.

Johanna Elin Gehin, Guro Løvik Goll, Marthe Kirkesæther Brun, Meghna Jani, Nils Bolstad, Silje Watterdal Syversen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Johanna Elin GehinDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Radiumhospitalet, Nydalen, Box 4953, 0424, Oslo, Norway. johgeh@ous-hf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9896-0223
Guro Løvik GollCenter for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8506-725X
Marthe Kirkesæther BrunCenter for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-9684
Meghna JaniCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1487-277X
Nils BolstadDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Radiumhospitalet, Nydalen, Box 4953, 0424, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3633-8428
Silje Watterdal SyversenCenter for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-3696
Diakonhjemmet Hospital · NOOslo University Hospital · NOSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsJoint DiseasesAdalimumabAntibodiesHumansInfliximabPrecision MedicineTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaAdalimumabAntibodiesAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsInfliximabTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID36315391
PMCPMC9649489
OpenAlexW4307687730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.