ArticleThe AAPS journal2024
Assessing Immunogenicity in Drug Reviews and Prescribing Information in Japan.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) generated in response to biopharmaceuticals can significantly impact pharmacokinetics (PK) and overall drug efficacy. Thus, the ICH M4 guidelines mandate summarizing immunogenicity data from clinical trials in drug approval applications. However, following the approval of the first antibody drug in Japan in 2001, no cross-sectional investigation has focused on immunogenicity during the regulatory review process. Therefore, this study aims to examine the review reports and prescribing information of antibody drugs approved in Japan to identify key points related to immunogenicity evaluation. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of review reports for antibody drugs approved between June 2001 and July 2022 by the Japanese regulatory authority. Specifically, we evaluated the ADA positivity rate, presence of neutralizing antibodies, antibody titers, and effects of ADA on PK, efficacy, and safety. We also compared this information with that provided in the prescribing information. Our analysis revealed that the ADA positivity rate and its effects on PK, efficacy, and safety were critical aspects of the review process. The emphasis on these factors varied depending on the number of applications and disease area. The information presented in the prescribing information was largely consistent with that discussed in the review reports. Overall, this study provides the first cross-sectional evaluation of immunogenicity considerations in the regulatory review of antibody drugs in Japan. Our findings can contribute to the efficiency of clinical trial planning and preparation of approval applications, to potentially improve the overall drug development process and address the drug loss problem in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39379741What 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.