ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
IQ Survey Results on Current Industry Practices-Part 1: Immunogenicity Risk Assessment.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunogenicity in Approved Adeno-Associated Virus-Based Gene Therapies: A Framework for a Tailored Assessment Strategy.The AAPS journal · 2026Review
- Host cell protein impurities in therapeutic proteins: overview of advances in detection, nonconventional removal technologies and immunogenicity assessment.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- ADA assays for high-dose biologics: redefining drug tolerance through clinical insights.Bioanalysis · 2026Article
- Clinical Impacts of Immunogenicity in Approved Antibody Drugs in Japan: A Quantitative Evaluation of Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety Outcomes.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Towards new approach methodologies for biological therapeutics: a novel model-informed metric to assess immunogenicity risk.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An immunogenicity risk assessment (IRA) is a relatively new expectation of health authorities that is increasingly incorporated into the drug development process across the pharmaceutical/biotech industry. The guiding principle for an IRA includes a comprehensive evaluation of product- and patient-related factors that may influence the immunogenic potential of a biotherapeutic drug and a potential action plan. The Immunogenicity Working Group from the IQ Consortium (Clinical Pharmacology Leadership Group) has conducted a survey to understand the current practices for conducting IRAs and relevant aspects of bioanalysis. Survey results were provided by 19 IQ member companies participating in the Clinical Pharmacology Leadership Group (CPLG) and the Translational and ADME Sciences Leadership Group (TALG). Nearly all the respondents reported experience with monoclonal antibodies (mAb), with 10 other drug modalities including bioengineered protein therapeutics such as fusion and multi-domain proteins, peptides, oligonucleotides as well as gene and cell therapies. The survey results demonstrate that most companies have a defined IRA process, and there was a common understanding that the IRA may need to be revised as more information becomes available or the drug development strategy changes. Some differences found across the respondents are related to the time frame for implementation of IRA document, the types of preclinical data and computational methods used to assess risk, and how the IRA informs clinical plans and documentation practices. These results highlight that while there have been widespread insights gained with performing IRA for mAbs, more experience is needed to perform IRAs for the novel modalities.
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.