Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40804295›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2025

Assessment of Neutralizing Antibody Activity in Clinical Studies: Use of Surrogate Measurements Instead of Stand-alone Assays.

Michael A Partridge, Lynn Kamen, Bonnie Wu, Helene Solberg, Jim McNally, Lauren Stevenson, Shalini Gupta, Susana Liu, Weifeng Xu, Yuling Wu and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Michael A Partridge *Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, USA. michael.partridge@regeneron.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6699-8473
Lynn Kamen *BioAgilytix Labs, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4431-7734
Bonnie WuJohnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Spring House, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3606-4420
Helene SolbergNovo Nordisk A/S, 2760, Måløv, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0004-9261-8963
Jim McNallySword Bio, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-4815-3690
Lauren StevensonImmunologix Laboratories, Tampa, Florida, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-3103-3150
Shalini Gupta, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-7192-4708
Susana Liu, Pfizer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0009-0007-9251-4656
Weifeng XuMerck & Co, Inc, Rahway, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7598-1489
Yuling WuBioData Solutions LLC, Lawrence, KS, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-2854-5300
Joleen WhiteBioData Solutions LLC, Lawrence, KS, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5962-9047

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) to protein therapeutics have traditionally been assumed to be the most impactful subset of anti-drug-antibodies (ADA). NAbs can block the biotherapeutic from engaging its target impacting efficacy and may also cause serious safety events. Stand-alone NAb assays have been employed to detect neutralizing responses, often with reconfigured versions of other assays. These methods have historically been implemented in registrational trials for all molecules, and in early-stage studies for high risk biotherapeutics. However, data has demonstrated that NAb response and ADA magnitude are highly correlated. Additionally, the use of other markers to identify clinically relevant immunogenicity, such as apparent impact on pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD), has been increasing. This manuscript reviews the available data on clinically meaningful immunogenic responses to biologics and proposes a risk-based strategy to determine if and when to employ a stand-alone NAb assay. For molecules with a high risk of safety consequences of immunogenicity (e.g., biological mimics) a NAb assay is recommended. However, for lower-safety risk molecules a stand-alone NAb assay does not enhance the interpretation of clinical data and is likely not needed. A combination of other assessments including ADA status, magnitude and persistence, PK, and PD (and efficacy) can be used as a surrogate for NAb assay data. Integration of data from all clinical evaluations is recommended by Health Authorities and can provide a more accurate overall assessment of neutralizing activity. This approach identifies clinically impactful downstream readouts of neutralizing activity without the need for a stand-alone NAb assay.

Indexed as

Antibodies, NeutralizingBiological ProductsAnimalsBiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicHumansAntibodies, NeutralizingBiological ProductsBiomarkersAnti-drug antibodies (ADA)BiotherapeuticsImmunogenicityNeutralizing antibodies (NAb)Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.