Re-thinking the current paradigm for clinical immunogenicity assessment: an update from the discussion in the European Bioanalysis Forum

Immunogenicity regulatory guidance and industry recommendations have evolved over the last two decades since unexpected immune reactions were first reported with erythropoietin. Since then, the guidelines and practices for immunogenicity have stemmed from a reaction to a high-risk molecule causing significant clinical impact. Similar thinking is often applied to all biotherapeutic drugs, even when a well-defined risk assessment suggests otherwise. In recent years, the current testing paradigm for immunogenicity has been challenged with more informative approaches being proposed. In a Focus Workshop held by the European Bioanalysis Forum in September 2023, the current immunogenicity testing paradigm was challenged based on the experience and learning of 20+ years of immunogenicity strategies. The workshop recommendations proposed a new paradigm, challenging the value of multiple tiers depending on the immunogenicity risk assessment based on context of use and moving toward treating immunogenicity as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for the drug. Such rethinking ultimately results in the appropriate and efficient focusing of resources on immunogenicity testing strategies that benefit patients most, moving to a new paradigm where implementation of appropriate and truly informative immunogenicity testing strategies, depending on the context-of-use, become the norm .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioanalysis
Published
2024-08-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/17576180.2024.2376949
Citations
14
Primary Topic
Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Re-thinking the current paradigm for clinical immunogenicity assessment: an update from the discussion in the European Bioanalysis Forum

Foka Venema, Philip Timmerman, Gregor Jordan, Minh Hoang Dang et al.
14 citations
Bioanalysis
Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
3.37
article

Re-thinking the current paradigm for clinical immunogenicity assessment: an update from the discussion in the European Bioanalysis Forum

Foka Venema, Philip Timmerman, Gregor Jordan, Minh Hoang Dang, Daniel Baltrukonis, Toralf Roch, Robert M. Nelson, Karien Bloem, Michaela Golob, Carsten Krantz, Kyra J. Cowan, Lauren Stevenson, Davide Guerrieri, John Cook, Joanne Goodman, Lysie Champion, Desislava Galeva, Adriano Luis Soares de Sonza, Luis Perez Tosar, Hanna Widmaier, Brendy Van Butsel, Ching-Hai Lai
article en
14 citations

Abstract

Immunogenicity regulatory guidance and industry recommendations have evolved over the last two decades since unexpected immune reactions were first reported with erythropoietin. Since then, the guidelines and practices for immunogenicity have stemmed from a reaction to a high-risk molecule causing significant clinical impact. Similar thinking is often applied to all biotherapeutic drugs, even when a well-defined risk assessment suggests otherwise. In recent years, the current testing paradigm for immunogenicity has been challenged with more informative approaches being proposed. In a Focus Workshop held by the European Bioanalysis Forum in September 2023, the current immunogenicity testing paradigm was challenged based on the experience and learning of 20+ years of immunogenicity strategies. The workshop recommendations proposed a new paradigm, challenging the value of multiple tiers depending on the immunogenicity risk assessment based on context of use and moving toward treating immunogenicity as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for the drug. Such rethinking ultimately results in the appropriate and efficient focusing of resources on immunogenicity testing strategies that benefit patients most, moving to a new paradigm where implementation of appropriate and truly informative immunogenicity testing strategies, depending on the context-of-use, become the norm .

BioanalysisVol. 16(17-18)
AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB), Novartis (Switzerland) (CH), Bio-Rad (United States) (US), Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) (DE), Pfizer (United States) (US), Regeneron (United States) (US), Novo Nordisk (Denmark) (DK), Sanquin (NL), Hexal (Germany) (DE), Bioanalytica (Switzerland) (CH), Roche Pharma AG (Germany) (DE), Charles River Laboratories (United Kingdom) (GB), Celerion (United States) (US), Sanofi (Belgium) (BE), Nuvisan (Germany) (DE), European Forum for Good Clinical Practice (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
3.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.