data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Immunol.
Sec. Vaccines and Molecular Therapeutics
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1550655
This article is part of the Research Topic Advances in Immunogenicity Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Mitigation of Biologics View all 4 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Immunogenicity testing for anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is mandatory for regulatory approval of a biotherapeutic and can, in some instances, continue post-licensure. Typical examples are TNF inhibitors where biotherapeutic and ADA levels are relevant in clinical decision-making for optimal patient therapy. However, challenges with non-comparability of results due to plethora of bioanalytical techniques and the lack of standardization has hindered ADA monitoring in clinical practice. Two human anti-infliximab monoclonal antibodies (A, B) with defined characteristics were therefore lyophilized and assessed for suitability as a reference panel for ADA assays in an international study. Binding assays included the simple ELISA and common electrochemiluminescence (ECL) to the rare antigen binding test and lateral flow assays. For neutralisation, competitive ligand binding and reporter-gene assays were employed. Sample testing (e.g., antibodies, sera) showed differential reactivity depending on the assay and sample. Estimates for ADA levels using in-house standards varied substantially among assays/laboratories. In contrast, using antibody A for quantitating ADA levels reduced the interlaboratory variability and provided largely consistent estimates. The degree of harmonization was dependent on the assay, sample and the laboratory. Importantly, antibody A allowed ADA detection when missed using in-house standards. Recognition of sample B varied, possibly due to its fast dissociation. Overall, the panel comprising A (coded 19/234) and B (coded 19/232) was suitable and established by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in October 2022 as the WHO international reference panel for infliximab ADA assays. Sample A (coded 19/234) with an arbitrarily assigned unitage of 50,000IU/ ampoule for binding activity and 50,000 IU/ampoule for neutralising activity is intended as a 'common standard' for assay characterization and where possible for calibration of anti-infliximab preparations to facilitate comparison and harmonization of results across infliximab ADA assays. Sample B (19/232) with its unique characteristics and variable detection but no assigned unitage is intended for assessing the suitability of the assay for detecting ADAs with fast dissociation. It is anticipated that this panel would help towards selecting and characterizing suitable assays, benchmarking of in-house standards where feasible and in harmonizing ADA assays used in clinical practice for better patient outcome globally.
Keywords: binding, Calibration, clinical monitoring, Reference standard, Assay performance, Anti-drug antibodies, Patient, infliximab
Received: 23 Dec 2024; Accepted: 24 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Wadhwa, Cludts, Atkinson and Rigsby on behalf of Study Participants. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Meenu Wadhwa, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (United Kingdom), London, SW1W 9SZ, United Kingdom
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.