• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

IP FDA Blog

FDA Final Guidance on Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products

January 29, 2019

By Benjamin T. Hemmelgarn

Edited by Shana K. Cyr, Ph.D.

On January 23, 2019, FDA issued final guidance on immunogenicity testing of therapeutic protein products. The guidance contains FDA’s nonbinding recommendations for developing and validating assays for anti-drug antibody (ADA) detection, “a key aspect of therapeutic protein product development.”

FDA advises sponsors to use a multi-tiered approach to detect ADAs. This begins with a sensitive screening assay to discover ADAs that bind to the product. A false-positive rate of approximately 5% is desirable for the screening assay to maximize detection of true positives. Next, a confirmatory assay eliminates false-positives identified in the screening assay by using a higher specificity and at least as good selectivity. If a therapeutic protein product has multiple functional domains, FDA recommends that sponsors perform screening and confirmatory tests against the whole product. ADAs identified from the screening and confirmatory assays can be further characterized by, for example, titration assays to quantify the ADA response or neutralization assays to assess the ADAs’ potential for inhibiting the product’s therapeutic activity.

For each assay, sponsors should consider the applicability of the following exemplary assay design elements:

  • Assay Cut-Point: the level of response that is considered positive or negative.
  • Sensitivity: the lowest concentration that produces a positive result or a result equal to the cut-point.
  • Specificity: the ability for the assay to uniquely detect the target ADA.
  • Selectivity: the assay’s ability to recognize target ADAs in a mixture of different components.
  • Precision: the variability between measurements of the same material.
  • Reproducibility: the ability for a separate laboratory to reach a comparable result.
  • Robustness and Sample Stability: the effect of small variations in method and instrument performance on the assay.
  • Selection of Format: weighing advantages and disadvantages to select an appropriate format.
  • Selection of Reagents: understanding which standard components and which unique components to use for each assay.
  • Reporting Results for Qualitative and Quasi-Quantitative Assays: selecting an appropriate approach for reporting positive antibody responses.

Once the characteristics of an ADA assay are selected, they should be validated through specific laboratory investigations. FDA recommends that sponsors submitting BLAs provide data demonstrating that the assays are fully validated. The guidance also provides recommendations related to implementing ADA assays and documenting results.

Readers are encouraged to read the final guidance, also available on FDA's website.

Tags

abbreviated biologic license application (aBLA), Biologic License Application (BLA), drugs, FDA Guidance, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2019 Top Insights

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Biologics

Contacts

Ben_Hemmelgarn
Benjamin T. Hemmelgarn
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4026
Email

Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Comparison of EPO Oppositions and USPTO PTAB Proceedings

January 28, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Sanofi, Vanda, and GSK, a New Year Voyage through the Land of Induced Infringement

January 21, 2021

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Disavowal of Infringement Case Eliminates Article III Standing for Appeal of IPR

January 13, 2021

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure

January 12, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

Balancing Cost and Enforcement

January 11, 2021

AIA Blog

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in October and November 2020

January 8, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

How Two Recent Court Decisions Show Ownership Can Be Everything and Standing Must Be Taken Into Account

January 8, 2021

Articles

Patenting the 3D Bioprinting Innovations that Combat COVID-19

January 7, 2021

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2021

January 4, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP