A false sense of security?:can tiered approach be trusted to accurately classify immunogenicity samples?

Detecting and characterizing of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against a protein therapeutic are crucially important to monitor the unwanted immune response. Usually a multi-tiered approach that initially rapidly screens for positive samples that are subsequently confirmed in a separate assay is employed for testing of patient samples for ADA activity. In this manuscript we evaluate the ability of different methods used to classify subject with screening and competition based confirmatory assays. We find that for the overall performance of the multi-stage process the method used for confirmation is most important where a t-test is best when differences are moderate to large. Moreover we find that, when differences between positive and negative samples are not sufficiently large, using a competition based confirmation step does yield poor classification of positive samples

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

Objectives: Anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities. Methods: All persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA). Results: In total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors.</p

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

Objectives: Anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities. Methods: All persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA). Results: In total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors.</p

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

Objectives: Anti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities. Methods: All persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII > 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII < 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA). Results: In total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors

The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A

ObjectivesAnti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities.MethodsAll persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII &gt; 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII &lt; 1 IU/dL)] with an available plasma sample who participated in the sixth Hemophilia in the Netherlands study between 2018 and 2019 were included. The presence of anti-FVIII antibodies of the immunoglobulin A, M, and G isotypes and IgG subclasses, along with antibody titer levels, were assessed using direct-binding ELISAs. FVIII specificity was assessed using a competition-based ELISA approach. The inhibitor status was determined using the Nijmegen ultra-sensitive Bethesda assay (NusBA) and the Nijmegen Bethesda assay (NBA).ResultsIn total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor.ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors

A comparison of methods for classifying samples as truly specific with confirmatory immunoassays

Biotechnology-derived therapeutics may induce an unwanted immune response leading to the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) which can result in altered efficacy and safety of the therapeutic protein. Anti-drug antibodies may, for example, affect pharmacokinetics of the therapeutic protein or induce autoimmunity. It is therefore crucial to have assays available for the detection and characterization of ADAs. Commonly, a screening assay is initially used to classify samples as either ADA positive or negative. A confirmatory assay, typically based on antigen competition, is subsequently employed to separate false positive samples from truly positive samples. In this manuscript we investigate the performance of different statistical methods classifying samples in competition assays through simulation and analysis of real data. In our evaluations we do not find a uniformly best method although a simple t-test does provide good results throughout. More crucially we find that very large differences between uninhibited and inhibited measurements relative to the assay variability are required in order to obtain useful classification results questioning the usefulness of competition assays with high variability

A formal comparison of different methods for establishing cut points to distinguish positive and negative samples in immunoassays.

Biotechnology derived therapeutics may induce an unwanted immune response leading to the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). As a result the efficacy and safety of the therapeutic protein could be impaired. Neutralizing antibodies may, for example, affect pharmacokinetics of the therapeutic protein or induce autoimmunity. Therefore a drug induced immune response is a major concern and needs to be assessed during drug development. It is therefore crucial to have assays available for the detection and characterization of ADAs. These assays are used to classify samples in positive and negative samples based on a cut point. In this manuscript we investigate the performance of established and newly developed methods to determine a cut point in immunoassays such as ELISA through simulation and analysis of real data. The different methods are found to have different advantages and disadvantages. A robust parametric approach generally resulted in very good results and can be recommended for many situations. The newly introduced method based on mixture models yields similar results to the robust parametric approach but offers some additional flexibility at the expense of higher complexity

DataSheet_1_The spectrum of neutralizing and non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in a nationwide cohort of 788 persons with hemophilia A.docx

ObjectivesAnti-factor VIII (FVIII) antibodies have been reported to exhibit both neutralizing and non-neutralizing characteristics. This is the first study investigating the full spectrum of FVIII-specific antibodies, including non-neutralizing antibodies, very-low titer inhibitors, and inhibitors, in a large nationwide population of persons with hemophilia A of all severities.MethodsAll persons with hemophilia A (mild (FVIII > 5–40 IU/dL)/moderate [FVIII 1–5 IU/dL)/severe (FVIII ResultsIn total, 788 persons with hemophilia A (336 (42.6%) mild, 123 (15.6%) moderate, 329 (41.8%) severe hemophilia) were included. The median age was 45 years (IQR 24–60), and the majority (50.9%) had over 150 exposure days to FVIII concentrates. Within our population, 144 (18.3%) individuals had non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies, 10 (1.3%) had very low-titer inhibitors (NusBA positive; NBA negative), and 13 (1.6%) had inhibitors (both NusBA and NBA positive). IgG1 was the most abundant FVIII-specific antibody subclass, and the highest titer levels were found for IgG4. In individuals without a reported history of inhibitor development, no clear differences were observed in antibody patterns between those who were minimally or highly exposed to FVIII concentrates. IgG4 subclass antibodies were only observed in persons with a reported history of FVIII inhibitor or in those with a currently detected (very low-titer) inhibitor.ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study, we identified non-neutralizing antibodies in a relatively large proportion of persons with hemophilia A. In contrast, in our population, consisting of persons highly exposed to FVIII concentrates, (very low-titer) inhibitors were detected only in a small proportion of persons, reflecting a well-tolerized population. Hence, our findings suggest that only a small subpopulation of non-neutralizing FVIII-specific antibodies is associated with clinically relevant inhibitors.</p