4.6 Review

Recommendations for the Development of Cell-Based Anti-Viral Vector Neutralizing Antibody Assays

Journal

AAPS JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-019-0403-1

Keywords

Neutralizing Antibody; Viral vector Gene Therapy; Anti-Capsid Immune Response; Cell-Based Assay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Viral vector-based gene therapies (GTx) have received significant attention in the recent years and the number of ongoing GTx clinical trials is increasing. A platform of choice for many of these studies is adeno-associated virus (AAV). All humans may be exposed to natural AAV infections and could mount an immune response against the virus. Consequently, there can be a high prevalence of pre-existing anti-AAV immunity. This presents a potential limitation for AAV-based GTx due to the potential for AAV-specific antibodies to reduce the efficacy of the GTx. Therefore, appropriate assessment of potential subjects enrolled in these studies should include evaluation for the presence and degree of anti-AAV immunity, including anti-AAV neutralizing antibodies (NAb). Recommendations for the development and validation of cell-based anti-AAV NAb detection methods, including considerations related to selection of appropriate cell line, surrogate vector/reporter gene, assay matrix and controls, and methodologies for calculating assay cut-point are discussed herein. General recommendations for the key assay validation parameters are provided as well as considerations for the development of NAb diagnostic tests. This manuscript is produced by a group of scientists involved in GTx therapeutic development representing various companies. It is our intent to provide recommendations and guidance to industrial and academic laboratories working on viral vector based GTx modalities with the goal of achieving a more consistent approach to anti-AAV NAb assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available