4.4 Review

Immunogenicity assessment during the development of protein therapeutics

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 70, 期 5, 页码 584-594

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jphp.12810

关键词

biotechnology and drug discovery < biomedicinal chemistry; development of novel analytical techniques < pharmaceutical analysis; invivo/invitro correlation < biopharmaceutics and drug disposition

资金

  1. Chief Scientists Challenge Grant at the US Food and Drug Administration
  2. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the US Food and Drug Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Here we provide a critical review of the state of the art with respect to non-clinical assessments of immunogenicity for therapeutic proteins. Key findings The number of studies on immunogenicity published annually has more than doubled in the last 5 years. The science and technology, which have reached a critical mass, provide multiple of non-clinical approaches (computational, in vitro, ex vivo and animal models) to first predict and then to modify or eliminate T-cell or B-cell epitopes via de-immunization strategies. We discuss how these may be used in the context of drug development in assigning the immunogenicity risk of new and marketed therapeutic proteins. Summary Protein therapeutics represents a large share of the pharma market and provide medical interventions for some of the most complex and intractable diseases. Immunogenicity (the development of antibodies to therapeutic proteins) is an important concern for both the safety and efficacy of protein therapeutics as immune responses may neutralize the activity of life-saving and highly effective protein therapeutics and induce hypersensitivity responses including anaphylaxis. The non-clinical computational tools and experimental technologies that offer a comprehensive and increasingly accurate estimation of immunogenic potential are surveyed here. This critical review also discusses technologies which are promising but are not as yet ready for routine use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据