Using monoclonal antibodies as an international standard for the measurement of anti-adalimumab antibodies

Selection of positive controls and their impact on anti-drug antibody assay performance

Development of assays to reliably identify and characterize anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) depends on positive control anti-idiotype (anti-id) reagents, which are used to demonstrate that the standards recommended by regulatory authorities are met. This work employs a set of therapeutic antibodies under clinical development and their corresponding anti-ids to investigate how different positive control reagent properties impact ADA assay development. Positive controls exhibited different response profiles and apparent assay analytical sensitivity values depending on assay format. Neither anti-id affinity for drug, nor sensitivity in direct immunoassays related to sensitivity in ADA assays. Anti-ids were differentially able to detect damage to drug conjugates used in bridging assays and were differentially drug tolerant. These parameters also failed to relate to assay sensitivity, further complicating selection of anti-ids for use in ADA assay development based on functional characteristics. Given this variability among anti-ids, alternative controls that could be employed across multiple antibody drugs were investigated as a more uniform means to define ADA detection sensitivity across drug products and assay protocols, which could help better relate assay results to clinical risks of ADA responses. Overall, this study highlights the importance of positive control selection to reliable detection and clinical interpretation of the presence and magnitude of ADA responses.

Evaluation of the Homogenous Mobility Shift Assay for Infliximab and Adalimumab Anti-drug Antibody Detection in the Clinical Laboratory

BACKGROUND

Detecting antidrug antibodies (ADAs) against infliximab or adalimumab is useful for therapeutic drug monitoring. Various ADA detection methods exist, and antibody titer is an output in some algorithms. Homogenous mobility shift assay (HMSA) measures relative ADA concentration and determines drug-ADA complex size in vitro. However, the relevance of complex size determination in drug monitoring remains unclear. Hence, the association between complex size, ADA concentration, and sample detectable neutralizing activity was evaluated.

METHODS

Sera from infliximab-treated and adalimumab-treated patients who tested positive for ADA in the National Screening Service were analyzed using 3 ADA assays. HMSA determined the relative ADA concentrations and complex sizes, competitive ligand-binding assay evaluated the sample neutralizing capacity, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detected immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 ADA.

RESULTS

Most ADA-positive samples (>80%) formed drug-ADA dimer complexes, whereas 17% had dimer and multimer complexes, and 3% had multimeric complexes. Multimer presence had 100% positive predictive value for detectable neutralizing activity. ADA concentration and detectable neutralizing activity were moderately correlated (r = 0.65) in adalimumab-treated patients and strongly correlated (r = 0.81) in infliximab-treated patients. In adalimumab-treated patients, multimer presence was a stronger predictor of neutralizing activity than ADA concentration was, but not in infliximab-treated patients. However, in infliximab-treated patient samples, multimer presence revealed a distinct subset with high ADA concentrations, neutralizing activity, and IgG4 ADA.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimers detected using HMSA had a strong positive predictive value for competitive ligand-binding assay detectable neutralizing activity. Multimeric IgG4-containing ADA-drug complexes revealed a distinct subset of infliximab-treated patient samples, whose clinical relevance merits further investigation.

Adalimumab combined with methotrexate versus adalimumab monotherapy in psoriasis: Three-year follow-up data of a single-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are formed in patients treated with adalimumab (ADL). This might increase clearance of ADL, potentially causing a (secondary) non-response. Combination therapy of ADL and methotrexate (MTX) reduces ADA levels and has a clinical benefit in rheumatologic diseases. In psoriasis however, the long-term effectiveness and safety have not been studied.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the three-year follow-up data of ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy in ADL-naive patients with moderate to severe plaque type psoriasis.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands and Belgium. Randomization was performed by a centralized online randomization service. Patients were seen every 12 weeks until week 145. Outcome assessors were blinded. We collected data on drug survival, effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of patients that started ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy. We present descriptive analysis and patients were analysed according to the group initially randomized to. Patients becoming non-adherent to the biologic were excluded from analyses.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were included and 37 patients (ADL group n = 17, ADL + MTX group n = 20) continued in the follow-up study after 1 year. After 109 weeks and 145 weeks, there was a trend towards longer drug survival in the ADL + MTX group compared to the ADL group (week 109: 54.8% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.326, week 145: 51.6% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.464). At week 145, 7/13 patients were treated with MTX. In the ADL group, 4/12 patients that completed the study developed ADA, and 3/13 in the ADL + MTX group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study, there was no significant difference in ADL overall drug survival when it was initially combined with MTX, compared to ADL alone. Discontinuation due to adverse events was common in the combination group. To secure accessible healthcare, combination treatment of ADL and MTX can be considered in individual patients.

Drug-tolerant detection of anti-drug antibodies in an antigen-binding assay using europium chelate fluorescence

Accurate anti-drug antibody (ADA) measurements in patient sera requires dissociation of ADA-drug complexes combined with sensitive and specific ADA detection. Bridging type immunoassays are often used despite several disadvantages associated with this approach. A good drug-tolerant alternative is the acid-dissociation radioimmunoassay (ARIA), but this method is not easily implemented in most labs as specialized facilities are required for working with radioactive materials. We describe an innovative method for ADA detection that combines the advantages of antigen binding tests like the ARIA with the convenience of regular immunoassays. This acid-dissociation lanthanide-fluorescence immunoassay (ALFIA) involves dissociation of ADA-drug complexes, followed by binding to an europium-labeled drug derivative and subsequently an IgG pulldown on Sepharose beads. After europium elution, detection is achieved by measuring time-resolved fluorescence originating from europium chelate complexes. We measured anti-adalimumab ADA levels in sera of 94 rheumatoid arthritis patients using the ALFIA and showed this method to be highly drug tolerant, sensitive and specific for anti-adalimumab ADAs.

Approaches for the detection and analysis of anti-drug antibodies to biopharmaceuticals: A review

Antibody-based therapeutic agents and other biopharmaceuticals are now used in the treatment of many diseases. However, when these biopharmaceuticals are administrated to patients, an immune reaction may occur that can reduce the drug's efficacy and lead to adverse side effects. The immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals can be evaluated by detecting and measuring antibodies that have been produced against these drugs, or anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Methods for ADA detection and analysis can be important during the selection of a therapeutic approach based on such drugs and is crucial when developing and testing new biopharmaceuticals. This review examines approaches that have been used for ADA detection, measurement, and characterization. Many of these approaches are based on immunoassays and antigen binding tests, including homogeneous mobility shift assays. Other techniques that have been used for the analysis of ADAs are capillary electrophoresis, reporter gene assays, surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The general principles of each approach will be discussed, along with their recent applications with regards to ADA analysis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of three commercially available ELISA assays for anti-infliximab antibodies

Three commercially available assays for the measurement of antibodies to infliximab (ATI) are approved for clinical use in Australia: Promonitor anti-infliximab (Grifols), Lisa Tracker anti-infliximab (Theradiag) and Ridascreen anti-IFX (R-Biopharm). All are bridging ELISA assays. Measurement of ATI has been incorporated into treatment algorithms for assessing loss of response to infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but results obtained by the three ATI assays have not been systematically compared. We performed a series of experiments to allow comparison of results between the assays. Forty-two patient samples known to be positive for ATI by the Lisa Tracker assay were run on the Promonitor assay in singlicate, of which 26 were run on the Ridascreen assay in duplicate, according to the manufacturers' instructions. The Spearman correlation coefficient for all three pairwise assay comparisons was 0.95. Results were not numerically comparable between the assays. The coefficient of variation (CV) was 2.3% for the Lisa Tracker assay, 7.6% for the Promonitor assay and 7.4% for the Ridascreen assay. The presence of infliximab interfered with all three assays in a dose dependent manner. The cut-point for loss of response to infliximab dose intensification, previously demonstrated to be 200 ng/mL on the Lisa Tracker assay, is equivalent to approximately 60 ng/mL on the Ridascreen assay and between 22.9 and 41 AU/mL on the Promonitor assay. All three assays are suitable for clinical use.

Clinicogenomic factors of biotherapy immunogenicity in autoimmune disease: A prospective multicohort study of the ABIRISK consortium

BACKGROUND

Biopharmaceutical products (BPs) are widely used to treat autoimmune diseases, but immunogenicity limits their efficacy for an important proportion of patients. Our knowledge of patient-related factors influencing the occurrence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) is still limited.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The European consortium ABIRISK (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: prediction and analysis of clinical relevance to minimize the RISK) conducted a clinical and genomic multicohort prospective study of 560 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n = 147), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 229), Crohn's disease (n = 148), or ulcerative colitis (n = 36) treated with 8 different biopharmaceuticals (etanercept, n = 84; infliximab, n = 101; adalimumab, n = 153; interferon [IFN]-beta-1a intramuscularly [IM], n = 38; IFN-beta-1a subcutaneously [SC], n = 68; IFN-beta-1b SC, n = 41; rituximab, n = 31; tocilizumab, n = 44) and followed during the first 12 months of therapy for time to ADA development. From the bioclinical data collected, we explored the relationships between patient-related factors and the occurrence of ADAs. Both baseline and time-dependent factors such as concomitant medications were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Mean age and disease duration were 35.1 and 0.85 years, respectively, for MS; 54.2 and 3.17 years for RA; and 36.9 and 3.69 years for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). In a multivariate Cox regression model including each of the clinical and genetic factors mentioned hereafter, among the clinical factors, immunosuppressants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.408 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.253-0.657], p < 0.001) and antibiotics (aHR = 0.121 [0.0437-0.333], p < 0.0001) were independently negatively associated with time to ADA development, whereas infections during the study (aHR = 2.757 [1.616-4.704], p < 0.001) and tobacco smoking (aHR = 2.150 [1.319-3.503], p < 0.01) were positively associated. 351,824 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and 38 imputed Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) alleles were analyzed through a genome-wide association study. We found that the HLA-DQA1*05 allele significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity (aHR = 3.9 [1.923-5.976], p < 0.0001 for the homozygotes). Among the 6 genetic variants selected at a 20% false discovery rate (FDR) threshold, the minor allele of rs10508884, which is situated in an intron of the CXCL12 gene, increased the rate of immunogenicity (aHR = 3.804 [2.139-6.764], p < 1 × 10-5 for patients homozygous for the minor allele) and was chosen for validation through a CXCL12 protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on patient serum at baseline before therapy start. CXCL12 protein levels were higher for patients homozygous for the minor allele carrying higher ADA risk (mean: 2,693 pg/ml) than for the other genotypes (mean: 2,317 pg/ml; p = 0.014), and patients with CXCL12 levels above the median in serum were more prone to develop ADAs (aHR = 2.329 [1.106-4.90], p = 0.026). A limitation of the study is the lack of replication; therefore, other studies are required to confirm our findings.

CONCLUSION

In our study, we found that immunosuppressants and antibiotics were associated with decreased risk of ADA development, whereas tobacco smoking and infections during the study were associated with increased risk. We found that the HLA-DQA1*05 allele was associated with an increased rate of immunogenicity. Moreover, our results suggest a relationship between CXCL12 production and ADA development independent of the disease, which is consistent with its known function in affinity maturation of antibodies and plasma cell survival. Our findings may help physicians in the management of patients receiving biotherapies.

Assessment of clinically relevant immunogenicity for mAbs; are we over reporting ADA?

Immunogenicity is recognized as a possible clinical risk due to the development of anti drug antibodies (ADAs) that can adversely impact drug safety and efficacy. Although robust assays are currently used to assess the ADA, there is a debate on how best to generate the most appropriate immunogenicity data. There are several factors that can trigger ADA formation including the immunity status of the target population and the severity of the disease indication. Immunogenicity testing has defaulted to the most conservative approach regardless of the inherent risk of the molecule or the patient population. For low-risk biotherapeutics such as human monoclonal antibodies, ADA data that provide clinically relevant information should be prioritized when establishing immunogenicity monitoring plans.

Harmonization and standardization of immunogenicity assessment of biotherapeutic products

Understanding of the determinants of immunogenicity, the testing paradigm, the impact of antibody attributes on clinical outcomes and regulatory guidance is leading to harmonized practices for immunogenicity assessment of biotherapeutics. However, generation of robust immunogenicity data for inclusion in product labels to support clinical practice continues to be a challenge. Assays, protocols and antibody positive controls/standards need to be developed in sufficient time to allow assessment of clinical immunogenicity using validated methods and optimized protocols. Standardization and harmonization play a significant role in achieving acceptable results. Harmonization in the postapproval setting is crucial for a valid interpretation of the product's immunogenicity and its clinical effects. Efforts are ongoing to standardize assays where possible for antibody measurement and for measuring product/drug levels by producing reference standards. Provision of such standards will help toward personalized treatment strategies with better patient outcomes.

Immunoassays for Measuring Serum Concentrations of Monoclonal Antibodies and Anti-biopharmaceutical Antibodies in Patients

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may be used as biopharmaceuticals to treat various diseases, ranging from oncology to inflammatory and cardiovascular affections. Trustworthy analytical methods are necessary to study their pharmacokinetics, both during their development and in post-marketing studies. Because biopharmaceuticals are macromolecules, ligand-binding assays (both immunoassays and bioassays) are methods of choice to measure their concentrations. Immunoassays are based on the capture of biopharmaceuticals by their target, which may be a circulating or membrane antigen or by an antibody recognizing their structure. Bioassays measure the activity of the biopharmaceutical in a specific in vitro test. A number of techniques have been reported, but their limits of detection and quantification vary widely. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against biopharmaceuticals are often formed and sometimes interfere with clinical efficacy. Accurate and reliable detection of ADA is therefore necessary. Binding of ADA is dependent on affinity and avidity, which makes quantification challenging. In this review, we discuss the benefits and limitations of each method to determine mAb levels and carefully compare ADA assays.

Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Antibodies: Monitoring Antidrug Antibodies in a Clinical Context

One of the factors that may impact drug levels of therapeutic antibodies in patients is immunogenicity, with potential loss of efficacy. Nowadays, many immunogenicity assays are available for testing antidrug antibodies (ADA). In this article, we discuss different types of immunogenicity assays and their clinical relevance in terms of drug tolerance, relation with pharmacokinetics (PK), neutralizing antibodies, potential adverse events associated with ADA, and prediction of ADA production. Drug-tolerant assays can provide insight into the process of immunogenicity, but for clinical management, these assays do not necessarily outperform drug-sensitive assays. The usefulness of any ADA assay for clinical decision making will be larger when drug concentrations are also measured, and this is true, in particular, for drug-tolerant assays.

Reprint of "Anti-therapeutic antibodies and their clinical impact in patients treated with the TNF antagonist adalimumab"

Patients treated with the TNF antagonist adalimumab develop anti-therapeutic antibodies (ATA), the prevalence of which varies depending on the assay used. Most assays are compromised due to the presence of adalimumab in the clinical samples. Our objective was to develop an antibody assay, applicable for clinical testing, which overcomes the limitation of therapeutic interference and to further determine the relationship between ATA development, adalimumab levels and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Use of an electrochemiluminescence platform permitted development of fit-for-purpose immunoassays. Serum samples from patients, taken prior to and at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, were retrospectively analysed for levels of adalimumab and ATA. Overall, the antibody prevalence was 43.6% at 12 weeks and 41% at 24 weeks of treatment. Disruption of immune complexes by acid dissociation, a strategy often adopted for this purpose, only marginally increased the antibody prevalence to 48.7% and 46% at 12 and 24 weeks respectively. We found that antibody formation was associated with decreasing levels of circulating adalimumab, but no direct effect on disease activity was evident as assessed using DAS28 for RA patients and BASDAI for PsA and AS patients. However, a negative correlation of free adalimumab trough levels with disease activity scores was observed. Data showed that adalimumab levels can serve as an indicator of ATA development which can then be confirmed by ATA testing. Monitoring of both therapeutic and antibodies should be considered during adalimumab therapy to allow clinicians to personalise treatments for maximal therapeutic outcomes.

Assays for measurement of TNF antagonists in practice

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist drug exposure is correlated with clinical, endoscopic and pathophysiological outcomes during induction and maintenance therapy. Measuring drug concentrations is therefore a useful tool when treating to target and optimising therapy. One of the main factors leading to suboptimal drug exposure is the formation of antidrug antibodies (ADAs), due to an immunogenic reaction of the immune system towards the non-self protein. The development of ADA does pose important concerns for drug efficacy and for safety as ADAs have been associated with acute infusion reactions, hypersensitivity reactions and serum sickness. Various assays exist to measure serum drug and ADA concentrations, either offered as a service in a specialised laboratory or commercially available as a kit. It is unclear how the performance of these assays relates to each other, until recently various comparative studies were carried out. The majority of these studies show that indeed a good correlation exists between the assays that measure drug, but that absolute concentrations can differ across tests. This is particularly relevant in clinical practice when a specific threshold or drug concentration range is targeted. For ADA assays, drug sensitivity or the ability of the assay to measure ADA in the presence of drug remains an important issue, especially for drugs with a higher dosing frequency. In addition, standardisation across ADA assays is difficult, making it hard to compare quantitative or semiquantitative (low/medium/high) results across assays and across studies.

Development of NanoLuc bridging immunoassay for detection of anti-drug antibodies

Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) are generated in-vivo as an immune response to therapeutic antibody drugs and can significantly affect the efficacy and safety of the drugs. Hence, detection of ADAs is recommended by regulatory agencies during drug development process. A widely accepted method for measuring ADAs is "bridging" immunoassay and is frequently performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or electrochemiluminescence (ECL) platform developed by Meso Scale Discovery (MSD). ELISA is preferable due to widely available reagents and instruments and broad familiarity with the technology; however, MSD platform has gained wide acceptability due to a simpler workflow, higher sensitivity, and a broad dynamic range but requires proprietary reagents and instruments. We describe the development of a new bridging immunoassay where a small (19kDa) but ultra-bright NanoLuc luciferase enzyme is used as an antibody label and signal is luminescence. The method combines the convenience of ELISA format with assay performance similar to that of the MSD platform. Advantages of the NanoLuc bridging immunoassay are highlighted by using Trastuzumab and Cetuximab as model drugs and developing assays for detection of anti-Trastuzumab antibodies (ATA) and anti-Cetuximab antibodies (ACA). During development of the assay several aspects of the method were optimized including: (a) two different approaches for labeling drugs with NanoLuc; (b) sensitivity and dynamic range; and (c) compatibility with the acid dissociation step for improved drug tolerance. Assays showed high sensitivity of at least 1.0ng/mL, dynamic range of greater than four log orders, and drug tolerance of >500.

Anti-therapeutic antibodies and their clinical impact in patients treated with the TNF antagonist adalimumab

•

ECL-based assays for measurement of adalimumab and adalimumab antibodies.

•

Performance of ECL antibody assay not significantly improved by acid dissociation.

•

Negative correlation between levels of antibody and free adalimumab.

•

Negative correlation between adalimumab level and disease activity scores.

Patients treated with the TNF antagonist adalimumab develop anti-therapeutic antibodies (ATA), the prevalence of which varies depending on the assay used. Most assays are compromised due to the presence of adalimumab in the clinical samples. Our objective was to develop an antibody assay, applicable for clinical testing, which overcomes the limitation of therapeutic interference and to further determine the relationship between ATA development, adalimumab levels and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Use of an electrochemiluminescence platform permitted development of fit-for-purpose immunoassays. Serum samples from patients, taken prior to and at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, were retrospectively analysed for levels of adalimumab and ATA. Overall, the antibody prevalence was 43.6% at 12 weeks and 41% at 24 weeks of treatment. Disruption of immune complexes by acid dissociation, a strategy often adopted for this purpose, only marginally increased the antibody prevalence to 48.7% and 46% at 12 and 24 weeks respectively. We found that antibody formation was associated with decreasing levels of circulating adalimumab, but no direct effect on disease activity was evident as assessed using DAS28 for RA patients and BASDAI for PsA and AS patients. However, a negative correlation of free adalimumab trough levels with disease activity scores was observed. Data showed that adalimumab levels can serve as an indicator of ATA development which can then be confirmed by ATA testing. Monitoring of both therapeutic and antibodies should be considered during adalimumab therapy to allow clinicians to personalise treatments for maximal therapeutic outcomes.

Validation of a Drug-Resistant Anti-Adalimumab Antibody Assay to Monitor Immunogenicity in the Presence of High Concentrations of Adalimumab

With respect to patient safety and long-term efficacy, immunogenicity of therapeutic antibodies remains an important issue. Pre-treatment of samples using either higher temperature or acidification in order to separate drug/anti-drug antibody complexes has been implemented in the traditional bridging assay and an in-house-developed affinity capture elution assay but only a limited drug tolerance was obtained. In this study, we aim to apply a drug-resistant anti-drug antibody assay to adalimumab through a combination of adalimumab/anti-adalimumab antibody complex precipitation and acid dissociation. A linear dose-response curve ranging from 3.1 to 200 ng/mL was obtained in 1/125 diluted serum, allowing detection of anti-adalimumab antibody concentrations up to 25 μg/mL equivalents MA-ADM6A10, a calibrator anti-adalimumab antibody. The cut-off point for detection was determined using 16 samples of adalimumab naïve patients and set at 0.39 μg/mL equivalents. Validation of the assay revealed that no detectable anti-adalimumab antibody concentrations were found in samples with either a positive anti-infliximab antibody concentration, a physiologic concentration of TNFα, or a high concentration of rheumatoid factor. Full recoveries were obtained when various concentrations of adalimumab (0, 1, 10, and 50 μg/mL) were spiked to 1, 2, and 4 μg/mL of MA-ADM6A10. Spiking of 50 μg/mL adalimumab to eight individual sera revealed similar anti-adalimumab antibody concentrations as in the absence of adalimumab, with a Pearson r correlation of 0.99 and an interclass correlation of 0.99. The assay allows accurate evaluation of adalimumab immunogenicity during induction or upon dose intensification and in serum samples not taken at trough.

Detection of anti-infliximab antibodies is impacted by antibody titer, infliximab level and IgG4 antibodies: a systematic comparison of three different assays

BACKGROUND

There is scant information on the accuracy of different assays used to measure anti-infliximab antibodies (ADAs), especially in the presence of detectable infliximab (IFX). We thus aimed to evaluate and compare three different assays for the detection of IFX and ADAs and to clarify the impact of the presence of circulating IFX on the accuracy of the ADA assays.

METHODS

Blood samples from 79 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients treated with infliximab were assessed for IFX levels and ADAs using three different assays: an in-house assay and two commercial kits, Immundiagnostik and Theradiag. Sera samples with ADAs and undetectable levels of IFX were spiked with exogenous IFX and analyzed for ADAs.

RESULTS

The three assays showed 81-96% agreement for the measured IFX level. However, the in-house assay and Immundiagnostik assays detected ADAs in 34 out of 79 samples, whereas Theradiag only detected ADAs in 24 samples. Samples negative for ADAs with Theradiag, but ADA-positive in both the in-house and Immundiagnostik assays, were positive for IFX or IgG4 ADAs. In spiking experiments, a low concentration of exogenous IFX (5 µg/ml) hampered ADA detection with Theradiag in sera samples with ADA levels of between 3 and 10 µg/ml. In the Immundiagnostik assay detection interference was only observed at concentrations of exogenous IFX higher than 30 µg/ml. However, in samples with high levels of ADAs (>25 µg/ml) interference was only observed at IFX concentrations higher than 100 µg/ml in all three assays. Binary (IFX/ADA) stratification of the results showed that IFX+/ADA- and IFX-/ADAs+ were less influenced by the assay results than the double-positive (IFX+/ADAs+) and double-negative (IFX-/ADAs-) combination.

CONCLUSIONS

All three methodologies are equally suitable for measuring IFX levels. However, erroneous therapeutic decisions may occur when patients show double-negative (IFX-/ADAs-) or double-positive (IFX+/ADAs+) status, since agreement between assays is significantly lower in these circumstances.

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab: a comparative study of a new point-of-care quantitative test with two established ELISA assays

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring is a powerful strategy known to improve the clinical outcomes and to optimise the healthcare resources in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Currently, most of the methods commercially available for the quantification of infliximab (IFX) are ELISA-based, with a turnaround time of approximately 8 h, and delaying the target dosage adjustment to the following infusion.

AIM

To validate the first point-of-care IFX quantification device available in the market - the Quantum Blue Infliximab assay (Buhlmann, Schonenbuch, Switzerland) - by comparing it with two well-established methods.

METHODS

The three methods were used to assay the IFX concentration of spiked samples and of the serum of 299 inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) patients undergoing IFX therapy.

RESULTS

The point-of-care assay had an average IFX recovery of 92%, being the most precise among the tested methods. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients of the point-of-care IFX assay vs. the two ELISA-based established methods were 0.889 and 0.939. Moreover, the accuracy of the point-of-care IFX compared with each of the two reference methods was 77% and 83%, and the kappa statistics revealed a substantial agreement (0.648 and 0.738).

CONCLUSIONS

The Quantum Blue IFX assay can successfully replace the commonly used ELISA-based IFX quantification kits. This point-of-care IFX assay is able to deliver the results within 15 min makes it ideal for an immediate target concentration adjusted dosing. Moreover, it is a user-friendly desktop device that does not require specific laboratory facilities or highly specialised personnel.