Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen
{"title":"皮下注射与静脉注射治疗蛋白的抗药性抗体发生率比较。","authors":"Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen","doi":"10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"26 3","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence Comparison of Therapeutic Proteins Administered Via Subcutaneous vs. Intravenous Route.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob Felderman, Lila Ramaiah, Maria-Dolores Vazquez-Abad, Dean Messing, Ying Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00930-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
与静脉注射(IV)给药途径(RoA)相比,皮下注射(SC)给药被认为具有更高的免疫原性风险。然而,目前还缺乏支持这种说法的系统性临床数据评估。本荟萃分析旨在比较同一种治疗性蛋白质通过静脉注射和体外给药的免疫原性。分析了 48 个治疗组中通过静脉注射和皮下注射两种途径给药的 7 种治疗蛋白的抗药抗体 (ADA) 数据和控制变量。RoA是主要的自变量,而治疗蛋白、患者人群、调整剂量和ADA样本数量则是控制变量。方差分析用于比较静脉注射和静脉注射 RoA 的 ADA 发生率,同时考虑控制变量和潜在的相互作用。随后,在上述 7 种治疗蛋白的基础上,又增加了 10 种已公布了静脉注射和皮下注射 ADA 数据的治疗蛋白,并对其 ADA 发生率进行了评估。对于最初的 7 种治疗蛋白数据集,RoA 对 ADA 发生率没有统计学意义上的显著影响(p = 0.55)。唯一对 ADA 发生率有明显影响的变量是治疗蛋白。其他控制变量(包括与 RoA 的交互作用)均不显著。将 17 种治疗蛋白的所有数据汇总后发现,RoA 对 ADA 发病率的影响在统计学上并不显著(p = 0.81)。总之,根据对 17 种治疗蛋白的临床 ADA 数据的分析,静脉注射和静脉注射 RoA 之间的 ADA 发生率没有明显差异。
Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence Comparison of Therapeutic Proteins Administered Via Subcutaneous vs. Intravenous Route.
Subcutaneous (SC) administration of therapeutic proteins is perceived to pose higher risk of immunogenicity when compared with intravenous (IV) route of administration (RoA). However, systematic evaluations of clinical data to support this claim are lacking. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the immunogenicity of the same therapeutic protein by IV and SC RoA. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) data and controlling variables for 7 therapeutic proteins administered by both IV and SC routes across 48 treatment groups were analyzed. RoA was the primary independent variable of interest while therapeutic protein, patient population, adjusted dose, and number of ADA samples were controlling variables. Analysis of variance was used to compare the ADA incidence between IV and SC RoA, while accounting for controlling variables and potential interactions. Subsequently, 10 additional therapeutic proteins with ADA data published for both IV and SC administration were added to the above 7 therapeutic proteins and were evaluated for ADA incidence. RoA had no statistically significant effect on ADA incidence for the initial dataset of 7 therapeutic proteins (p = 0.55). The only variable with a significant effect on ADA incidence was the therapeutic protein. None of the other controlling variables, including their interactions with RoA, was significant. When all data from the 17 therapeutic proteins were pooled, there was no statistically significant effect of RoA on ADA incidence (p = 0.81). In conclusion, there is no significant difference in ADA incidence between the IV and SC RoA, based on analysis of clinical ADA data from 17 therapeutic proteins.
期刊介绍:
The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including:
· Drug Design and Discovery
· Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
· Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery
· Metabolism and Transport
· Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics
· Translational Research
· Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes
· Regulatory Science
We invite submissions under the following article types:
· Original Research Articles
· Reviews and Mini-reviews
· White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials
· Meeting Reports
· Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications
· Regulatory Notes
· Tutorials
· Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences
In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.