The FDA recently released final guidance on the use of therapeutic proteins in developing biologics and biosimilars. "Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products—Developing and Validating Assays for Anti-Drug Antibody Detection" represents current FDA thinking about developing and validating assays for anti-drug antibody (ADA) detection.
The FDA recently released final guidance about the use of therapeutic proteins in developing biologics and biosimilars. "Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products—Developing and Validating Assays for Anti-Drug Antibody Detection" represents current FDA thinking about developing and validating assays for anti-drug antibody (ADA) detection.
The FDA recommends a multi-tiered testing approach, and the document spells out the development and validation of screening assays, confirmatory assays, titration assays, and neutralization assays. Screening assays, also known as binding antibody assays, are used to detect antibodies that bind to the therapeutic protein product. Confirmatory assays establish the specificity of ADAs for the therapeutic protein. Titration assays characterize the magnitude of the ADA response. Neutralization assays assess ADA for neutralizing activity.
The agency notes that setting the appropriate cut-point in assays “is critical to minimizing the risk of false-negative results.”
The document also discusses considerations for assay:
There may be other considerations, such as the use of pre-existing antibodies, rheumatoid factor, monoclonal antibodies, and conjugated proteins, the document noted.
The FDA recommends that sponsors adopt a life-cycle management report, including these sections as the product moves through various stages:
On a case-by-case basis, the FDA said, the guidance may also apply to some peptides, oligonucleotides, and combination products.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.