↓ Skip to main content

Pre-existing Antibody: Biotherapeutic Modality-Based Review

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Pre-existing Antibody: Biotherapeutic Modality-Based Review
Published in
The AAPS Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9878-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boris Gorovits, Adrienne Clements-Egan, Mary Birchler, Meina Liang, Heather Myler, Kun Peng, Shobha Purushothama, Manoj Rajadhyaksha, Laura Salazar-Fontana, Crystal Sung, Li Xue

Abstract

Pre-existing antibodies to biotherapeutic drugs have been detected in drug-naïve subjects for a variety of biotherapeutic modalities. Pre-existing antibodies are immunoglobulins that are either specific or cross-reacting with a protein or glycan epitopes on a biotherapeutic compound. Although the exact cause for pre-existing antibodies is often unknown, environmental exposures to non-human proteins, glycans, and structurally similar products are frequently proposed as factors. Clinical consequences of the pre-existing antibodies vary from an adverse effect on patient safety to no impact at all and remain highly dependent on the biotherapeutic drug modality and therapeutic indication. As such, pre-existing antibodies are viewed as an immunogenicity risk factor requiring a careful evaluation. Herein, the relationships between biotherapeutic modalities to the nature, prevalence, and clinical consequences of pre-existing antibodies are reviewed. Initial evidence for pre-existing antibody is often identified during anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay development. Other interfering factors known to cause false ADA positive signal, including circulating multimeric drug target, rheumatoid factors, and heterophilic antibodies, are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Other 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,032,277
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#207
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,620
of 396,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#11
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.