Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Version History

« Previous Version 34 Next »

Welcome to the Abvance II wiki home page.

This page was created on 30 April 2018.
This 'landing page' provides a top level view of the project and includes links to subsections and other relevant external content.
The AbVance II wiki is a 'live' document which will evolve in line with the project and is the 'go to' place for all the latest information.
Use the "edit" icon at the top of this page to edit and the "create" icon on the left to create a new page.
Contact richard.norman@pistoiaalliance.org if you have any questions about this wiki, including if you do not see the "edit" icon.

Proposal

The successful development of antibody molecules into approved drugs relies on optimizing a series of biophysical and pharmacological properties before the start of clinical trials. Failure during clinical trials or during the associated later stages of development is expensive. As such, early prediction of ‘developability’ risk is of key importance.

Our confidence in the ability to predict developability problems early by surrogate biophysical assays is limited by the low number of molecules with associated biophysical data and an agreed standard way of measuring this data across the industry. In addition, key pharmacological properties such as human and cyno PK (clearance), viscosity and solubility, and an understanding of whether these endpoint data could be predicted using biophysical surrogate data is lacking. Similar assays are used across the industry to predict developability risk (see Jain et al., 2017: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/944), but institutions use different methodologies.  Nevertheless, commonality can be expected among differently implemented assays of the same type.  For example we can expect some level of consistency in rank ordering of molecules by Hydrophobic Interaction Chromatography (HIC) even if different resins are used.

There is an opportunity to collectively identify the most predictive biophysical surrogate assays to understand variability among these, benchmark and establish best practices. In the first instance, this would act as an incentive for methods standardization and could subsequently encourage the building and growth of a common database to impact future antibody drug development.

Problem statements (and scale)

“Our confidence in the ability to predict developability problems early by surrogate biophysical assays is limited by the low number of molecules with associated biophysical data and an agreed standard way of measuring this data across the industry.”

100% industry members polled AGREE0% industry members polled DISAGREE

“Key pharmacological properties such as human and cyno PK (clearance), viscosity and solubility, and an understanding of whether these endpoint data could be predicted using biophysical surrogate data is lacking.”

43% industry members polled AGREE57% industry members polled DISAGREE

Vision

To create an industry-wide repository of biophysical information for antibodies which will facilitate earlier selection of drug candidates.

Value proposition

Having greater ability to select the 'right' molecules early: be more effective at identifying which molecules will require the most/least resources to develop into potential lead candidates.

Objectives

1. Identify a minimum set of ‘value’ assays which will provide minimum required information to run a 'standard' campaign.

2. Highlight the variability between the same assays at different organisations.

3. Understand which sequences, structural elements, biophysics properties contribute to liabilities or undesired effects.



Follow the links below for further information:

The team - including links to Project Team Meetings: Agendas & Minutes.

Scope - including BASECASE scenario.

Approach

Risk assessment

Plans - short term

Outstanding Questions

Questions

>What level of agreement is there with the problem statements?

>What data/analysis is there to support/refute the problem statements?

>What level of detail are organisations prepared to share with regards the assays, data, established correlations and sequence/structure?

>How much data do we need to make a difference and how are we going to test this?

>Who will ‘own’ and manage data?

>What internal related efforts are ongoing?

Blog stream

Blog stream

Create a blog post to share news and announcements with your team and company.

Recently updated

  • No labels