| 1. |
- Kharlamova, N., et al.
(author)
-
Drug Tolerant Anti-drug Antibody Assay for Infliximab Treatment in Clinical Practice Identifies Positive Cases Earlier
- 2020
-
In: Frontiers in Immunology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-3224. ; 11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A subgroup of patients treated with infliximab lose response to the treatment and one reason for this is the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). If used optimally, measuring drug and ADA level could lead to a more personalized and efficient treatment regime, and enable identification of ADA-positive patients before the underlying disease flares or allergic reactions occur. With the use of a drug-tolerant ADA assay which can detect ADA irrespective of drug levels in the sample, we determined the impact of ADA on treatment failure to infliximab. The aims of this study were to estimate the real-life optimal serum infliximab (sIFX) level and set a clinical threshold value for a drug-tolerant ADA assay. Trough levels of sIFX were measured with ELISA. Free ADA was measured with two drug-sensitive methods (ELISA and a bioassay) and one drug-tolerant method (PandA). Two real-life cohorts treated with infliximab were included; a cross-sectional cohort including patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (n= 270) and a prospective cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (n= 73) followed for 1 year. Normal range of sIFX was estimated from the prospective cohort and an arbitrary optimal drug level was set to be between 1 and 6 mu g/mL. Using this range, optimal sIFX was found in only 60% (163/270) of the patients in the cross-sectional cohort. These patients had significantly better treatment response than those with a drug level under 1 mu g/mL, who had an ADA frequency of 34% (19/56) using the drug-tolerant method. In the prospective cohort, the drug-tolerant assay could identify 34% (53/155 samples) as ADA positive in samples with sIFX level >0.2 mu g/mL. ADA were seldom detected in patients with >1 mu g/mL sIFX, with three interesting exceptions. A clinically relevant ADA threshold was determined to be >3 RECL as measured with the drug-tolerant assay. In a real-life setting, there was a substantial number of patients with suboptimal drug levels and a proportion of these had ADA. Both too low and too high drug levels correlated with worse disease, but for different reasons. Adding a drug-tolerant assay enabled detection of ADA earlier and regardless of drug level at time of sampling.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kharlamova, N., et al.
(author)
-
False Positive Results in SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Samples From Patients With Chronic Inflammatory Diseases
- 2021
-
In: Frontiers in Immunology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-3224. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases are often treated with immunosuppressants and therefore are of particular concern during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Serological tests will improve our understanding of the infection and immunity in this population, unless they tests give false positive results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the specificity of SARS-Cov-2 serological assays using samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases collected prior to April 2019, thus defined as negative. Samples from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n=10), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=47) with or without rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, n=10) with or without RF, were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using 17 commercially available lateral flow assays (LFA), two ELISA kits and one in-house developed IgG multiplex bead-based assay. Six LFA and the in-house validated IgG assay correctly produced negative results for all samples. However, the majority of assays (n=13), gave false positive signal for samples from patients with RA and SLE. This was most notable in samples from RF positive RA patients. No false positive samples were detected in any assay using samples from patients with MS. Poor specificity of commercial serological assays could possibly be, at least partly, due to interfering antibodies in samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. For these patients, the risk of false positivity should be considered when interpreting results of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.
|
|
