This data may suggest that 8A3 binds 2H7 near instead of directly on the overlapping 2H7/CD20 paratope and sterically hinders this interaction only at higher concentrations. less sensitive to assay types or reagent choices. In contrast, in the presence of a significant amount of ligand, assay design and characterization of assay reagents are crucial to understanding the PK profiles. Here, we present case studies where different assay types affected measured PK profiles and data interpretation. The results from reagent characterizations provide a potential explanation for the observed discrepancies and spotlight the importance of reagent characterization in understanding which drug species are being measured to accurately interpret PK parameters. Keywords: CD20 interference, PK assay, Polyclonal anti-drug CDR (PAC) assay, free or total drug, ML-3043 monoclonal anti-Drug CDR (MAC) assay, pharmacodynamic (PD), pharmacokinetic (PK) Introduction Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a encouraging and rapidly growing class of targeted therapeutics for treating variety ML-3043 of indications including oncology, autoimmune, cardiovascular, and infectious diseases. To ensure the security and efficacy of these molecules, strong bioanalytical pharmacokinetic (PK) assays that can reliably quantify drug concentrations are required. This data are used to assess drug exposure and security as well as to characterize PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) associations. There is an ongoing argument, however, as to what form of the mAb therapeutic (free or total) is ML-3043 usually most relevant to measure.1 Due to the bivalency intrinsic to mAbs, multiple forms of the drug can exist simultaneously in vivo in the presence of soluble target.2 These include non-complexed free drug and partially or completely complexed forms where one or both binding sites are occupied. Multiple complexed forms may also exist if the soluble target has more than one binding site.3 The presence of ligand or shed receptor in sera often depends on the mechanism of action of the drug and the biology of the disease. The total and free drug species are often comparative in the absence or at low levels of circulating target.2 High concentrations of circulating target, however, could potentially have a significant effect on PK1 and may result in nonlinear and linear mixed profiles. It is often hard to predict the concentrations of a circulating target/shed receptor, especially after drug treatment because target levels may become elevated. In addition, the level of target being shed from cell membranes may be variable depending on the disease biology. Therefore, estimation of the potential effect on PK results often comes from experimental data rather than theoretical predictions. The actual drug species being measured often depends on the tools/reagents available for assay development. The target binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (direct ELISA) is the method of choice for quantifying free drug levels, but this format frequently measures a mixture of different drug species because of the bivalency of mAb therapeutics, choice of detection reagents and the dilution plan utilized for samples. Other types for PK measurements include use of polyclonal [polyclonal anti-therapeutic complementarity-determining region (CDR) assay, or PAC assay], or monoclonal antibodies (monoclonal anti-therapeutic CDR assay, or MAC assay). PAC assays are generally used to detect Rabbit Polyclonal to STAT1 (phospho-Ser727) total drug by utilizing multiple binding epitopes of polyclonal antibodies against the analyte; however, it is hard to predict which drug species (total or free) are detected by mAbs. As reagents, mAbs are often selected to detect the CDR region of antibody therapeutics and therefore are believed to block drug-target interactions, but this is not usually the case. In this study, we compared the effect of different assay types and reagents around ML-3043 the PK profiles of three anti-CD20 molecules, chimeric rituximab and two humanized Abdominal muscles, ocrelizumab and v114 (PRO131921)4,5, which share similar antigen-binding characteristics as rituximab. The MAC assay format for ocrelizumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients resulted in significant differences in the PK profiles compared with that of rituximab PK profiles in the same individual population; however, a PAC assay comparable to that used in the rituximab studies generated comparable PK profiles for ocrelizumab and rituximab. For v114, the MAC and PAC assays generated equivalent clinical PK data in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients. To illustrate that our observations with ocrelizumab and rituximab.