James S Bourdage

Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, United States

Are you James S Bourdage?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)10.34 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) have become important tools in the treatment of numerous diseases. Many of these MoAb are present in the blood at very high levels due to high dosing and long half-lives. Quantification of biomarkers bound by these therapeutic MoAb can be an important factor in determining efficacy and dosing requirements. However, quantitation of these biomarkers with reasonable accuracy can be very difficult to accomplish due to concomitant binding of the therapeutic MoAb. We describe here a novel method for quantifying total (free plus bound) biomarker concentration in the presence of high levels of therapeutic MoAb using a single non-competing MoAb in a capture/elution format. This assay has the capability to accurately detect and quantitate circulating ng/ml biomarker levels in the presence of 200 microg/ml or more of therapeutic MoAb.
    Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 08/2008; 48(3):897-901. · 2.95 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Monoclonal antibody therapeutics typically have relatively long half-lives and can be dosed at high levels. Although formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is relatively rare, detection of these antibodies can be very difficult in the presence of high circulating levels of drug. Typically these ADA are detected by bridging ELISAs which can be very sensitive to even low levels of drug. We describe an ELISA method based on affinity capture of ADA on solid-phase drug followed by removal of excess free drug, release and transfer of bound ADA and subsequent detection using biotinylated drug. The assay is both sensitive and highly tolerant to free drug with detection of 500 ng/ml of ADA readily achieved in the presence of 500 mug/ml of drug.
    Journal of Immunological Methods 11/2007; 327(1-2):10-7. · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The double antigen bridging immunoassay has been used extensively for detection of immunogenicity responses to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. We have analyzed parameters affecting performance of this type of immunoassay including microtiter plate antigen coating concentration, enzyme-labeled antigen conjugate dilution and assay format (one-step versus two-step). We present results demonstrating that the format of the assay has a significant impact on the optimal parameters to maximize assay performance. A one-step assay format achieves maximal sensitivity across a broad range of coating concentrations and at a lower concentration of conjugate than that in a two-step format. In contrast, a two-step format requires very low coating concentrations and higher conjugate concentrations to achieve maximal sensitivity and suffers from significantly reduced sensitivity at higher coating concentrations. Together, these findings indicate that a one-step assay format can greatly reduce the effect of coating concentration variation on assay performance.
    Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 10/2005; 39(3-4):685-90. · 2.95 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Development of immunogenicity assays for assessment of human antibodies to therapeutic proteins requires a quantitative determination of assay sensitivity. In the absence of true human positive controls, this is usually accomplished by utilizing affinity-purified antibodies from non-human primates or monoclonal antibodies. In the former case, it is generally considered that non-human primate antibodies will be recognized equally to human antibodies by secondary anti-human immunoglobulin reagents used in immunogenicity assays. We present results here demonstrating that this is not the case. In reality, anti-human immunoglobulin secondary antibodies do not recognize primate immunoglobulins as well as human immunoglobulins. As a result, the use of affinity purified primate antibodies to determine the sensitivity of an immunogenicity assay will likely result in the true sensitivity of the assay being underestimated.
    Journal of Immunological Methods 09/2005; 303(1-2):76-80. · 2.23 Impact Factor