Assesses immunogenicity risk of siRNA therapeutics, suggesting a streamlined assessment approach.
Oligonucleotide therapeutics (ONTs) have emerged as a transformative treatment modality with numerous products approved globally for addressing a variety of diseases. Within this class, siRNAs therapeutics have achieved remarkable success, with eight approvals to date. siRNA therapeutics are short double-stranded RNAs designed to hybridize with complementary mRNA sequences and regulate disease-related protein expression through endogenous RNA interference (RNAi) mechanism. This manuscript outlines a framework of immunogenicity risk assessment for siRNA therapeutics, discusses the challenges associated with anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay development, and reviews available immunogenicity data from both approved and investigational GalNAc-siRNA therapeutics. Across clinical development programs, GalNAc- conjugated siRNA therapeutics have demonstrated a low immunogenicity risk profile, supported by comprehensive immunogenicity risk assessment and accumulated clinical data. Reported treatment-emergent ADA response has been generally low (≤ 6%), with no observed impact on pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy and/or safety. Given the favorable immunogenicity profile observed to date, routine prospective ADA assessments throughout clinical development may not be scientifically warranted for all siRNA therapeutics. Instead, the manuscript advocates adopting a risk-based immunogenicity assessment strategy. This approach emphasizes immunogenicity risk assessment early in the program development, for low-risk molecules, such as GalNAc- or lipid-conjugated siRNA, ADA samples can be collected and banked during early phase studies for retrospective testing if evidence emerges of altered PK, PD, or immune-mediated adverse events. This risk-based immunogenicity assessment strategy ensures patient safety and therapeutic efficacy while streamlining development process for siRNA therapeutics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: