Assessment of Incurred Sample Reanalysis for Macromolecules to Evaluate Bioanalytical Method Robustness: Effects from Imprecision

Abstract

Incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) is recommended by regulatory agencies to demonstrate reproducibility of validated methods and provide confidence that methods used in pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic assessments give reproducible results. For macromolecules to pass ISR, regulatory recommendations require that two thirds of ISR samples be within 30% of the average of original and reanalyzed values. A modified Bland–Altman (mBA) analysis was used to evaluate whether total error (TE), the sum of precision and accuracy, was predictive of a method’s passing ISR and to identify potential contributing parameters for ISR success. Simulated studies determined minimum precision requirements for methods to have successful ISR and evaluated the relationship between precision and the probability of a method’s passing ISR acceptance criteria. The present analysis evaluated ISRs conducted for 37 studies involving ligand-binding assays (LBAs), with TEs ranging from 15% to 30%. An mBA approach was used to assess accuracy and precision of ISR, each with a threshold of 30%. All ISR studies met current regulatory criteria; using mBA, all studies met the accuracy threshold of 30% or less, but two studies (5%) failed to meet the 30% precision threshold. Simulation results showed that when an LBA has ≤15% imprecision, the ISR criteria for both the regulatory recommendation and mBA would be met in 99.9% of studies. Approximately 71% of samples are expected to be within 1.5 times the method imprecision. Therefore, precision appears to be a critical parameter in LBA reproducibility and may also be useful in identifying methods that have difficulty passing ISR.