Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Statistics for Biology and Health ((SBH))

  • 3053 Accesses

Abstract

Assessments of pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and immunogenicity are indispensable parts of the development process for therapeutic biologics. It is, therefore, essential to develop suitable assays for these assessments. However, development of assays for biological macromolecules poses unique challenges. In this chapter, we review the scientific background of clinical assay development and validation, as well as the common statistical methods used during the life-cycle of assay development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bates DM, Watts DG (1988) Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. John Wiles & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (2007) Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 17(4):571–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth B, Arnold ME, DeSilva B et al (2015) Workshop report: Crystal City V – quantitative bioanalytical method validation and implementation: the 2013 revised FDA guidance. AAPS J 17:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger R, Devanaryan V, Dewe W, Smith W (2007) Statistical considerations in analytical method validation. In: Dmitrienko A, Huang-Stein C, D’agostino R (eds) Pharmaceutical statistics in SAS: a practical guide. SAS Institute, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger R, Devanaryan V, Dewe W, Smith W (2010) Statistical considerations in the validation of ligand-binding assays. In: Khan MN, Findlay JW (eds). Ligand-binding assays: development, validation and implementation in the drug development arena. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen AC, Whitten BJ (1986) Modified moment estimation for the three-parameter gamma distribution. J Qual Technol 18:53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidian M, Giltinan DM (1995) Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data.Chapman & London

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSilva B, Bowsher R (2010) Validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of biotherapeutics. In: Khan M, Findlay J (eds) Ligand-binding assays, development, validation, and implementation in the drug development arena. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R et al (2003) Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res 20:1885–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devanarayan V, Tovey M (2011) Cut point and performance characteristics for anti-drug antibody assays. In: Tovey MG (ed) Detection and quantification of antibodies to biopharmaceuticals: practical and applied considerations. Wiley, New York, pp 289–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley RA, Edwards P, Ekins RP, Finney DJ, McKenzie IG, Raab GM, Rodbard D, Rodgers RP (1985) Guidelines for immunoassay data processing. Clin Chem 31(8):1264–1271

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekins RP, Edwards PR (1983) The precision profile: its use in assay design, assessment and quality control. In: Hunter WM, Corrie JE (eds) Immunoassays for clinical chemistry. Churchill Livingstone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2007) Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/14327/2006

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2011) Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2012) Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of monoclonal antibodies intended for in vivo clinical use. EMA/CHMP/BMWP/86289/2010

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA (2009) Draft guidance for industry: assay development for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic proteins. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA (2014a) Guidance for industry: immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. FDA, US Department of Health and Human Services

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA (2014b) Guidance for industry: analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Findlay JWA, Dillard RF (2007) Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays. AAPS J 9:E260–E267

    Google Scholar 

  • Giltinan DM, Davidian M (1994) Assays for recombinant proteins: a problem in nonlinear calibration. Stat Med 13:1165–1179

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Indelicato SR, Jethwa V et al (2007) Recommendations for the design, optimization and qualification of cell-based assays used for the detection of neutralizing antibody responses elicited to biological therapeutics. J Immunol Methods 321:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Devanarayan V, Finco-Kent D et al (2011) Recommendations for the validation of cell-based assays used for the detection of neutralizing antibody immune responses elicited against biological therapeutics. J Pharm Biomed Anal 55:878–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman D, Berger M (2011) Statistical considerations for calculation of immunogenicity screening assay cut points. J Immunol Methods 373:200–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman D, Kringle R (2007) A total error approach for the validation of quantitative analytical methods. Pharm Res 24(6):1157–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson AD (2003) Nonparametric estimation of normal ranges given one-way ANOVA random effects assumptions. Stat Probab Lett 64:415–424

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distributions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley M, Desilva B (2007) Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules. AAPS J 9:E156–E163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloks C, Berger C, Cortez P et al (2015) A fit-fir-purpose strategy for the risk-based immunogenicity testing of biotherapeutics: a European industry perspective. J Immunol Methods 417:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren E, Smith HW, Shores E, Shankar G, Finco-Kent D, Rup B, Barrett YC, Devanarayan V, Gorovits B, Gupta S, Parish T, Quarmby V, Moxness M, Swanson SJ, Taniguchi G, Zuckerman LA, Stebbins CC, Mire-Sluis A (2008) Recommendations on-risk-based strategies for detection and characterization of antibodies against biotechnology products. J Immunol Methods 333:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamoorthy K, Mathew T (2009) Statistical tolerance regions. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiak R et al (2013) Correlation of Screening and confirmatory results in tiered immunogenicity testing by solution-phase bridging assays. J Pharm Biomed Anal 74:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JW, Devanarayan V, Barrett YC et al (2006) Fit-for-purpose method development and validation of successful biomarker measurement. Pharm Res 23:312–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levene H (1960) Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin I (ed) Contributions to probability and statistics. Standford University Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Lytle FE, Julian RK, Tabert AM (2009) Incurred sample reanalysis: enhancing the Bland-Altman approach with tolerance intervals. Bioanalysis 1(4):705–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller KJ, Bowsher RR, Celniker A et al (2001) Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report. Pharm Res 18:1373–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mire-Sluis AR, Barrett YC, Devanarayan V et al (2004) Recommendations for the design and optimization of immunoassays used in the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J Immunol Methods 289:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyer L et al (2006) Confirming human antibody responses to a therapeutic monoclonal antibody using a statistical approach. J Immunol Methods 315:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell et al (1993) Calibration and assay development using the four-parameter logistic model. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 20:97–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocci ML, Devanarayan V, Haughey DB, Jardieu P (2007) Confirmatory reanalysis of incurred bioanalytical samples. The AAPS journal 9(3):336–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg AS, Worobec A (2004) A risk-based approach to immunogenicity concerns of therapeutic protein products. Part 1: Considering consequences of the immune response to a protein. BioPharm Int 17:22–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg AS, Worobec A (2005a) A risk-based approach to immunogenicity concerns of therapeutic protein products. Part 2: Considering host-specific and product-specific factors impacting immunogenicity. BioPharm Int 17:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg AS, Worobec A (2005b) A risk-based approach to immunogenicity concerns of therapeutic protein products. Part 3: effects of manufacturing changes on immunogenicity studies. BioPharm Int 17:32–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler WA (2008) Imprecision profiling. Clin Biochem 29:S33–S36

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlain B, Amaravadi L, Donley J et al (2010) A novel gamma-fitting statistical method for anti-drug antibody assays to establish assay cut points for data with non-normal distribution. J Immunol Methods 352:161–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber GAF, Wild CJ (1989) Nonlinear regression. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar G, Devanarayan V, Amaravadi L et al (2008) Recommendations for the validation of immunoassays used for detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. J Pharm Biomed Anal 48:1267–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen M, Dong X, Tsong Y (2015) Statistical evaluation of several methods for cut point determination of immunogenicity screening assay. J Biopharm Stat 25(2):269–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith HW, Moxness M, Marsden R (2011) Summary of confirmation cut point discussions. AAPS J 13:227–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USP chapter <1106> (2014) Immunogenicity assays-design and validation of immunoassays to detect anti-drug antibodies. United States Pharmacopeia, Version 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakshull E, Coleman D (2011) Confirmatory immunogenicity assays. In: Tovey M (ed) Detection and quantification of antibodies to biopharmaceuticals: practical and applied considerations. Wiley, New York, pp 103–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng Q, Davidian M (1997) Calibration inference based on multiple runs of an immunoassay. Biometrics 53:1304–1317

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Zhang J, Kubiak R, Yang H (2013) Statistical methods and tool for cut point analysis in immunogenicity assays. J Immunol Methods 389:79–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong Z, Zhou L (2014) Good practices for statistical estimation of cut point. In: Immunogenicity assay development, validation and implementation. Future Medicine, pp 51–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianchun Zhang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

A.1 Appendix

A.1 Appendix

1.1 A.1.1 Generalized Least Squares Estimation for Nonlinear Regression Model with No-Constant Variance

The GLS algorithm is an iterative procedure. At the beginning, let k = 0 and set the least square estimator \( {\hat{\upbeta}}_{\mathrm{LS}} \) as \( {\hat{\upbeta}}^{(0)} \). In general, for the k-th iteration, perform as follows:

  1. 1.

    Given \( {\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)}, \) estimate θ and σ2 by the method of pseudo-likelihood (PL). The pseudo-likelihood function is:

    $$ \mathrm{PL}\!\left({\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)},\uptheta, {\upsigma}^2\right)\!\,{=}\,-\mathrm{Nlog}\left(\upsigma \right)-\!{\displaystyle \sum } \log \mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}},{\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)},\uptheta \right)\!-\frac{1}{2{\upsigma}^2}{\displaystyle \sum_{\mathrm{i}}}\frac{{\left({\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-\mathrm{f}\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}},{\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)}\right)\right)}^2}{{\mathrm{g}}^2\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}},{\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)},\uptheta \right)} $$

    The variance parameters are estimated by minimizing the pseudo-likelihood using numerical method. The weights are thus: \( {\hat{\mathrm{w}}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\mathrm{g}}^{-2}\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}},{\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)},\hat{\uptheta}\right). \)

  2. 2.

    Use the estimated weights from step 1 to obtain an updated estimator of β by minimizing

    $$ {\displaystyle \sum_{\mathrm{i}}}{\hat{\mathrm{w}}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ {\left[{\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-\mathrm{f}\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}},{\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)}\right)\right]}^2 $$

Denote the resultant estimator as \( {\hat{\upbeta}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}+1\right)} \) .

The procedure stops after certain steps when the parameter estimates converge.

When there are multiple runs, estimate β same as in a single run. Thepseudo-likelihood, however, becomes:

$$ \mathrm{PL}\left(\uptheta, {\upsigma}^2\right)={\displaystyle \sum }\ \mathrm{PL}\left({\hat{\upbeta}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{\left(\mathrm{k}\right)},\uptheta, {\upsigma}^2\right). $$

The other part of the algorithm remains the same as in the single run.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhang, J., Kubiak, R.J. (2016). Clinical Assays for Biological Macromolecules. In: Zhang, L. (eds) Nonclinical Statistics for Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries. Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23558-5_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics