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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bates DM, Watts DG (1988) Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. John Wiles & Sons, New York
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
Bland JM, Altman DG (2007) Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 17(4):571–582
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
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
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
Cohen AC, Whitten BJ (1986) Modified moment estimation for the three-parameter gamma distribution. J Qual Technol 18:53–62
Davidian M, Giltinan DM (1995) Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data.Chapman & London
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
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
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
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
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
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2007) Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/14327/2006
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2011) Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2012) Guideline on immunogenicity assessment of monoclonal antibodies intended for in vivo clinical use. EMA/CHMP/BMWP/86289/2010
FDA (2009) Draft guidance for industry: assay development for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic proteins. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
FDA (2014a) Guidance for industry: immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. FDA, US Department of Health and Human Services
FDA (2014b) Guidance for industry: analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
Findlay JWA, Dillard RF (2007) Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays. AAPS J 9:E260–E267
Giltinan DM, Davidian M (1994) Assays for recombinant proteins: a problem in nonlinear calibration. Stat Med 13:1165–1179
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
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
Hoffman D, Berger M (2011) Statistical considerations for calculation of immunogenicity screening assay cut points. J Immunol Methods 373:200–208
Hoffman D, Kringle R (2007) A total error approach for the validation of quantitative analytical methods. Pharm Res 24(6):1157–1164
Hutson AD (2003) Nonparametric estimation of normal ranges given one-way ANOVA random effects assumptions. Stat Probab Lett 64:415–424
Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distributions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Kelley M, Desilva B (2007) Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules. AAPS J 9:E156–E163
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
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
Krishnamoorthy K, Mathew T (2009) Statistical tolerance regions. Wiley, Hoboken
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
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
Levene H (1960) Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin I (ed) Contributions to probability and statistics. Standford University Press, California
Lytle FE, Julian RK, Tabert AM (2009) Incurred sample reanalysis: enhancing the Bland-Altman approach with tolerance intervals. Bioanalysis 1(4):705–714
Miller KJ, Bowsher RR, Celniker A et al (2001) Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report. Pharm Res 18:1373–1383
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
Neyer L et al (2006) Confirming human antibody responses to a therapeutic monoclonal antibody using a statistical approach. J Immunol Methods 315:80–87
O’Connell et al (1993) Calibration and assay development using the four-parameter logistic model. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 20:97–114
Rocci ML, Devanarayan V, Haughey DB, Jardieu P (2007) Confirmatory reanalysis of incurred bioanalytical samples. The AAPS journal 9(3):336–343
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
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
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
Sadler WA (2008) Imprecision profiling. Clin Biochem 29:S33–S36
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
Seber GAF, Wild CJ (1989) Nonlinear regression. Wiley, New York
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
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
Smith HW, Moxness M, Marsden R (2011) Summary of confirmation cut point discussions. AAPS J 13:227–229
USP chapter <1106> (2014) Immunogenicity assays-design and validation of immunoassays to detect anti-drug antibodies. United States Pharmacopeia, Version 37
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
Zeng Q, Davidian M (1997) Calibration inference based on multiple runs of an immunoassay. Biometrics 53:1304–1317
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
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.
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:
The other part of the algorithm remains the same as in the single run.
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23558-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23557-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23558-5
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)