A Case Study for Critical Reagent Qualification for Ligand Binding Assays Using Equivalence Test Methodology.

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Nancy A Niemuth, Cheryl A Triplett, Michael S Anderson, Karen A Sankovich, Thomas L Rudge
{"title":"A Case Study for Critical Reagent Qualification for Ligand Binding Assays Using Equivalence Test Methodology.","authors":"Nancy A Niemuth,&nbsp;Cheryl A Triplett,&nbsp;Michael S Anderson,&nbsp;Karen A Sankovich,&nbsp;Thomas L Rudge","doi":"10.1208/s12248-023-00857-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Qualifying critical reagents in ligand binding assays by parallel testing of current and candidate reagent lots is recommended by regulatory agencies and industry groups, but specific guidance on the format of reagent qualification experiments is limited. Equivalence testing is a statistically sound approach that is consistent with the objective of critical reagent qualification. We present power analysis for equivalence regions ranging from 1.25- to 1.5-fold multiples of the GM ratio (centered on 1) of current and candidate lots, over a range of assay variability from 5 to 30% coefficient of variation (CV). A 1.25-fold equivalence region can be tested using 6 to 12 plates per lot for assays with up to 15% CV but is not practical for more variable assays. For these assays, wider equivalence regions are justified so long as care is taken to avoid assay drift and the assay remains suitable for the intended use. The equivalence test method is illustrated using historical data from passing and failing reagent qualification experiments. Simulation analysis was performed to support the design of qualification experiments using 6, 12, or 18 plates per lot over a broad range of assay variability. A challenge in implementing the equivalence test approach is selecting an appropriate equivalence region. Equivalence regions providing 90% power using 12 plates/lot were consistent with 1.5σ bounds, which are recommended for equivalence testing of critical quality attributes of biosimilars.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-023-00857-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Qualifying critical reagents in ligand binding assays by parallel testing of current and candidate reagent lots is recommended by regulatory agencies and industry groups, but specific guidance on the format of reagent qualification experiments is limited. Equivalence testing is a statistically sound approach that is consistent with the objective of critical reagent qualification. We present power analysis for equivalence regions ranging from 1.25- to 1.5-fold multiples of the GM ratio (centered on 1) of current and candidate lots, over a range of assay variability from 5 to 30% coefficient of variation (CV). A 1.25-fold equivalence region can be tested using 6 to 12 plates per lot for assays with up to 15% CV but is not practical for more variable assays. For these assays, wider equivalence regions are justified so long as care is taken to avoid assay drift and the assay remains suitable for the intended use. The equivalence test method is illustrated using historical data from passing and failing reagent qualification experiments. Simulation analysis was performed to support the design of qualification experiments using 6, 12, or 18 plates per lot over a broad range of assay variability. A challenge in implementing the equivalence test approach is selecting an appropriate equivalence region. Equivalence regions providing 90% power using 12 plates/lot were consistent with 1.5σ bounds, which are recommended for equivalence testing of critical quality attributes of biosimilars.

Abstract Image

使用等效测试方法进行配体结合分析的关键试剂鉴定的案例研究。
监管机构和行业团体建议通过平行测试当前和候选试剂批次来鉴定配体结合分析中的关键试剂,但对试剂鉴定实验格式的具体指导有限。等效性测试是一种统计上合理的方法,与关键试剂鉴定的目标一致。我们对当前批次和候选批次的GM比率(以1为中心)的1.25倍至1.5倍的当量区域进行了幂分析,分析变异系数(CV)为5%至30%。对于高达15%CV的测定,可以使用每批6至12个平板来测试1.25倍的等效区域,但对于更可变的测定是不可行的。对于这些测定,只要注意避免测定漂移并且测定仍然适用于预期用途,就可以证明更宽的等效区域是合理的。使用通过和不通过试剂鉴定实验的历史数据说明了等效性测试方法。进行模拟分析以支持鉴定实验的设计,每批使用6、12或18个平板,在广泛的测定可变性范围内。实现等效测试方法的一个挑战是选择合适的等效区域。使用12块板/批提供90%功率的等效区域与1.5σ边界一致,建议用于生物仿制药关键质量属性的等效测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信