ArticleThe AAPS journal2019
Anti-drug Antibody Assay Validation: Improved Reporting of the Assay Selectivity via Simpler Positive Control Recovery Data Analysis.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay selectivity is evaluated during assay validation to assess the potential for individual matrices to interfere with detection of ADA. While current EMA and FDA guideline documents suggest comparative analysis with and without matrix, they do not provide specific recommendations on the acceptance criteria such as an acceptable percent positive control (PC) recovery range or positive rate. Industry has adopted an approach where recovery of PC spiked sample is expected to fall within ± 20% (80 to 120%) vs. that for the PC material spiked in negative control matrix or assay buffer. Here, it is proposed that ADA assay selectivity evaluated using a qualitative assessment of PC recovery vs. a PK-like quantitative method may be more appropriate. The PC recovery test should focus on the reliability of the method to detect the low PC level in individual samples and avoid false-negative ADA reporting. Therefore, it is proposed that assessment of high PC level as well as the assessment of quantitative percent recovery (within ± 20%) should not be included in the test. The recovery test may be viewed as acceptable should a pre-selected number of individual samples (for example at least 8 or 9 out of 10) prepared at the low PC concentration of the assay score as ADA positive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.