Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016171›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2023

Statistical Approaches for Establishing Appropriate Immunogenicity Assay Cut Points: Impact of Sample Distribution, Sample Size, and Outlier Removal.

John Garlits, Sean McAfee, Jessica-Ann Taylor, Enoch Shum, Qi Yang, Emily Nunez, Kristina Kameron, Keilah Fenech, Jacqueline Rodriguez, Albert Torri and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

John GarlitsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Sean McAfeeRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Jessica-Ann TaylorRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Enoch ShumRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Qi YangRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Emily NunezRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Kristina KameronRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Keilah FenechRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Jacqueline RodriguezRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Albert TorriRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Jihua ChenRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Giane SumnerRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA.
Michael A PartridgeRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bioanalytical Sciences, 777 Old Saw Mill River Rd, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, USA. michael.partridge@regeneron.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The statistical assessments needed to establish anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay cut points (CPs) can be challenging for bioanalytical scientists. Poorly established CPs that are too high could potentially miss treatment emergent ADA or, when set too low, result in detection of responses that may have no clinical relevance. We evaluated 16 validation CP datasets generated with ADA assays at Regeneron's bioanalytical laboratory and compared results obtained from different CP calculation tools. We systematically evaluated the impact of various factors on CP determination including biological and analytical variability, number of samples for capturing biological variability, outlier removal methods, and the use of parametric vs. non-parametric CP determination. In every study, biological factors were the major component of assay response variability, far outweighing the contribution from analytical variability. Non-parametric CP estimations resulted in screening positivity in drug-naïve samples closer to the targeted rate (5%) and were less impacted by skewness. Outlier removal using the boxplot method with an interquartile range (IQR) factor of 3.0 resulted in screening positivity close to the 5% targeted rate when applied to entire drug-naïve dataset. In silico analysis of CPs calculated using different sample sizes showed that using larger numbers of individuals resulted in CP estimates closer to the CP of the entire population, indicating a larger sample size (~ 150) for CP determination better represents the diversity of the study population. Finally, simpler CP calculations, such as the boxplot method performed in Excel, resulted in CPs similar to those determined using complex methods, such as random-effects ANOVA.

Indexed as

AntibodiesHumansSample SizeAntibodiesanti-drug antibody (ADA) assaycut point determinationimmunogenicityoutlier removaltherapeutic protein products

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.