ArticleThe AAPS journal2023
Statistical Approaches for Establishing Appropriate Immunogenicity Assay Cut Points: Impact of Sample Distribution, Sample Size, and Outlier Removal.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an electrochemiluminescence-based bridging assay to detect antibodies against a PTH inverse agonist in human plasma.Bioanalysis · 2026Article
- First step towards predicting clinical immunogenicity of biologics using in vitro based readouts as animal trial alternatives.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026Article
- Long-term cross-variant Fc-mediated immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 induced by a heterologous adenoviral/inactivated virus prime-boost vaccination strategy.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- A Data-driven Stepwise Approach to Cross Validation of Clinical Anti-Drug Antibody (ADA) Assays.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Positive/negative binocular fusional C-optotypes and 2D planar C-optotypes on transient accommodation and stability in adult eyes: implications for myopia prevention and control.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Association of Immunogenicity and Drug Exposure and the Importance of Target Engagement in ADA Development: A Clinical Case Study of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Biotherapeutics.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Cut Point in Immunogenicity Testing: A Flawed Concept We Can Live Without.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Phenotyping Fatigue Profiles in Marfan Syndrome Through Cluster Analysis: A Cross-Sectional Study of Psychosocial and Clinical Correlates.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Singlicate analysis in ADA assays: comparing assay performance in duplicate and singlicate formats.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Challenging the Standard Immunogenicity Assessment Approach: 1-Tiered ADA Testing Strategy in Clinical Trials.The AAPS journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
37016171What 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.