ArticleThe AAPS journal2024
Bioanalytical Method Comparison Strategy for Clinical Anti-drug Antibody Immunoassays.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Data-driven Stepwise Approach to Cross Validation of Clinical Anti-Drug Antibody (ADA) Assays.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Validation of the i-Tracker Drug and Total Anti-Drug Antibody CLIA Assays on IDS-iSYS for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Adalimumab- and Infliximab-Treated Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per FDA guidance, method comparability should be established if an anti-drug antibody (ADA) assay is run by two or more independent laboratories during a study. Genentech, Inc. is evaluating an immunogenicity risk-based comparability approach consisting of both technical and clinical aspects. Technical comparability of the relative sensitivity (RS) is assessed using the Two One-Sided T-tests (TOST) statistical analysis which evaluates if the difference (in absolute value) of the RS means of the two laboratories is less than a pre-specified level of comparability, the practically significant difference (PSD). Clinical comparability is based on the molecule's immunogenicity risk. A basic and in-depth assessment for low and high-risk molecules are used, respectively. An alternative strategy for molecules with limited incurred sample availability is to be used. In the basic assessment, samples are either unfortified or fortified with surrogate ADA positive control at method appropriate concentrations in a representative biological matrix. Acceptable comparability requires in both methods i) at least 80% of the unfortified samples screen and confirm negative, ii) at least 90% of the low concentration samples screen and confirm positive; and iii) 100% of the high concentration samples screen and confirm positive. The in-depth assessment uses at least 100 incurred samples from 30 or more ADA-positive and ADA-negative patients. The results are evaluated using a 2 by 2-confusion matrix and Cohen's Kappa score where 1 indicates perfect agreement. Acceptable comparability requires a Cohen's Kappa score of greater than 0.40. This strategy allows for a robust technical and clinical method comparability assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39702644What 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.