Literature DB >> 10708409

Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.

J W Findlay1, W C Smith, J W Lee, G D Nordblom, I Das, B S DeSilva, M N Khan, R R Bowsher.   

Abstract

Immunoassays are bioanalytical methods in which quantitation of the analyte depends on the reaction of an antigen (analyte) and an antibody. Although applicable to the analysis of both low molecular weight xenobiotic and macromolecular drugs, these procedures currently find most consistent application in the pharmaceutical industry to the quantitation of protein molecules. Immunoassays are also frequently applied in such important areas as the quantitation of biomarker molecules which indicate disease progression or regression, and antibodies elicited in response to treatment with macromolecular therapeutic drug candidates. Currently available guidance documents dealing with the validation of bioanalytical methods address immunoassays in only a limited way. This review highlights some of the differences between immunoassays and chromatographic assays, and presents some recommendations for specific aspects of immunoassay validation. Immunoassay calibration curves are inherently nonlinear, and require nonlinear curve fitting algorithms for best description of experimental data. Demonstration of specificity of the immunoassay for the analyte of interest is critical because most immunoassays are not preceded by extraction of the analyte from the matrix of interest. Since the core of the assay is an antigen-antibody reaction, immunoassays may be less precise than chromatographic assays; thus, criteria for accuracy (mean bias) and precision, both in pre-study validation experiments and in the analysis of in-study quality control samples, should be more lenient than for chromatographic assays. Application of the SFSTP (Societe Francaise Sciences et Techniques Pharmaceutiques) confidence interval approach for evaluating the total error (including both accuracy and precision) of results from validation samples is recommended in considering the acceptance/rejection of an immunoassay procedure resulting from validation experiments. These recommendations for immunoassay validation are presented in the hope that their consideration may result in the production of consistently higher quality data from the application of these methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10708409     DOI: 10.1016/s0731-7085(99)00244-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Biomed Anal        ISSN: 0731-7085            Impact factor:   3.935


  100 in total

1.  Bioanalytical method validation--a revisit with a decade of progress.

Authors:  V P Shah; K K Midha; J W Findlay; H M Hill; J D Hulse; I J McGilveray; G McKay; K J Miller; R N Patnaik; M L Powell; A Tonelli; C T Viswanathan; A Yacobi
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Microfluidic electrochemical immunoarray for ultrasensitive detection of two cancer biomarker proteins in serum.

Authors:  Bhaskara V Chikkaveeraiah; Vigneshwaran Mani; Vyomesh Patel; J Silvio Gutkind; James F Rusling
Journal:  Biosens Bioelectron       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 10.618

3.  Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules.

Authors:  Binodh DeSilva; Wendell Smith; Russell Weiner; Marian Kelley; JoMarie Smolec; Ben Lee; Masood Khan; Richard Tacey; Howard Hill; Abbie Celniker
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 4.  Biomarkers, validation and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling.

Authors:  Wayne A Colburn; Jean W Lee
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Interlaboratory evaluation of automated, multiplexed peptide immunoaffinity enrichment coupled to multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry for quantifying proteins in plasma.

Authors:  Eric Kuhn; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; D R Mani; Angela M Jackson; Lei Zhao; Matthew E Pope; Derek Smith; Keith D Rivera; N Leigh Anderson; Steven J Skates; Terry W Pearson; Amanda G Paulovich; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 5.911

6.  Standardization of Hemagglutination Inhibition Assay for Influenza Serology Allows for High Reproducibility between Laboratories.

Authors:  Mary Zacour; Brian J Ward; Angela Brewer; Patrick Tang; Guy Boivin; Yan Li; Michelle Warhuus; Shelly A McNeil; Jason J LeBlanc; Todd F Hatchette
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2016-01-27

7.  Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement.

Authors:  Jean W Lee; Viswanath Devanarayan; Yu Chen Barrett; Russell Weiner; John Allinson; Scott Fountain; Stephen Keller; Ira Weinryb; Marie Green; Larry Duan; James A Rogers; Robert Millham; Peter J O'Brien; Jeff Sailstad; Masood Khan; Chad Ray; John A Wagner
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2006-01-12       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  A total error approach for the validation of quantitative analytical methods.

Authors:  David Hoffman; Robert Kringle
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  A magnetic nanoparticle-based time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay for determination of the cytokeratin 19 fragment in human serum.

Authors:  Guanfeng Lin; Tiancai Liu; Jingyuan Hou; Zhiqi Ren; Jianwei Zhou; Qianni Liang; Zhenhua Chen; Wenqi Dong; Yingsong Wu
Journal:  J Fluoresc       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 2.217

10.  Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays.

Authors:  John W A Findlay; Robert F Dillard
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2007-06-29       Impact factor: 4.009

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.