Literature DB >> 22005590

Model-based strategy for bioanalytical method comparison: measurement of a soluble ligand as a biomarker.

Theingi M Thway1, Jin Wang, Laura A Brunner, Wen Gu, Ivan Magana, Guy Padbury, Mark Ma.   

Abstract

Ligand binding assays (LBAs) are often the method of choice for quantification of protein biomarkers and therapeutic biologics during drug development. Soluble ligand X is a glycoprotein. To understand the role of circulating ligand X in drug-target relationship, an analytical method (Method 1) was developed and validated to measure circulating ligand X and to support early clinical studies. Change in the detection reagent led to the development and validation of a second method (Method 2). Both methods measure total circulating ligand X levels. To ensure that the method specificities and data were consistent upon method change, the two methods were cross-validated using three distinct sample types: (1) recombinant ligand X (rLIGX) spiked in buffer, (2) authentic serum samples containing endogenous ligand X (eLIGX), and (3) serum samples collected from patients being dosed with the therapeutic antibody (incurred samples). Methods were considered comparable if the 90% confidence interval (90% CI) fell within 0.80-1.25 for all sample types. The results from the comparison reveal that two methods were comparable for rLIGX samples with the 90% CI of 0.90-1.07. However, with eLIGX samples, Method 1 produced higher mean (± SD) concentrations 675 (± 316 pg/mL) than Method 2 195 (± 97 pg/mL) and the two methods were considered not comparable as the 90% CI was 0.27-0.29. With the incurred samples, the comparison results also indicated the incomparability of these two methods as the 90% CI was 0.57-0.65. To describe the statistically relevant relationship between two methods in analyzing the serum samples, linear and quadratic regression models were applied to derive two conversion equations; one each for eLIGX and incurred samples. The applicability of the equations was verified with independent study data to indicate that the equations can be used to relate two different sets of study data. A model-based strategy presented here can serve as an explicatory paradigm for other analogous situations in the future.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22005590     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2011.09.004

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


  1 in total

1.  Impact of anti-drug antibodies in preclinical pharmacokinetic assessment.

Authors:  Theingi M Thway; Ivan Magana; Ami Bautista; Vibha Jawa; Wen Gu; Mark Ma
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 4.009

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.