在用于 PK 定量的配体结合试验中实施单一分析的数据驱动策略和案例研究。

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY AAPS Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1208/s12248-024-00959-x
Qiang Qu, Susana Liu, Zhiping You, Gregory S Steeno, Lisa A Dyleski, Xue Mu, Ying Wang, Daniel Baltrukonis
{"title":"在用于 PK 定量的配体结合试验中实施单一分析的数据驱动策略和案例研究。","authors":"Qiang Qu, Susana Liu, Zhiping You, Gregory S Steeno, Lisa A Dyleski, Xue Mu, Ying Wang, Daniel Baltrukonis","doi":"10.1208/s12248-024-00959-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Duplicate analysis has been a conventional practice in the industry for ligand-binding assays (LBA), particularly for plate-based platforms like Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assays. Recent whitepapers and guidance have opened a door to exploring the implementation of single-well (singlicate) analysis approach for LBAs. Although the bioanalytical industry has actively investigated the suitability of singlicate analysis, applications in supporting regulated LBA bioanalysis are limited. The primary reason for this limitation is the absence of appropriate strategy to facilitate the transition from duplicate to singlicate analysis. In this paper we present the first case study with our data-driven approach to implement singlicate analysis in a clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) plate based LBA assay with ISR data. The central aspect of this strategy is a head-to-head comparison with Precision and Accuracy assessment in both duplicate and singlicate formats as the initial stage of assay validation. Subsequently, statistical analysis is conducted to evaluate method variability in both precision and accuracy. The results of our study indicated that there was no impactful difference between duplicate vs singlicate, affirming the suitability of singlicate analysis for the remaining steps of PK assay validation. The validation results obtained through singlicate analysis demonstrated acceptable assay performance characteristics across all validation parameters, aligning with regulatory guidance. The validated PK assay in singlicate has been employed to support a Phase I study. The appropriateness of singlicate analyses is further supported by initial Incurred Sample Reanalysis (ISR) data in which 90.1% of ISR samples fall within the acceptable criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Data Driven Strategy and Case Study for Implementation of Singlicate Analysis in Ligand Binding Assays Used for PK Quantitation.\",\"authors\":\"Qiang Qu, Susana Liu, Zhiping You, Gregory S Steeno, Lisa A Dyleski, Xue Mu, Ying Wang, Daniel Baltrukonis\",\"doi\":\"10.1208/s12248-024-00959-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Duplicate analysis has been a conventional practice in the industry for ligand-binding assays (LBA), particularly for plate-based platforms like Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assays. Recent whitepapers and guidance have opened a door to exploring the implementation of single-well (singlicate) analysis approach for LBAs. Although the bioanalytical industry has actively investigated the suitability of singlicate analysis, applications in supporting regulated LBA bioanalysis are limited. The primary reason for this limitation is the absence of appropriate strategy to facilitate the transition from duplicate to singlicate analysis. In this paper we present the first case study with our data-driven approach to implement singlicate analysis in a clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) plate based LBA assay with ISR data. The central aspect of this strategy is a head-to-head comparison with Precision and Accuracy assessment in both duplicate and singlicate formats as the initial stage of assay validation. Subsequently, statistical analysis is conducted to evaluate method variability in both precision and accuracy. The results of our study indicated that there was no impactful difference between duplicate vs singlicate, affirming the suitability of singlicate analysis for the remaining steps of PK assay validation. The validation results obtained through singlicate analysis demonstrated acceptable assay performance characteristics across all validation parameters, aligning with regulatory guidance. The validated PK assay in singlicate has been employed to support a Phase I study. The appropriateness of singlicate analyses is further supported by initial Incurred Sample Reanalysis (ISR) data in which 90.1% of ISR samples fall within the acceptable criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00959-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00959-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重复分析一直是配体结合测定(LBA)行业的传统做法,尤其是酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)和中观规模发现(MSD)测定等基于平板的平台。最近的白皮书和指南为探索 LBA 的单孔(一式)分析方法的实施打开了一扇门。尽管生物分析行业已积极研究单孔分析的适用性,但在支持规范的 LBA 生物分析方面的应用还很有限。造成这种限制的主要原因是缺乏适当的策略来促进从重复分析到单一分析的过渡。在本文中,我们首次介绍了在临床药代动力学(PK)平板 LBA 分析中使用 ISR 数据实施重复分析的数据驱动方法的案例研究。该策略的核心内容是在化验验证的初始阶段,将一式两份的精密度和准确度评估进行正面比较。随后进行统计分析,评估方法在精密度和准确度方面的变异性。我们的研究结果表明,一式两份与一式一份之间没有影响性差异,这肯定了一式一份分析适用于 PK 检测验证的其余步骤。通过一式一份分析获得的验证结果表明,所有验证参数的测定性能特征均可接受,符合监管指南的要求。经过验证的一联 PK 分析法已用于支持一项 I 期研究。90.1% 的 ISR 样品符合可接受的标准,初步的发生样品再分析 (ISR) 数据进一步证明了一联分析的适当性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Data Driven Strategy and Case Study for Implementation of Singlicate Analysis in Ligand Binding Assays Used for PK Quantitation.

Duplicate analysis has been a conventional practice in the industry for ligand-binding assays (LBA), particularly for plate-based platforms like Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assays. Recent whitepapers and guidance have opened a door to exploring the implementation of single-well (singlicate) analysis approach for LBAs. Although the bioanalytical industry has actively investigated the suitability of singlicate analysis, applications in supporting regulated LBA bioanalysis are limited. The primary reason for this limitation is the absence of appropriate strategy to facilitate the transition from duplicate to singlicate analysis. In this paper we present the first case study with our data-driven approach to implement singlicate analysis in a clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) plate based LBA assay with ISR data. The central aspect of this strategy is a head-to-head comparison with Precision and Accuracy assessment in both duplicate and singlicate formats as the initial stage of assay validation. Subsequently, statistical analysis is conducted to evaluate method variability in both precision and accuracy. The results of our study indicated that there was no impactful difference between duplicate vs singlicate, affirming the suitability of singlicate analysis for the remaining steps of PK assay validation. The validation results obtained through singlicate analysis demonstrated acceptable assay performance characteristics across all validation parameters, aligning with regulatory guidance. The validated PK assay in singlicate has been employed to support a Phase I study. The appropriateness of singlicate analyses is further supported by initial Incurred Sample Reanalysis (ISR) data in which 90.1% of ISR samples fall within the acceptable criteria.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Impact of Pharmacological Target-Mediated Low Plasma Exposure in Lead Compound Selection in Drug Discovery - A Modeling Approach. Luteolin Protects against Vascular Calcification by Modulating SIRT1/CXCR4 Signaling Pathway and Promoting Autophagy. Case Studies on the use of Microsampling for Nonclinical Studies in Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery and Development. Assessing Immunogenicity in Drug Reviews and Prescribing Information in Japan. Temperature Excursion Management: A Tier-Based Approach for Commercial Oral Solid Dosage Forms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1