The Immunology Quality Assessment Proficiency Testing Program for CD3⁺4⁺ and CD3⁺8⁺ lymphocyte subsets: a ten year review via longitudinal mixed effects modeling.

Since 1999, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Division of AIDS (NIAID DAIDS) has funded the Immunology Quality Assessment (IQA) Program with the goal of assessing proficiency in basic lymphocyte subset immunophenotyping for each North American laboratory supporting the NIAID DAIDS HIV clinical trial networks. Further, the purpose of this program is to facilitate an increase in the consistency of interlaboratory T-cell subset measurement (CD3(+)4(+)/CD3(+)8(+) percentages and absolute counts) and likewise, a decrease in intralaboratory variability. IQA T-cell subset measurement proficiency testing was performed over a ten-year period (January 2003-July 2012), and the results were analyzed via longitudinal analysis using mixed effects models. The goal of this analysis was to describe how a typical laboratory (a statistical modeling construct) participating in the IQA Program performed over time. Specifically, these models were utilized to examine trends in interlaboratory agreement, as well as successful passing of proficiency testing. Intralaboratory variability (i.e., precision) was determined by the repeated measures variance, while fixed and random effects were taken into account for changes in interlaboratory agreement (i.e., accuracy) over time. A flow cytometer (single-platform technology, SPT) or a flow cytometer/hematology analyzer (dual-platform technology, DPT) was also examined as a factor for accuracy and precision. The principal finding of this analysis was a significant (p<0.001) increase in accuracy of T-cell subset measurements over time, regardless of technology type (SPT or DPT). Greater precision was found in SPT measurements of all T-cell subset measurements (p<0.001), as well as greater accuracy of SPT on CD3(+)4(+)% and CD3(+)8(+)% assessments (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). However, the interlaboratory random effects variance in DPT results indicates that for some cases DPT can have increased accuracy compared to SPT. Overall, these findings demonstrate that proficiency in and among IQA laboratories have, in general, improved over time and that platform type differences in performance do exist.

Statistical methods for the assessment of EQAPOL proficiency testing: ELISpot, Luminex, and Flow Cytometry.

In September 2011 Duke University was awarded a contract to develop the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH/NIAID) External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL). Through EQAPOL, proficiency testing programs are administered for Interferon-γ (IFN-γ) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot), Intracellular Cytokine Staining Flow Cytometry (ICS) and Luminex-based cytokine assays. One of the charges of the EQAPOL program was to apply statistical methods to determine overall site performance. We utilized various statistical methods for each program to find the most appropriate for assessing laboratory performance using the consensus average as the target value. Accuracy ranges were calculated based on Wald-type confidence intervals, exact Poisson confidence intervals, or via simulations. Given the nature of proficiency testing data, which has repeated measures within donor/sample made across several laboratories; the use of mixed effects models with alpha adjustments for multiple comparisons was also explored. Mixed effects models were found to be the most useful method to assess laboratory performance with respect to accuracy to the consensus. Model based approaches to the proficiency testing data in EQAPOL will continue to be utilized. Mixed effects models also provided a means of performing more complex analyses that would address secondary research questions regarding within and between laboratory variability as well as longitudinal analyses.

Neutralizing antibodies to interferon beta: assessment of their clinical and radiographic impact: an evidence report: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

The clinical and radiologic impact of developing neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) to interferon beta (IFNbeta) while on this therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) is assessed. On the basis of Class II and III evidence, it is concluded that treatment of patients with MS with IFNbeta (Avonex, Betaseron, or Rebif) is associated with the production of NAbs (Level A). NAbs in the serum are probably associated with a reduction in the radiographic and clinical effectiveness of IFNbeta treatment (Level B). In addition, the rate of NAb production is probably less with IFNbeta-1a treatment than with IFNbeta-1b treatment, although the magnitude and persistence of this difference is difficult to determine (Level B). Finally, it is probable that there is a difference in seroprevalence due to variability in the dose of IFNbeta injected or in the frequency or route of its administration (Level B). Regardless of the explanation, it seems clear that IFNbeta-1a (as it is currently formulated for IM injection) is less immunogenic than the current IFNbeta preparations (either IFNbeta-1a or IFNbeta-1b) given multiple times per week subcutaneously (Level A). However, because NAbs disappear in some patients even with continued IFNbeta treatment (especially in patients with low titers), the persistence of this difference is difficult to determine (Level B). Although the finding of sustained high-titer NAbs (>100 to 200 NU/mL) is associated with a reduction in the therapeutic effects of IFNbeta on radiographic and clinical measures of MS disease activity, there is insufficient information on the utilization of NAb testing to provide specific recommendations regarding when to test, which test to use, how many tests are necessary, or which cutoff titer to apply (Level U).

Immune monitoring: it's prudent to adopt current quality regulations.

The United States Food and Drug Administration and its international governmental counterparts provide strict guidelines for product manufacture, quality control and clinical practice, but no regulations exist for immune monitoring. This is not surprising because it is a relatively new field that is increasingly applied in clinical trials of immunotherapy. Immune monitoring is experimental in nature, usually performed in an R&D laboratory, and is typically not integrated into an organization's quality assessment system. With the proliferation of immunotherapy studies and immunogenicity testing, regulatory agencies will progressively increasingly demand that quality regulations be applied to immune monitoring in the future. Here, I highlight the relevance of existing regulations, which, I believe, should be prospectively tied into the development and performance of immune monitoring methods.