Recommendations for Development and Validation of a Fit-For-Purpose Biomarker Assays Using Western Blotting; An-AAPS Sponsored Initiative to Harmonize Industry Practices.

Western blot (WB) assays are routinely used for detection and quantification of biomarkers. Although assay validation to measure biomarkers in complex matrices has become a mainstay process for ligand binding assays (LBA) and mass spectrometry (MS), no guidelines exist yet validate biomarker methods using WB techniques. In this cross-industry white paper, we outlined in detail the key steps for development and for validation of WB assays for protein biomarkers under different contexts of use (COU). In addition, we described how to determine the level of assay validation needed for biomarker assays using Western blotting. For simplicity, we described two paths of WB assay validation. The first path (Path 1) is for biomarkers being analyzed for exploratory research or for internal go- or no/go- decision making. The second path (Path 2) is for clinical decision making such as dose determination or drug response that need to be run in a regulated environment. This work is supported through AAPS Biomarkers and Precision Medicine subteam and represents AAPS members opinion.

16th GCC Closed Forum: ICH M10 implementation; NGS, qPCR/dPCR, flow cytometry validation; tissue biomarkers; IS response; immunogenicity harmonization; bioanalytical industry status.

The 16th GCC Closed Forum was held in Orlando, FL, USA, on 23 June 2023. Representatives from international bioanalytical Contract Research Organizations were in attendance in order to discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The issues discussed at the meeting included: IS response, flow cytometry, changes to the bioanalytical industry, NGS assays, biomarker assay for tissues, dPCR validation, immunogenicity harmonization and ICH M10 implementation. Conclusions and consensus from discussions of these topics are included in this article.

Neutralizing Antibody Validation Testing and Reporting Harmonization.

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized neutralizing antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. A team of experts within the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists' Therapeutic Product Immunogenicity Community across industry and the Food and Drug Administration addressed challenges unique to cell-based and non-cell-based neutralizing antibody assays. Harmonization of validation expectations and data reporting will facilitate filings to health authorities and are described in this manuscript. This team provides validation testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) format selection; (2) cut point; (3) assay acceptance criteria; (4) control precision; (5) sensitivity including positive control selection and performance tracking; (6) negative control selection; (7) selectivity/specificity including matrix interference, hemolysis, lipemia, bilirubin, concomitant medications, and structurally similar analytes; (8) drug tolerance; (9) target tolerance; (10) sample stability; and (11) assay robustness.

COVID-19's impact on bioanalytical labs.

Tweetable abstract One year later, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business practices, supply chains, timelines and analytical needs for COVID-19 clinical trials have been felt across the bioanalytical community, as therapeutics may now require SARS-CoV-2 antigen and serological testing.

Women in the Pharmaceutical Sciences: Honoring Our Pioneers.

Graphical Abstract.

Strategies for method comparison when changes in the immunogenicity method are needed within a clinical program.

Aim: To present the reader with different approaches used to compare immunogenicity methods when changes are needed during a clinical program. Results: Five case studies are presented, in the first two case studies, the approach utilized a small sample size for the comparison. In the third case, all samples from a study were analyzed by both methods. In the fourth case, the intended use of noncomparable assays in an integrated summary drove design of experiments to establish the expected limits of pooling data. In the fifth case, a selectivity approach was used as an alternate to use of incurred samples. Conclusion: When data pooling across methods is needed, it is important to define the limits of comparability.