scholarly journals H=C3 (The three C's of Global Harmonization)

Author(s):  
Michael Hawthorne
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 2100017
Author(s):  
Muhammad Umair ◽  
Mashkoor Mohsin ◽  
Ute Wolff Sönksen ◽  
Timothy Rutland Walsh ◽  
Lothar Kreienbrock ◽  
...  

Bioanalysis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Ohtsu ◽  
Seiji Tanaka ◽  
Harue Igarashi ◽  
Masaaki Kakehi ◽  
Tamiki Mori ◽  
...  

Biomarkers are an important drug developmental tool. Assessment of quantitative analytical methods of biomarkers is not included in any regulatory documents in Japan. Use of biomarkers in clinical evaluations and supporting the post-marketing evaluation of drug efficacy and/or adverse reactions requires assessment and full validation of analytical methods for these biomarkers. The Biomarker Analytical Method Validation Study Group is a research group in Japan comprising industry and regulatory experts. Group members discussed and prepared this ‘points to consider document’ covering measurements of endogenous metabolites/peptides/proteins by ligand binding assays and chromatographic methods with or without mass spectrometry. We hope this document contributes to the global harmonization of biomarker assay validation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 1248-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M Thienpont ◽  
Katleen Van Uytfanghe ◽  
Linde A C De Grande ◽  
Dries Reynders ◽  
Barnali Das ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND The IFCC Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests developed a global harmonization approach for thyroid-stimulating hormone measurements. It is based on a multiassay method comparison study with clinical serum samples and target setting with a robust factor analysis method. Here we describe the Phase IV method comparison and reference interval (RI) studies conducted with the objective to recalibrate the participating assays and demonstrate the proof-of-concept. METHODS Fourteen manufacturers measured the harmonization and RI panel; 4 of them quantified the harmonization and first follow-up panel in parallel. All recalibrated their assays to the statistically inferred targets. For validation, we used desirable specifications from the biological variation for the bias and total error (TE). The RI measurements were done with the assays' current calibrators, but data were also reported after transformation to the new calibration status. We estimated the pre- and postrecalibration RIs with a nonparametric bootstrap procedure. RESULTS After recalibration, 14 of 15 assays met the bias specification with 95% confidence; 8 assays complied with the TE specification. The CV of the assay means for the harmonization panel was reduced from 9.5% to 4.2%. The RI study showed improved uniformity after recalibration: the ranges (i.e., maximum differences) exhibited by the assay-specific 2.5th, 50th, and 97.5th percentile estimates were reduced from 0.27, 0.89, and 2.13 mIU/L to 0.12, 0.29, and 0.77 mIU/L. CONCLUSIONS We showed that harmonization increased the agreement of results from the participating immunoassays, and may allow them to adopt a more uniform RI in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document