Statistical Evaluation of Several Methods for Cut-Point Determination of Immunogenicity Screening Assay

AbstractThe cut point of the immunogenicity screening assay is the level of response of the immunogenicity screening assay at or above which a sample is defined to be positive and below which it is defined to be negative. The Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry on Assay Development for Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic recommends the cut point to be an upper 95 percentile of the negative control patients. In this article, we assume that the assay data are a random sample from a normal distribution. The sample normal percentile is a point estimate with a variability that decreases with the increase of sample size. Therefore, the sample percentile does not assure at least 5% false-positive rate (FPR) with a high confidence level (e.g., 90%) when the sample size is not sufficiently enough. With this concern, we propose to use a lower confidence limit for a percentile as the cut point instead. We have conducted an extensive literature review on the estimation of the statistical cut point and compare several selected methods for the immunogenicity screening assay cut-point determination in terms of bias, the coverage probability, and FPR. The selected methods evaluated for the immunogenicity screening assay cut-point determination are sample normal percentile, the exact lower confidence limit of a normal percentile (Chakraborti and Li, 2007) and the approximate lower confidence limit of a normal percentile. It is shown that the actual coverage probability for the lower confidence limit of a normal percentile using approximate normal method is much larger than the required confidence level with a small number of assays conducted in practice. We recommend using the exact lower confidence limit of a normal percentile for cut-point determination. Key words: Confidence limit of a percentileCut pointImmunogenicity screening assayPercentile ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Youngsook Lee of U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the many insightful discussions.