PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Henry Hsu

Publications and source records attributed to Henry Hsu.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Mumps virus-specific antibody titers from pre-vaccine era sera: comparison of the plaque reduction neutralization assay and enzyme immunoassays.

Mumps virus-neutralizing antibodies are believed to be the most predictable surrogate marker of protective immunity. However, assays used to detect neutralizing antibodies, such as the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) assay, are labor- and time-intensive and consequently are often supplanted by the more rapid and inexpensive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) technique. For virus infections for which international antibody standards exist and are bridged to clinical studies of protection (e.g., measles and rubella), the EIA has been successfully used to determine immune surrogate endpoints, yet no such international reference exists for mumps serology. Since both virus-neutralizing and nonneutralizing antibodies are measured in the EIA, in the absence of a mumps serological standard, the EIA may be prone to yielding false-positive results when utilized for assessing surrogate markers of protective immunity. Moreover, since mumps virus-specific antibody titers are generally low in comparison to antibody levels induced by other viruses and EIA procedures often employ relatively high serum dilution factors, the EIA may be prone to yielding false-negative results. To examine these issues, a PRN assay and two commercially available EIA kits were used to evaluate wild-type mumps virus serological responses in human serum samples from the pre-mumps vaccine era. Our results indicate that the PRN assay is a more sensitive and specific method of measuring serological responses to wild-type mumps virus.

Adolescent↗

Validation of an anti-PA-ELISA for the potency testing of anthrax vaccine in mice.

The potency test for the anthrax vaccine currently licensed for human use in the United States (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed) involves the protection of actively immunized guinea pigs from a lethal challenge with a virulent strain of Bacillus anthracis. Lethal challenge tests entail the use of specialized containment facilities for the safe and secure handling of the challenge strain. This potential difficulty, plus humane considerations, have prompted us to investigate non-lethal, alternative immunogenicity assays that could be considered as potency tests not only for the current vaccine, but also for vaccines under development. Immunogenicity tests will require suitable measurement of an antibody response to relevant antigens, by methods such as enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or a toxin neutralization assay. Any assay chosen for this purpose should be adequately validated and reproducible by other laboratories. Validation of an analytical procedure requires the demonstration that the assay is suitable for its intended purpose. The objective of this work was to study the performance of an anti-PA-ELISA designed to assess the antibody response to anthrax vaccines in mice. Validation studies were performed according to the guidelines of the International Conference of Harmonization (ICH), and we have established the working range of the assay (37-1159 EU/mL) on the bases of the following parameters: linearity (20-1159 EU/mL; r2=0.99; p-value=0.21), accuracy (91-118% recovery), precision (< or =20%CV, repeatability; < or =9 and < or =21%CV, intermediate precision per day and per analyst, respectively), detection limit (5 EU/mL), and quantification limit (37 EU/mL). We believe that assay specificity and the above characteristics are adequate to allow this ELISA to be considered for use in a mouse immunogenicity (potency) test of anthrax vaccines, and for the standardization of reagents.

Animals↗

Assessing parallelism prior to determining relative potency.

In the course of preparing a revision to Chapter (111) of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the revision committee came to a unanimous agreement that the method for assessing parallelism that is currently presented in (111) and in the European Pharmacopeia's Chapter 5.3 is flawed and should be replaced. The symptoms are that perfectly acceptable assay results may fail due to good precision and that obviously faulty assay results may pass due to poor precision. The flaw is that the wrong statistical technique has been used. We propose an alternative approach based on the equivalence testing paradigm that does not have these shortcomings. Equivalence testing requires the establishment of equivalence limits. Specific approaches for establishing equivalence limits are discussed.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗