BackgroundChoosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields.MethodsA systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques.ResultsOur findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms.ConclusionsWe recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

The CD28-specific mAb TGN1412 rapidly caused a life-threatening “cytokine storm” in all six healthy volunteers in the Phase I clinical trial of this superagonist, signaling a failure of preclinical safety testing. We report novel in vitro procedures in which TGN1412, immobilized in various ways, is presented to human white blood cells in a manner that stimulates the striking release of cytokines and profound lymphocyte proliferation that occurred in vivo in humans. The novel procedures would have predicted the toxicity of this superagonist and are now being applied to emerging immunotherapeutics and to other therapeutics that have the potential to act upon the immune system. Data from these novel procedures, along with data from in vitro and in vivo studies in nonhuman primates, suggest that the dose of TGN1412 given to human volunteers was close to the maximum immunostimulatory dose and that TGN1412 is not a superagonist in nonhuman primates.

Two humanized IgG4 antibodies, natalizumab and gemtuzumab, are approved for human use, and several others, like TGN1412, are or have been in clinical development. Although IgG4 antibodies can dynamically exchange half-molecules, Fab-arm exchange with therapeutic antibodies has not been demonstrated in humans. Here, we show that natalizumab exchanges Fab arms with endogenous human IgG4 in natalizumab-treated individuals. Gemtuzumab, in contrast, contains an IgG4 core-hinge mutation that blocks Fab-arm exchange to undetectable levels both in vitro and in a mouse model. The ability of IgG4 therapeutics to recombine with endogenous IgG4 may affect their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Although pharmacokinetic modeling lessens concerns about undesired cross-linking under normal conditions, unpredictability remains and mutations that completely prevent Fab-arm exchange in vivo should be considered when designing therapeutic IgG4 antibodies.