Abstract
Bioanalytical methods used to support the drug development process are validated to ensure that they function in the manner in which they are intended. “Incurred” or study samples can vary in their composition when compared with the standards and quality control samples used to validate the method and analyze these samples. During the 3rd American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists(AAPS)/Food and Drug Administration(FDA) Bioanalytical Workshop, it was suggested that the reproducibility in the analysis of incurred samples be evaluated in addition to the usual prestudy validation activities performed. This manuscript provides recommendations concerning the number and types of samples that should be analyzed in such an evaluation, as well as the manner in which the resultant data should be analyzed. Suggestions as to follow-up activities and data reporting are also discussed. This approach is at best a beginning and is offered as a platform for future discussion, comments, and revision.
Keywords: Bioanalytical, incurred samples, LC/MS/MS, ELISA, immunoassay, reproducibility
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (526.8 KB).
References
- 1.Shah DD, Midha KK, Dighe SV, et al. Analytical methods validation bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. J. Pharm Sci. 1992;81:309–312. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600810324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shah VP. The history of bioanalytical method validation and regulation: evolution of a guidance document on bioanalytical methods validation. AAPS J. 2007;9:E43–E47. doi: 10.1208/aapsj0901005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Viswanathan CT, Bansal S, Booth B, et al. Workshop/conference report—quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays. AAPS J. 2007;9:E30–E42. doi: 10.1208/aapsj0901004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Findlay JWA, Smith WC, Lee JW, et al. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;21:1249–1273. doi: 10.1016/S0731-7085(99)00244-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Guidance for the Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services FDA (CDER) and (CVM); 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 6.DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20:1885–1900. doi: 10.1023/B:PHAM.0000003390.51761.3d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bansal SB. AAPS Bioanalytical Survey. Paper presented at the AAPS 3rd Bioanalytical Workshop: Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation—Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays; May 1–3, 2006; Washington, DC.
- 8.Canadian Health Ministry. Guidance for Industry. Conduct and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies—Part A: Oral Dosage Formulations Used for Systemic Effects. 1992; Available at: http://he-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/bio-a_e.html. Accessed September 27, 2007.
- 9.Canadian Health Ministry. Guidance for Industry. Conduct and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies—Part B: Oral Modified Release Formulations Used for Systemic Effects. 1996; Available at: http://hc-se.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/bio-b_e.html. Accessed September 27, 2007.
- 10.Canadian Health Ministry. Notice to Industry—Removal of Requirement for 15% Random Replicate Samples. 2003; Available at: http://he-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-lb/bio/15rep_e.html. Accessed September 27, 2007.
- 11.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;i:307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20:337–340. doi: 10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Eastwood BJ, Farmen MW, Iversen PW, et al. The minimum significant ratio: a statistical parameter to characterize the reproducibility of potency estimates from concentration-response assays and estimation by replicate-experiment studies. J Biomol Screen. 2006;11:253–261. doi: 10.1177/1087057105285611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Eli Lilly and Company and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC). Transfer of validated assays, 2005. Available at: http://www.nege.nih.gov/guidance/section2.html#analysis-potency. Accessed September 27, 2007.