%0 Comparative Study
%T Bioanalytical method validation: new FDA guidance vs. EMA guideline. Better or worse?
%A Kaza M
%A Karaźniewicz-Łada M
%A Kosicka K
%A Siemiątkowska A
%A Rudzki PJ
%J J Pharm Biomed Anal
%V 165
%N 0
%D Feb 2019 20
%M 30590335
%F 3.571
%R 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.12.030
%X Bioanalysis concerns the identification and quantification of analytes in various biological matrices. Validation of any analytical method helps to achieve reliable results that are necessary for proper decisions on drug dosing and patient safety. In the case of bioanalytical methods, validation additionally covers steps of pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies - such as sample collection, handling, shipment, storage, and preparation. We drew our attention to the difference of both the newest FDA Guidance and the EMA Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. We aimed to point out advantages of both documents from the laboratory perspective. The FDA and the EMA documents are similar, but not identical. The EMA describes the practical conduct of experiments more precisely, while the FDA presents reporting recommendations more comprehensively. There are also differences in recommended validation parameters. We hope that the International Council for Harmonisation will combine advantages of both documents to avoid confusing differences in terminology as well as the unnecessary effort of being compliant with two or more guidelines.