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.

The concepts, importance, and application of bioanalytical method validation have been discussed for a long time and validation of bioanalytical methods is widely accepted as pivotal before they are taken into routine use. United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) guidelines issued in 2001 have been referred for every guideline released ever since; may it be European Medical Agency (EMA) Europe, National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) Brazil, Ministry of Health and Labour Welfare (MHLW) Japan or any other guideline in reference to bioanalytical method validation. After 12 years, USFDA released its new draft guideline for comments in 2013, which covers the latest parameters or topics encountered in bioanalytical method validation and approached towards the harmonization of bioanalytical method validation across the globe. Even though the regulatory agencies have general agreement, significant variations exist in acceptance criteria and methodology. The present review highlights the variations, similarities and comparison between bioanalytical method validation guidelines issued by major regulatory authorities worldwide. Additionally, other evaluation parameters such as matrix effect, incurred sample reanalysis including other stability aspects have been discussed to provide an ease of access for designing a bioanalytical method and its validation complying with the majority of drug authority guidelines.

暂无摘要。

Practical guidelines for reporting analytical calibration results are provided. General topics, such as the number of reported significant figures and the optimization of analytical procedures, affect all calibration scenarios. In the specific case of single-component or univariate calibration, relevant issues discussed in the present Tutorial include: (1) how linearity can be assessed, (2) how to correctly estimate the limits of detection and quantitation, (2) when and how standard addition should be employed, (3) how to apply recovery studies for evaluating accuracy and precision, and (4) how average prediction errors can be compared for different analytical methodologies. For multi-component calibration procedures based on multivariate data, pertinent subjects here included are the choice of algorithms, the estimation of analytical figures of merit (detection capabilities, sensitivity, selectivity), the use of non-linear models, the consideration of the model regression coefficients for variable selection, and the application of certain mathematical pre-processing procedures such as smoothing.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) was formed in September 2010. Since then, the representatives of the member companies come together periodically to openly discuss bioanalysis and the regulatory challenges unique to the outsourcing industry. The 4th GCC Closed Forum brought together experts from bioanalytical CROs to share and discuss recent issues in regulated bioanalysis, such as the impact of coadministered drugs on stability, some differences between European Medicines Agency and US FDA bioanalytical guidance documents and lessons learned following recent Untitled Letters. Recent 483s and agency findings, as well as issues on method carryover, were also part of the topics discussed.

The duplicate method for estimating uncertainty from measurement including sampling is presented in the Eurachem/CITAC guide. The applicability of this method as a tool for verifying sampling plans for mycotoxins was assessed in three case studies with aflatoxin B(1) in animal feedingstuffs. Aspects considered included strategies for obtaining samples from contaminated lots, assumptions about distributions, approaches for statistical analysis, log(10)-transformation of test data and applicability of uncertainty estimates. The results showed that when duplicate aggregate samples are formed by interpenetrating sampling, repeated measurements from a lot can be assumed to approximately follow a normal or lognormal distribution. Due to the large variation in toxin concentration between sampling targets and sometimes very large uncertainty arising from sampling and sample preparation (U(rel) ≥ 50%), estimation of uncertainty from log(10)-transformed data was found to be a more generally applicable approach than application of robust ANOVA.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。