Workshop/conference report - Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: Best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays

被引:399
作者
Viswanathan, C. T.
Bansal, Surendra
Booth, Brian
DeStefano, Anthony J.
Rose, Mark J.
Sailstad, Jeffrey
Shah, Vinod P.
Skelly, Jerome P.
Swann, Patrick G.
Weiner, Russell
机构
[1] US FDA, Ctr Drug Evaluat & Res, Rockville, MD 20857 USA
[2] Hoffmann La Roche Inc, Nutley, NJ 07110 USA
[3] US FDA, Ctr Drug Evaluat & Res, Silver Spring, MD 20993 USA
[4] Procter & Gamble Pharmaceut, Mason, OH 45040 USA
[5] Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA
[6] Sailstad & Associates, Durham, NC 27707 USA
[7] US FDA, Ctr Biol Evaluat & Res, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[8] Bristol Myers Squibb Inc, Pennington, NJ 08534 USA
来源
AAPS JOURNAL | 2007年 / 9卷 / 01期
关键词
Quality Control Sample; Acceptance Criterion; Bioanalytical Method Validation; System Suitability Test; Quality Control Result;
D O I
10.1208/aapsj0901004
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
For quantitative bioanalytical method validation procedure and requirements, there was a relatively good agreement between chromatographic assays and ligand-binding assays. It was realized that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of bioanalytical method validation should be reviewed and applied appropriately.Some of the major concerns between the 2 methodologies related to the acceptable total error for precision and accuracy determination and acceptance criteria for an analytical run. The acceptable total error for precision and accuracy for both the methodologies is less than 30. The 4–6–15 rule for accepting an analytical run by a chromatographic method remained acceptable while a 4–6–20 rule was recommended for ligand-binding methodology.The 3rd AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop clarified the issues related to placement of QC samples, determination of matrix effect, stability considerations, use of internal standards, and system suitability tests.There was a major concern and issues raised with respect to stability and reproducibility of incurred samples. This should be addressed for all analytical methods employed. It was left to the investigators to use their scientific judgment to address the issue.In general, the 3rd AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop provided a forum to discuss and clarify regulatory concerns regarding bioanalytical method validation issues.
引用
收藏
页码:E30 / E42
页数:13
相关论文
共 5 条
[1]   Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules [J].
DeSilva, B ;
Smith, W ;
Weiner, R ;
Kelley, M ;
Smolec, JM ;
Lee, B ;
Khan, M ;
Tacey, R ;
Hill, H ;
Celniker, A .
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2003, 20 (11) :1885-1900
[2]  
*FOOD DRUG ADM, 2005, DRAFT GUID IND SAF T
[3]  
[USFDA USFDA], 2001, GUID IND BIOAN METH
[4]   Bioanalytical Method Validation—A Revisit with a Decade of Progress [J].
Vinod P. Shah ;
Kamal K. Midha ;
John W. A. Findlay ;
Howard M. Hill ;
James D. Hulse ;
Iain J. McGilveray ;
Gordon McKay ;
Krys J. Miller ;
Rabindra N. Patnaik ;
Mark L. Powell ;
Alfred Tonelli ;
C. T. Viswanathan ;
Avraham Yacobi .
Pharmaceutical Research, 2000, 17 (12) :1551-1557
[5]  
SHAH VP, 1991, EUR J DRUG METAB PH, V16, P249