Advertisement

Review of Recommendations for Bioanalytical Method Validation: Chromatographic Assays and Ligand Binding Assays

  • Vaishali Londhe
  • Madhura Rajadhyaksha
Review
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Reliable bioanalytical tools for compound selection as well as studies of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicity are an important part of preclinical and clinical development. Developing a selective and specific analytical method in today’s regulated bioanalysis framework is a formidable challenge for the analyst. The molecular structure and weight of analytes determine the method to be applied. Chromatographic assay (CC), predominantly liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, is the method of choice for measurement of small molecule concentrations in the biological matrix. For quantification of large molecules such as peptides and proteins, the gold standard is the ligand binding assay (LBA). LBAs differ substantially from CC methods; hence the recommendations for their validation differ too. Recently published (May 2018) United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines for bioanalytical method validation include a number of elements and acceptance criteria for CCs and LBAs individually. The differences in the requirements are based on the principles of analysis. This review summarizes the differences between small and large molecules, CCs, LBAs, and elements for bioanalytical method validation.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Chromatographic assay Ligand binding assay Hybrid techniques Bioanalytical method validation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank SPPSPTM, SVKM’s NMIMS and Sitec Labs. Pvt. Ltd. for providing support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Michael SK (2015) An overview of FDA-approved biologics medicines. Drug Discov Today 20:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah V, Midha K, Dighe S et al (1992) Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sci 81(3):309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah V, Midha K, Findlay JW et al (2000) Bioanalytical method validation—a revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm Res 17:1551–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2001) Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Rockville, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viswanathan CT, Bansal S, Booth B et al (2007) Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays. Workshop/Conference Report. AAPS J 9(1):E30–E42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fast DM, Kelley M, Viswanathan CT et al (2009) AAPS workshop on current topics in GLP bioanalysis: assay reproducibility for incurred samples—implications of Crystal City recommendations. Workshop report and follow-up. AAPS J 11(2):238–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booth B et al (2015) Workshop report: Crystal City V—quantitative bioanalytical method validation and implementation: the 2013 revised FDA guidance. AAPS J 17:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2018) Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Rockville, MD, USA. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm070107.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  9. 9.
    Timmerman P, Lausecker B, Barosso B, Van Amsterdam P, Luedtke S, Dijksman J (2012) Conference Report: ‘Large meets small’: connecting the bioanalytical community around peptide and protein bioanalysis with LC–MS(/MS). Bioanalysis 4:627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2011) Guideline on bioanalytical method validation, London, UK. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientificguideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  11. 11.
    Ministry of Health and Welfare (Japan) (2014) Guideline on bioanalytical method (ligand binding assay) validation in pharmaceutical development. http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/BMV/BMVLBA_draft_140124_E_rev.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Health and Welfare (Japan) (2013) Guideline on bioanalytical method validation in pharmaceutical development. http://www.nihs.go.jp/drug/BMV/BMV_draft_130415_E.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  13. 13.
    ICH (2016) Final endorsed concept paper M10: bioanalytical method validation. EU guideline bioanalytical method validation. https://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/multidisciplinary/article/multidisciplinary-guidelines.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  14. 14.
    Shalini G, Susan R, Lakshmi A et al (2017) 2017 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: a global perspective on immunogenicity guidelines & biomarker assay performance (Part 3—LBA : immunogenicity, biomarkers and PK assays). Bioanalysis 9:1967–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jan W, Eric Y, Eric W (2017) 2017 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: aren’t BMV guidance/guidelines’ Scientific’ ? (Part 1—LCMS : small molecules, peptides and small molecule biomarkers). Bioanalysis 9:1807–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendrik N, Song A, Keyang X (2017) 2017 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: rise of hybrid LBA/LCMS immunogenicity assays (Part 2: hybrid LBA/LCMS biotherapeutics, biomarkers & immunogenicity assays and regulatory agencies’ inputs). Bioanalysis 9:1895–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richards S, Amaravadi L, Pillutla R et al (2016) 2016 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on biomarker assay validation (BAV): (Part 3—LBA, biomarkers and immunogenicity). Bioanalysis 8:2475–2496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Song A, Lee A, Garofolo F et al (2016) 2016 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on biomarker assay validation (BAV): (Part 2—Hybrid LBA/LCMS and input from regulatory agencies). Bioanalysis 8:2457–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang E, Welink J, Cape S et al (2016) 2016 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on biomarker assay validation (BAV) (Part 1—small molecules, peptides and small molecule biomarkers by LCMS). Bioanalysis 8:2363–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amaravadi L, Song A, Myler H et al (2015) 2015 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on new technologies and biomarkers (Part 3—LBA, biomarkers and immunogenicity). Bioanalysis 7:3107–3124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ackermann B, Neubert H, Hughes N et al (2015) 2015 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on new technologies and biomarkers (Part 2—hybrid LBA/LCMS and input from regulatory agencies). Bioanalysis 7:3019–3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Welink J, Fluhler E, Hughes N et al (2015) 2015 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on new technologies and biomarkers (Part 1—small molecules by LCMS). Bioanalysis 7:2913–2925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dufield D, Neubert H, Garofolo F et al (2014) 2014 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: a full immersion in bioanalysis (Part 2—hybrid LBA/LCMS, ELN & regulatory agencies’ input). Bioanalysis 6:3237–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fluhler E, Hayes R, Garofolo F et al (2014) 2014 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: a full immersion in bioanalysis (Part 1—small molecules by LCMS). Bioanalysis 6:3039–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stevenson L, Rocci M, Garofolo F et al (2013) 2013 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: ‘hybrid’—the best of LBA and LCMS. Bioanalysis 5(23):2903–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeSilva B, Garofolo F, Rocci M et al (2012) 2012 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis and alignment of multiple guidelines. Bioanalysis 4(18):2213–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garofolo F, Rocci M, Dumont I et al (2011) 2011 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis and regulatory findings from audits and inspections. Bioanalysis 3(18):2081–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Savoie N, Garofolo F, van Amsterdam P et al (2010) 2010 White Paper on recent issues in regulated bioanalysis and global harmonization of bioanalytical guidance. Bioanalysis 2:1945–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jenkins R et al (2015) White Paper recommendations for validation of LC–MS/MS bioanalytical methods for protein biotherapeutics. AAPS J 17(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aan VE, Katrien L et al (2009) Validation of bioanalytical LC–MS/MS assays: evaluation of matrix effects. J Chromatogr B 877:2198–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelley M et al (2014) Large molecule run acceptance: recommendation for best practices and harmonization from the global bioanalysis consortium harmonization team. AAPS J 16(2):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Den Broek I, Niessen WMA, Van Dongen WD (2013) Bioanalytical LC–MS/MS of protein-based biopharmaceuticals. J Chromatogr B 929:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Timmerman H, Stoellner D et al (2010) European Bioanalysis Forum recommendation on method establishment and bioanalysis of biomarkers in support of drug development. Bioanalysis 4(15):1883–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R et al (2003) Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res 20(11):1885–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garofolo W, Savoie N (2017) The Decennial index of the white papers in bioanalysis: a decade of recommendations (2007–2016). Bioanalysis 9(21):1681–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Islam R, Briscoe C, Bower J, Cape S, Arnold M, Hayes R (2018) 11th GCC Closed Forum: cumulative stability; matrix stability; immunogenicity assays; laboratory manuals; biosimilars; chiral methods; hybrid LBA/LCMS assays; fit-for-purpose validation; China Food and Drug Administration bioanalytical method validation. Bioanalysis 10(7):433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zheng M, Zhu X, Olah (2014) Application and challenges in using LC–MS assays for absolute quantitative analysis of therapeutic proteins in drug discovery. Bioanalysis 6(6):859–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Theingi MT (2016) Fundamentals of large-molecule protein therapeutic bioanalysis using ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 8(1):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hansen K et al (2018) Glu-C, an alternative digestive enzyme for the quantitative LC–MS/MS analysis of an IgG-based antibody biotherapeutic. Bioanalysis 10(13):997–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang L, Vasicek LA, Hsieh S, Zhang S, Bateman KP, Henion J (2018) Top-down LC–MS quantitation of intact denatured and native monoclonal antibodies in biological samples. Bioanalysis 10(13):1039–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bezard E, Hengerer B (2016) LC–MS/MS-based quantification of kynurenine metabolites, tryptophan, monoamines and neopterin in plasma, cerebrospinal fluid and brain. Bioanalysis 8:1903–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Howard JW, Kay G, Jones B, Tan T, Creaser CS (2017) Development of a UHPLC—MS/MS (SRM) method for the quantitation of endogenous glucagon and dosed GLP-1 from human plasma. Bioanalysis 9:733–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kadian N et al (2016) Comparative assessment of bioanalytical method validation guidelines for pharmaceutical industry. J Pharm Biomed Anal 126:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kollipara S, Bende G, Ema A (2011) International guidelines for bioanalytical method validation: a comparison and discussion on current scenario. Chromatographia 73:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    EMA (2009) Draft guideline on the validation of bioanalytical methods. EMA, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Almeida AM, Castel-Branco MM, Falcão AC (2002) Linear regression for calibration lines revisited: weighting schemes for bioanalytical methods. J Chromatogr B 774(2):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Aszyk J, Kot J, Tkachenko Y, Wo M, Bogucka-kocka A, Kot-wasik A (2017) Novel liquid chromatography method based on linear weighted regression for the fast determination of isoprostane isomers in plasma samples using sensitive tandem mass spectrometry detection. J Chromatogr B 1051:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hughes NC, Wong EYK, Fan J, Bajaj N (2007) Determination of carryover and contamination for mass spectrometry-based chromatographic assays. AAPS J 9(3):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Amsterdam V (2013) The European Bioanalysis Forum community’s evaluation, interpretation and implementation of the European Medicines Agency guideline on bioanalytical method validation. Bioanalysis 5(6):645–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SPPSPTM, SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management StudiesMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Sitec Labs Pvt. Ltd.MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations