Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 1962–1973 | Cite as

Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation: Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays

  • C. T. Viswanathan
  • Surendra Bansal
  • Brian Booth
  • Anthony J. DeStefano
  • Mark J. Rose
  • Jeffrey Sailstad
  • Vinod P. Shah
  • Jerome P. Skelly
  • Patrick G. Swann
  • Russell Weiner
Workshop Report

Abstract

Abstract

The Third AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop, entitled “Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation: Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays” was held on May 1–3, 2006 in Arlington, VA. The format of this workshop consisted of presentations on bioanalytical topics, followed by discussion sessions where these topics could be debated, with the goal of reaching consensus, or identifying subjects where addition input or clarification was required. The discussion also addressed bioanalytical validation requirements of regulatory agencies, with the purpose of clarifying expectations for regulatory submissions. The proceedings from each day were reviewed and summarized in the evening sessions among the speakers and moderators of the day. The consensus summary was presented back to the workshop on the last day and was further debated. This communication represents the distillate of the workshop proceedings and provides the summary of consensus reached and also contains the validation topics where no consensus was reached.

Key words

bioanalytical bioequivalence LC-MS/MS ligand binding validation 

References

  1. 1.
    V. P. Shah, K. K. Midha, and S. V. Dighe. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies (conference report). Eur. J. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 16(4):249–255 (1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. P. Shah, K. K. Midha, J. W. A. Findlay, H. M. Hill, J. D. Hulse, I. J. McGilveray, G. McKay, K. J. Miller, R. N. Patnaik, M. L. Powell, A. Tonelli, C. T. Viswanathan, and A. Yacobi. Bioanalytical method validation—a revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm. Res. 17(12):1551–1557 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation, US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Rockville, MD, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. DeSilva, W. Smith, R. Weiner, M. Kelley, J. Smolec, B. Lee, M. Khan, R. Tacey, H. Hill, and A. Celniker. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm. Res. 20(11):1885–1900 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Safety Testing of Drug Metabolites, US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Rockville, MD, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. T. Viswanathan
    • 1
  • Surendra Bansal
    • 2
  • Brian Booth
    • 3
  • Anthony J. DeStefano
    • 4
  • Mark J. Rose
    • 5
  • Jeffrey Sailstad
    • 6
  • Vinod P. Shah
    • 7
  • Jerome P. Skelly
    • 8
  • Patrick G. Swann
    • 9
  • Russell Weiner
    • 10
  1. 1.Food and Drug AdministrationCenter for Drug Evaluation and ResearchRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.NutleyUSA
  3. 3.Food and Drug AdministrationCenter for Drug Evaluation and ResearchSilver SpringUSA
  4. 4.Procter & Gamble PharmaceuticalsMasonUSA
  5. 5.Amgen Inc.Thousand OaksUSA
  6. 6.Sailstad and AssociatesDurhamUSA
  7. 7.ConsultantGaithersburgUSA
  8. 8.ConsultantAlexandriaUSA
  9. 9.Food and Drug AdministrationCenter for Drug Evaluation and ResearchBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.Bristol-Myers Squibb Inc.PenningtonUSA

Personalised recommendations