The AAPS Journal

, 21:104 | Cite as

Fit-for-Purpose Quality Control System in Continuous Bioanalysis During Long-Term Pediatric Studies

  • Mohsin Ali
  • Jutta Tins
  • Bjoern B. BurckhardtEmail author
  • on behalf of LENA Consortium
Research Article


Pharmacokinetic studies are key to evidence-based pharmacotherapy. The reliability of pharmacokinetic parameters is closely related to the quality of bioanalytical data. Bioanalytical method validation is fully described by regulatory guidelines; however, it is conducted just once. To ensure reliability and comparability of clinical data, appropriate quality control systems must be enforced to monitor post-validation bioanalytical runs. While single bioanalytical run evaluation is described in international guidelines, somehow, the long-term reproducibility of the bioanalytical method is unattended; it becomes pivotal with the involvement of pediatric population. Therefore, a customized quality control system was developed that addresses regulatory requirements and encompasses the specific demands of pediatric research. It consisted of continuous multi-parameter assessment, including calibration curves, quality control samples, incurred sample reanalysis, and internal standard data. The recommendations provided by the guidelines were combined with the additional Westgard rules, statistical evaluation, and graphical observations. The applicability of the developed quality control system was investigated by using data from three pediatric clinical trials, where the system was able to identify 16% of all analytical runs as invalid. Using a pooled standard deviation provided a better estimate of long-term reproducibility by calculating the %CV, which ranged from 3.6 to 10.3% at all quality control levels. Irrespective of the difficulties encountered owing to vulnerable pediatric populations, the incurred sample reanalysis fulfilled the regulatory requirement of at least 67%. This quality control approach ensured reliable and comparable results over a whole 31-month duration in relation to pediatric studies.


incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) in-study bioanalytical method validation LC-MS/MS pediatric clinical trial quality control 



We thank the clinical investigators, study nurses, and technicians Dr. Mareike van der Meulen, Annelies Hennink, Badies Manai, Dr. Vanessa Swoboda, Eva Wissmann, Regina Pirker, Dr. Daniel Tordas, Gyöngyi Máté, Ilona, Dr. Ann-Kathrin Holle, Claudia Schlesner, Prof Dr. Jovan Košutić, Dr. Sergej Prijić, Dr. Sanja Ninić, Dr. Bosiljka Jovičić, Dr. Saša Popović, Isailović Ljiljana, Andjelka Čeko, Nada Martinović, Perišić Miloš, Bosiljka Kosanović, Jelena Reljić, Prof Dr. Vojislav Parezanovic, Dr. Igor Stefanović, Dr. Andrija Pavlović, Dr. Stefan Đorđević, Dr. Maja Bijelić, Jasmina Maksimovic, Sanja Kostic, and Milica Lazic for their contribution by collecting the study samples within the LENA clinical sites. We further appreciated the support on statistical evaluation by Prof. Dr. Holger Schwender (Heinrich Heine University).

Funding Information

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under a grant agreement, no. 602295 (LENA). Mohsin Ali is funded by HEC/DAAD grant program.


  1. 1.
    Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe S, McGilveray IJ, Skelly JP, Yacobi A, et al. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm Res. 1992;9(4):588–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guidelines on bioanalytical method validation. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicine Agency 2011. (last access on 10th August 2019). Accessed 10 Aug 2019.
  3. 3.
    Guidance for industry bioanalytical method validation. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration. 2018. Accessed 10 Aug 20189.
  4. 4.
    Kaza M, Karaźniewicz-Łada M, Kosicka K, Siemiątkowska A, Rudzki PJ. Bioanalytical method validation: new FDA guidance vs. EMA guideline. Better or worse? J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019;165:381–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruijnsvoort MV, Meijer J, den Beld CV. The application of control charts in regulated bioanalysis for monitoring long-term reproducibility. Bioanalysis. 2017;9(24):1955–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman D. Statistical considerations for assessment of bioanalytical incurred sample reproducibility. AAPS J. 2009;11(3):570–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White S, Adcock N, Elbast W, Hiller J, Knutsson M, Lausecker B, et al. European Bioanalysis Forum: recommendation for dealing with internal standard variability. Bioanalysis. 2014;6(20):2767–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao Y, Liu G, Shen JX, Aubry AF. Reasons for calibration standard curve slope variation in LC-MS assays and how to address it. Bioanalysis. 2014;6(11):1439–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weintraub RG, Alexander PMA. Outcomes in pediatric dilated cardiomyopathy. Quo Vadis? 2017;70(21):2674–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burckhardt BB, Laeer S. Sample preparation and extraction in small sample volumes suitable for pediatric clinical studies: challenges, advances, and experiences of a bioanalytical HPLC-MS/MS method validation using enalapril and enalaprilat. Int J Anal Chem. 2015;2015:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ciplea AM, Laeer S, Burckhardt BB. A feasibility study prior to an international multicentre paediatric study to assess pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic sampling and sample preparation procedures, logistics and bioanalysis. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;12:32–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Loco J, Elskens M, Croux C, Beernaert H. Linearity of calibration curves: use and misuse of the correlation coefficient. Accred Qual Assur. 2002;7(7):281–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Almeida AM, Castel-Branco MM, Falcao AC. Linear regression for calibration lines revisited: weighting schemes for bioanalytical methods. J Chromatogr B Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2002;774(2):215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2’EU.). HilIsUale: Lawrence Eribaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wenkui L P, Zhang J, Francis L S T. Handbook of LC-MS bioanalysis: best practices, experimental protocols, and regulations. John Wiley & Sons 2013.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudzki PJ, Biecek P, Kaza M. Comprehensive graphical presentation of data from incurred sample reanalysis. Bioanalysis. 2017;9(12):947–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Cock RFW, Piana C, Krekels EHJ, Danhof M, Allegaert K, Knibbe CAJ. The role of population PK-PD modelling in paediatric clinical research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(Suppl 1(Suppl 1)):5–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barker CIS, Standing JF, Kelly LE, Hanly Faught L, Needham AC, Rieder MJ, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies in children: recommendations for practice and research. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103(7):695–702.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rudzki PJ, Biecek P, Kaza M. Incurred sample reanalysis: time to change the sample size calculation? AAPS J. 2019;21(2):28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Timmerman P, Luedtke S, van Amsterdam P, Brudny-Kloeppel M, Lausecker B, Fischmann S, et al. Incurred sample reproducibility: views and recommendations by the European Bioanalysis Forum. Bioanalysis. 2009;1(6):1049–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lloyd TR, Mahoney LT, Knoedel D, Marvin WJ Jr, Robillard JE, Lauer RM. Orally administered enalapril for infants with congestive heart failure: a dose-finding study. J Pediatr. 1989;114(4):650–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wells T, Rippley R, Hogg R, Sakarcan A, Blowey D, Walson P, et al. The pharmacokinetics of enalapril in children and infants with hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;41(10):1064–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trivedi V, Upadhyay V, Yadav M, Shrivastav PS, Sanyal M. Impact of electrospray ion source platforms on matrix effect due to plasma phospholipids in the determination of rivastigmine by LC-MS/MS. Bioanalysis. 2014;6(17):2301–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall TG, McKearn D, Smukste I, Bresciano KR, Savage RE, Wang Y. Identifying and overcoming matrix effects in drug discovery and development: INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohsin Ali
    • 1
  • Jutta Tins
    • 1
  • Bjoern B. Burckhardt
    • 1
    Email author
  • on behalf of LENA Consortium
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and PharmacotherapyHeinrich Heine UniversityDusseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations