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.

No abstract

Method validation is a process that demonstrates that a method will successfully meet or exceed the minimum standards recommended in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance for accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and stability. This article discusses the validation of bioanalytical methods for small molecules with emphasis on chromatographic techniques. We present current thinking on validation requirements as described in the current FDA Guidance and subsequent 2006 Bioanalytical Methods Validation Workshop white paper.K EYWORDS: bioanalytical , validation , precision , accuracy , sensitivity , selectivity , reproducibility INTRODUCTIONBioanalytical methods are used for the quantitation of drugs and their metabolites in biological matrices. In today ' s drug development environment, highly sensitive and selective methods are required to quantify drugs in matrices such as blood, plasma, serum, or urine. Chromatographic methods (high-performance liquid chromatography [HPLC] or gas chromatography [GC]) have been widely used for the bioanalysis of small molecules, with liquid chromatography coupled to triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/ MS) being the single most commonly used technology. After developing a method with desired attributes, the method is validated to establish that it will continue to provide accurate, precise, and reproducible data during study-sample analysis. Method validation is a process that demonstrates that the method will successfully meet or exceed the minimum standards recommended in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance 1 for accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and stability. The validation is performed using a control matrix spiked with the compounds to be quantifi ed. This article discusses the validation of bioanalytical methods for small molecules with emphasis on chromatographic techniques. We present current thinking on validation requirements as described in the current FDA Guidance 1 and subsequent 2006 Bioanalytical Methods Validation Workshop white paper. 2 VALIDATION PARAMETERSBioanalytical methods can be developed in the laboratory conducting the validation or obtained from another laboratory or literature. The results from a method validation can be no better than the quality of the method that was developed. Thus, before beginning the method validation, it is important that the method is set up and tested in the laboratory. For methods obtained externally, modifi cations may be necessary to achieve the desired performance of the method relative to how it was developed originally. This process will help ensure that when validation begins, chances for its successful completion (and more important, successful sample analysis) are high. During method validation, values for validation parameters are obtained. The essential parameters required according to the FDA Guidance 1 are selectivity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision, reproducibility, and stability. While obtaining these parameters, other param...

Abstract. The Conference Report of the 3rd AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop (Crystal City III) endorsed the concept that assay methods supporting bioanalytical data in submissions must demonstrate assay reproducibility by using incurred samples. The present Workshop was convened to provide a forum for discussion and consensus building about incurred sample assay reproducibility for both nonclinical and clinical studies. Information about current regulatory perspectives on incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) was presented, implications of ISR for both large and small molecules were discussed, and the steering committee put forth recommendations for performing ISR. These recommendations from the Workshop, along with the subsequent evolution of approaches leading to a robust ISR program, may be used by scientists performing bioanalytical assays for regulated studies to provide additional confirmation of assay reproducibility for incurred samples.

The major metals of potential health concern found in food, drugs (medicines), and dietary supplements are lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic. Other metals, such as chromium, copper, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, nickel, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, palladium, and platinum, may be used or introduced during manufacturing and may be controlled in the final article as impurities. Screening for metals in medicines and dietary supplements rarely indicates the presence of toxic metal impurities at levels of concern. The setting of heavy metal limits is appropriate for medicines and is appropriate for supplements when heavy metals are likely or certain to contaminate a given product. Setting reasonable health-based limits for some of these metals is challenging because of their ubiquity in the environment, limitations of current analytical procedures, and other factors. Taken together, compendial tests for metals in food and drugs present an array of issues that challenge compendial scientists.

Abstract. This study compared in vitro dissolution characteristics and other quality measures of different amoxicillin, metronidazole, and zidovudine products purchased in the Americas to a comparator pharmaceutical product (CPP). These three drugs are classified as Biopharmaceutics Classification System Class I drugs with the possibility that dissolution findings might be used to document bioequivalence. All investigated zidovudine products were found to be in vitro equivalent to the CPP. Only 3 of 12 tested amoxicillin products were found to be in vitro equivalent to the CPP. None of the tested metronidazole products were in vitro equivalent to the CPP. These findings suggest but do not confirm bioinequivalence where in vitro comparisons failed, given that an in vivo blood level study might have confirmed bioequivalence. At times, identifying a CPP in one of the selected markets proved difficult. The study demonstrates that products sold across national markets may not be bioequivalent. When coupled with the challenge of identifying a CPP in different countries, the results of this study suggest the value of an international CPP as well as increased use of BCS approaches as means of either documenting bioequivalence or signaling the need for further in vivo studies. Because of increased movement of medicines across national borders, practitioners and patients would benefit from these approaches.

No abstract

No abstract