Steve Lowes

The 2nd Calibration and Validation Group Workshop on recent issues in Good Laboratory Practice bioanalysis

This event was organized by the Calibration and Validation Group (a scientific nonprofit organization based in Toronto, Canada) as a 1.5-day workshop for contract research organizations and pharmaceutical companies involved in providing bioanalytical data for bioavailability, bioequivalence, pharmacokinetic and comparability studies.

Workshop Report: Crystal City V—Quantitative Bioanalytical Method Validation and Implementation: The 2013 Revised FDA Guidance

In September 2013, the FDA released a draft revision of the Bioanalytical Method Validation (BMV) Guidance, which included a number of changes to the expectations for bioanalysis, most notably the inclusion of biomarker assays and data. To provide a forum for an open, inclusive discussion of the revised draft BMV Guidance, the AAPS and FDA once again collaborated to convene a two-and-a-half day workshop during early December 2013 in Baltimore, MD, USA. The resulting format embodied extensive open discussion and each thematic session included only brief, concise descriptions by Agency and industry representatives prior to opening the floor discussion. The Workshop was built around four thematic sessions (Common Topics, Chromatographic, Ligand-Binding Assays, and Biomarkers) and a final session with international regulators, concluding with a review of the outcomes and recommendations from the thematic sessions. This Workshop report summarizes the outcomes and includes topics of agreement, those where the FDA will consider the Industry’s perspective, and those where the workshop provided a first open dialogue. This article will be available to the bioanalytical community at http://www.aaps.org/BMV13.

Request for Global Harmonization of the Guidance for Bioanalytical Method Validation and Sample Analysis

The 2001 US FDA Bioanalytical Method Validation (BMV) guidance document has been widely accepted and adopted by the bioanalytical community worldwide. As such, it has become the cornerstone of regulated bioanalytical laboratory procedure. In recent years, clarifications to these FDA guidelines and subsequent enhancements were discussed at North American-and European-hosted meetings and conferences. The outcome of these meetings, published in White Papers, conference reports or recommendations, are currently being implemented in many bioanalytical laboratories around the world. Nevertheless, differences in expectations or interpretation of the guidelines from individual auditors/inspectors or regional health authorities are a growing concern for the bioanalytical community. Further globalization of the pharmaceutical industry is also impacting the bioanalytical community. Bioanalytical labs are booming in regions outside the EU and North America, and regional authorities are looking to accommodate this growth or being confronted with the lack of guidance within their own regulations. Consequently, this creates a stimulus for these countries/regions to draft or issue their own guidance documents. The European Medicines Agency (EU), Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (UK), Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Brazil) and Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia) are the most prominent and recent examples. Although the 2001 FDA BMV guidance is often the basis of the emerging guidelines, there is an inherent risk that new sets of quality standards or nuances to the existing guidance will become effective. Over the last few months, following discussions at international meetings that brought together health authorities and industry experts on bioanalysis, the industry has expressed their concerns that multiple regulations on a similar topic will not benefit data generated in bioanalytical laboratories worldwide. Bioanalysis has become a true global discipline and, as such, the bioanalytical community should be served with globally harmonized standards. Therefore, the undersigned would like to ask health authorities worldwide to consider a collaboration and work towards a global harmonization of the guidelines on bioanalytical method validation and sample analysis for preclinical and clinical studies. Standardization and harmonization will largely contribute to the quality, transparency and efficiency of the data generated. These aspects are clearly of immediate benefit for the health authorities (ease of review of data) and laboratories (one set of standards), but eventually also for the patient and the community. We are confident that all involved parties (health authorities and industry) will be equally supportive of this initiative. We are open to any suggestion on how to reach this goal …

Recommendations on biomarker bioanalytical method validation by GCC

The 5th GCC in Barcelona (Spain) and 6th GCC in San Antonio (TX, USA) events provided a unique opportunity for CRO leaders to openly share opinions and perspectives, and to agree upon recommendations on biomarker bioanalytical method validation.

Recommendations on the interpretation of the new European Medicines Agency Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation by Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC)

) Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation (BMV), during the 4th GCC (23 October 2011, Washington DC, USA) and 5th GCC (14 November 2011, Barcelona, Spain) Closed Forums. These North American and European events provided a unique opportunity for CRO leaders to openly share opinions and perspectives and to agree on unified bioanalytical recommendations specifically in relation with the new EMA guideline.The Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC)

AAPS and US FDA Crystal City VI workshop on bioanalytical method validation for biomarkers

Crystal City VI Workshop on Bioanalytical Method Validation of Biomarkers, Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, MD, USA, 28-29 September 2015 The Crystal City VI workshop was organized by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists in association with the US FDA to continue discussion on the bioanalysis of biomarkers. An outcome of the Crystal City V workshop, convened following release of the draft FDA Guidance for Industry on Bioanalytical Methods Validation in 2013 was the need to have further discussion on biomarker methods. Biomarkers ultimately became the sole focal point for Crystal City VI, a meeting attended by approximately 200 people and composed of industry scientists and regulators from around the world. The meeting format included several panel discussions to maximize the opportunity for dialogue among participants. Following an initial session on the general topic of biomarker assays and intended use, more focused sessions were held on chromatographic (LC-MS) and ligand-binding assays. In addition to participation by the drug development community, significant representation was present from clinical testing laboratories. The experience of this latter group, collectively identified as practitioners of CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments), helped shape the discussion and takeaways from the meeting. While the need to operate within the framework of the current BMV guidance was clearly acknowledged, a general understanding that biomarker methods validation cannot be adequately depicted by current PK-centric guidelines emerged as a consensus from the meeting. This report is not intended to constitute the official proceedings from Crystal City VI, which is expected to be published in early 2016.

Implementing Dried Blood Spot Sampling for Clinical Pharmacokinetic Determinations: Considerations from the IQ Consortium Microsampling Working Group

This paper was developed with the support of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ). IQ is a not-for-profit organization of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with a mission of advancing science-based and scientifically driven standards and regulations for pharmaceutical and biotechnology products worldwide. Within the IQ, various working groups (WG) have been formed, where the microsampling WG is committed to providing a scientific forum for the advancement of both wet and dry microsampling techniques within the pharmaceutical industry. This first output from the microsampling WG is to summarize and reflect on the current knowledge and opinions on DBS sampling, to stimulate discussion, and to encourage future creative applications of DBS sampling. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling has established itself as an innovative sampling technique where wet blood is spotted onto absorbent paper or other paper materials and allowed to dry (1–4). DBS offers several potential benefits inherent to the technique, namely a low blood volume, simplified blood sample collection (5), and convenient sample storage and transfer. In certain applications, DBS sampling has been shown to stabilize certain analytes or metabolites without the addition of chemical modifiers (6–9). DBS has been routinely applied for decades in neonatal screening for phenylketonuria and other congenital metabolic disorders (10). The utility of DBS sampling has also been demonstrated for therapeutic drug monitoring (11) and for epidemiological studies (e.g., HIV and HBV detection/monitoring) (12) due to the practical advantages along with simplified sample collection and handling procedures. Finally, DBS can also be used for quantitative biomarker (PD) assessment from blood, where appropriate. However, the technique is relatively new to the pharmaceutical industry and to government regulators overseeing new drug applications. Nevertheless, over the past 5 to 7 years, the technique has been extensively evaluated for quantifying drug exposure in nonclinical and/or clinical studies in various stages of drug discovery and development. The ease to collect, transfer, store, and process small volumes of blood samples has generated considerable interest in providing utility in volume-limited situations (e.g., small rodent, human pediatric studies) for toxicokinetic (TK), pharmacokinetic (PK), or pharmacodynamic (PD) sampling. Discovery and nonclinical studies Rodent animal models are typically employed in these studies. The reduced blood volumes required for DBS can enable serial bleeding and, consequently, elimination of satellite animal groups and reduction of compound use. The ability to eliminate the satellite animal groups enables the assessment of exposure and toxic effects within the same animal. Studies involving expensive animal models (i.e., transgenic mice, knock-out mice, humanized mice, etc.) further highlight a persuasive scientific and economic case for DBS sampling since a complete pharmacokinetic profile can be obtained from a single study animal without the need for extra rodents merely for generating exposure data. These are perfectly in line with the principles of the 3Rs: reduction, refinement, and replacement of humane animal research (13–15). With greater emphasis from the regulatory authorities to study new drugs for infants, neonates, and pediatric populations, the requirement to conduct associated nonclinical juvenile rodent toxicity studies serves as an ideal scenario where the advantage of low blood volume in DBS sampling is undeniable. Although the advantages of DBS heavily favor rodent studies, it can also be used to refine non-rodent studies.

Conference Report: 6th GCC focus on LBA: critical reagents, positive controls and reference standards; specificity for endogenous compounds; biomarkers; biosimilars

The 6th Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) Closed Forum was held on 27 March 2012 in San Antonio, TX, USA, the day before the start of the 6th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis. The attendance consisted of 45 bioanalytical CRO senior-level representatives on behalf of 37 CRO companies/sites from six countries. In addition to following up on the issue of co-administered drugs stability and on recommendations regarding the European Medicines Agency guideline, this GCC Closed Forum discussed topics of current interest in the bioanalytical field with focus on ligand-binding assays, such as lot changes for critical reagents, positive controls and reference standards, specificity for endogenous compounds, qualification and validation of biomarker assays, approach for biosimilars and criteria for LC–MS assays of small versus large molecules.

Conference Report: 4th Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis: coadministered drugs stability, EMA/US FDA Guidelines, 483s and Carryover

The Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) was formed in September 2010. Since then, the representatives of the member companies come together periodically to openly discuss bioanalysis and the regulatory challenges unique to the outsourcing industry. The 4th GCC Closed Forum brought together experts from bioanalytical CROs to share and discuss recent issues in regulated bioanalysis, such as the impact of coadministered drugs on stability, some differences between European Medicines Agency and US FDA bioanalytical guidance documents and lessons learned following recent Untitled Letters. Recent 483s and agency findings, as well as issues on method carryover, were also part of the topics discussed.

Tiered Approaches to Chromatographic Bioanalytical Method Performance Evaluation: Recommendation for Best Practices and Harmonization from the Global Bioanalysis Consortium Harmonization Team

ABSTRACTThe A2 harmonization team, a part of the Global Bioanalysis Consortium (GBC), focused on defining possible tiers of chromatographic-based bioanalytical method performance. The need for developing bioanalytical methods suitable for the intended use is not a new proposal and is already referenced in regulatory guidance language. However, the practical implementation of approaches that differ from the well-established full validation requirements has proven challenging. Advances in technologies, the need to progress drug development more efficiently, and emerging new drug compound classes support the use of categorized tiers of bioanalytical methods. This paper incorporated the input from an international team of experienced bioanalysts to surmise the advantages and the challenges of tiered approaches and to provide recommendations on paths forward.