A biomarker assay validation approach tailored to the context of use and bioanalytical platform

It is widely acknowledged by the bioanalytical and biomarker community that biomarker assay validations should be fit-for-purpose depending on the context of use. The challenge is how to consistently apply these principles in teams responsible for measuring a disparate array of biomarkers, often on multiple analytical platforms, at various stages of the drug discovery and development pipeline and across diverse biology focus areas. To drive consistency, while maintaining the necessary flexibility to allow validations to be driven by scientific rationale and taking into consideration the context of use and associated biological and (pre)analytical factors, a framework applicable across biomarker assays was developed. Herein the authors share their perspective to engage in the ongoing conversation around fit-for-purpose biomarker assay validation.

Immunocapture LC-MS(/MS) assays for biotherapeutic and biomarker proteins: the European Bioanalysis Forum continuing discussions on scientific and regulatory challenges

The use of LC-MS(/MS) assays to quantify (biotherapeutic or biomarker) proteins is commonplace and well accepted across industry. There is a good understanding on the added value over conventional analytical technologies (i.e., ligand-binding assays). In fact, the impact of combining small- and large-molecule technologies for large-molecule analysis has played a significant part in bringing the bioanalytical communities closer together and building a mutual respect and understanding between scientists. This paper from the European Bioanalysis Forum presents a history of the journey and future perspectives for hybrid assays, with focus on the unanswered scientific questions, including regulatory discussions to be had. Hybrid assays are essentially a combination of ligand-binding assays and MS, and the ICH M10 guideline does not address this approach directly. Decision-based acceptance criteria are still being discussed, and the industry should continue to do so.

Direct bioanalysis or indirect calculation of target engagement and free drug exposure: do we apply double standards?

Analysis of "free" drug/target concentrations is important to set up appropriate pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models, to evaluate active-drug exposure and target engagement. Such "free-analyte" determination could be done by direct bioanalysis using an appropriate "free-analyte" assay. Development of "free" assays is often considered challenging from a technological and regulatory perspective. The application of a "total-total" approach, where the "free-analyte" concentration is determined mathematically, is considered a more convenient option. In this perspective, we examine and discuss the challenges of this "total-total" approach, from the affinity data, the importance of applying an appropriate "total" assay, the impact of additional binding partners and the variability of the total drug/target assays and their impact on the quality and variability of the final "free-analyte" dataset.

Feedback from the 8th European Bioanalysis Forum Young Scientist Symposium

After 2 years of COVID-19 restrictions, the 8th Young Scientist Symposium was organized again as a face-to-face meeting covering a broad array of scientific presentations. As in the previous editions, the meeting was organized by young scientists for young scientists under the umbrella of the European Bioanalysis Forum and in collaboration with academia. The traditional Science Café was again included as an interactive round table session. This year, the main focus was on the challenges of communication. New for the 8th edition was a session connecting the young scientists with more seasoned experts in an effort to bridge talent and experience. In this article, we share the feedback of the scientific sessions and the Science Café held at the symposium.

Biomarker context-of-use: how organizational design can impact the implementation of the appropriate biomarker assay strategy

Since 2011, the European Bioanalysis Forum has been discussing the topic of context-of-use for biomarker assays, in support of a cross-industry implementation of its principles. The discussions have led to the acknowledgement of the challenges that we face as an industry in implementing these principles. In addition to scientific recommendations, the European Bioanalysis Forum has addressed these challenges by providing recommendations on organizational design, and what works in both sponsor and contract research organizations, to support and enable context-of-use across biomarker strategies. Here, we highlight the key considerations for organizational design to help ensure that biomarker assays are characterized and validated according to the right context-of-use, to ensure that the right decisions based on the biomarker data can be made during drug development.

Recommendations and discussion points on immunogenicity, biomarkers, automation/technology and protein-MS from the 2021 European Bioanalysis Forum Focus Workshops

During the first half of 2021, and due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic preventing in-person meetings, the European Bioanalysis Forum organized four workshops as live interactive online meetings. The themes discussed at the workshops were carefully selected to match the cyberspace dynamics of the meeting format. The first workshop was a training day on challenges related to immunogenicity. The second one focused on biomarkers and continued the important discussion on integrating the principles of Context of Use (CoU) in biomarker research. The third workshop was dedicated to technology, that is, cutting-edge development in cell-based and ligand-binding assays and automation strategies. The fourth was on progress and the continued scientific and regulatory challenges related to peptide and protein analysis with MS. In all four workshops, the European Bioanalysis Forum included a mixture of scientific and regulatory themes, while reminding the audience of important strategic aspects and our responsibility toward the patient.

Supercritical fluid extraction-supercritical fluid chromatography of saliva: Single-quadrupole mass spectrometry monitoring of caffeine for gastric emptying studies†

Saliva is an attractive sampling matrix for measuring various endogenous and exogeneous substances but requires sample treatment prior to chromatographic analysis. Exploiting supercritical CO₂ for both extraction and chromatography simplifies sample preparation, reduces organic solvent consumption, and minimizes exposure to potentially infectious samples, but has not yet been applied to oral fluid. Here, we demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of online supercritical fluid extraction coupled to supercritical fluid chromatography and single-quadrupole mass spectrometry for monitoring the model salivary tracer caffeine. A comparison of ¹³ C- and ³² S-labeled internal standards with external standard calibration confirmed the superiority of stable isotope-labeled caffeine over nonanalogous internal standards. As proof of concept, the validated method was applied to saliva from a magnetic resonance imaging study of gastric emptying. After administration of 35 mg caffeine via ice capsule, salivary levels correlated with magnetic resonance imaging data, corroborating caffeine's usefulness as tracer of gastric emptying (R²  = 0.945). In contrast to off-line methods, online quantification required only minute amounts of organic solvents and a single manual operation prior to online bioanalysis of saliva, thus demonstrating the usefulness of CO₂ -based extraction and separation techniques for potentially infective biomatrices.

Update to the European Bioanalysis Forum recommendation on biomarkers assays; bringing context of use into practice

In 2012, the European Bioanalysis Forum published a recommendation on biomarker method development and the bioanalysis of biomarkers in support of drug development. Since then, there has been significant discussion on how to bring the topic of context of use of biomarker assays to the forefront so that the purpose of the assay, the use of the data and the decisions being made with the data are well defined and clearly understood, not just by the bioanalytical scientist, but across all stakeholders. Therefore, it is imperative that discussions between the bioanalytical laboratory and the end users of the data happen early (and regularly) in the drug development process to enable the right assays to be developed and appropriately validated to generate the correct data and allow suitable decisions to be made. This updated refinement to the previous European Bioanalysis Forum recommendation will highlight the items to consider when discussing context of use for biomarker assay development and validation, thus enabling the correct conversations to occur and the move away from the misapplication of PK assay validation criteria to biomarker assays.

European Bioanalysis Forum feedback on draft ICH M10 guideline on bioanalytical method validation during the Step 2b public consultation period

Once released, the ICH M10 Guideline on bioanalytical method validation will become one of the most important milestones in the history of regulated bioanalysis, closing a chapter on intense discussions among the industry and health authorities started in Crystal City in 2001. In this manuscript, the European Bioanalysis Forum community reports back on their feedback on the ICH M10 draft guideline gathered during the public consultation period. The comments given are intended to contribute to a guideline that combines several decades of experience and current scientific vision. They should provide future generations of bioanalytical scientist a regulatory framework so their bioanalytical work can contribute to safe, effective and high-quality medicines, which can be developed and registered in the most resource-efficient manner.

Bioanalytical method validation: new FDA guidance vs. EMA guideline. Better or worse?

Bioanalysis concerns the identification and quantification of analytes in various biological matrices. Validation of any analytical method helps to achieve reliable results that are necessary for proper decisions on drug dosing and patient safety. In the case of bioanalytical methods, validation additionally covers steps of pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies - such as sample collection, handling, shipment, storage, and preparation. We drew our attention to the difference of both the newest FDA Guidance and the EMA Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. We aimed to point out advantages of both documents from the laboratory perspective. The FDA and the EMA documents are similar, but not identical. The EMA describes the practical conduct of experiments more precisely, while the FDA presents reporting recommendations more comprehensively. There are also differences in recommended validation parameters. We hope that the International Council for Harmonisation will combine advantages of both documents to avoid confusing differences in terminology as well as the unnecessary effort of being compliant with two or more guidelines.