Drug-Drug Interactions in Prostate Cancer Treatment

Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which can cause serious and debilitating drug-induced adverse events. With a steadily aging population and associated increasing multimorbidity and polypharmacy, the potential for DDIs becomes considerably important. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men and occurs mostly in elderly men in the Western world. Therefore, the aim of this review is to give an overview of DDIs in PCa therapy to better understand pharmacodynamic and pharm kinetic side effects as well as their interactions with other medications. Last, we explore potential future strategies, which might help to optimize treatment and reduce adverse events patients with polypharmacy and PCa.

Comparative assessment of bioanalytical method validation guidelines for pharmaceutical industry

The concepts, importance, and application of bioanalytical method validation have been discussed for a long time and validation of bioanalytical methods is widely accepted as pivotal before they are taken into routine use. United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) guidelines issued in 2001 have been referred for every guideline released ever since; may it be European Medical Agency (EMA) Europe, National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) Brazil, Ministry of Health and Labour Welfare (MHLW) Japan or any other guideline in reference to bioanalytical method validation. After 12 years, USFDA released its new draft guideline for comments in 2013, which covers the latest parameters or topics encountered in bioanalytical method validation and approached towards the harmonization of bioanalytical method validation across the globe. Even though the regulatory agencies have general agreement, significant variations exist in acceptance criteria and methodology. The present review highlights the variations, similarities and comparison between bioanalytical method validation guidelines issued by major regulatory authorities worldwide. Additionally, other evaluation parameters such as matrix effect, incurred sample reanalysis including other stability aspects have been discussed to provide an ease of access for designing a bioanalytical method and its validation complying with the majority of drug authority guidelines.

The European Bioanalysis Forum community's evaluation, interpretation and implementation of the European Medicines Agency guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation

The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) 2011 guideline on bioanalytical method validation (BMV) was evaluated and subsequently intensely discussed by the European Bioanalysis Forum (EBF) during a 2-day workshop (EBF Workshop on the implementation of the EMA guideline on BMV, Château de Limelette, Limelette, Belgium, 15-16 March 2012). The goal of the evaluation and discussions was to come to a uniform interpretation of the guideline and thus to help facilitate a smooth implementation at our laboratories. Up front preparations for the workshop by dedicated teams concentrated on challenges on implementation: ambiguities, technical or operational challenges and issues in general. In addition, common understandings were identified as well as main differences to the 2011 US FDA guideline. The guideline was perceived as being well written with a clear structure, separating method validation from sample analysis and treating all relevant aspects one-by-one in a logical order. It is the first BMV guideline clearly addressing the specifics for ligand binding assays and it shows a good match with current scientific thinking. The EBF community considers the EMA BMV guideline an excellent basis for countries that are in the process of developing or updating their own BMV guideline.

Managing scientific, technical and regulatory innovation in regulated bioanalysis: a discussion paper from the European Bioanalysis Forum

On 12–13 June 2012, the European Bioanalysis Forum hosted its third Focus Meeting in Brussels (Belgium). At the meeting, a panel discussion was held on the hurdles that the bioanalytical community encounters when adopting new technologies or managing regulated bioanalysis expectations around emerging technologies. Over the last few years, the industry has seen many new technologies maturing. As they became available, the bioanalytical scientist has observed that implementing these technologies in the regulated environment has become increasingly challenging. For one, scientific developments and regulatory expectations may not go hand in hand. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry has become increasingly risk averse in their response to these real or perceived higher expectations in regulated bioanalysis. As a downstream consequence, the potential result of overinterpretation of guidance or occasional widespread and premature implementation of responses to health authority inspections, industry may be contributing significantly to raising the bar on some processes related to day-to-day practices in the bioanalytical laboratory. Last but not least, with the community being satisfied with the performance of the current tools, potential complacency can be observed in the regulated bioanalytical community because existing technologies, such as LC–MS/MS and ligand-binding assays, have served and still are serving them extremely well. Hence, the question ‘what’s next after LC–MS/MS or ELISA?’ is not resonating with many scientists as pertinently compared with ‘What’s next after RIA, GC or LC–UV?’, which was the key question in the 1990s, certainly in the context of an increasing effort needed to validate these new tools. With this article, the European Bioanalysis Forum aims to stimulate an open dialogue between all stakeholders in regulated bioanalysis to positively influence how we balance science, process and regulations in day-to-day work. This discussion should facilitate the evaluation and the subsequent implementation of innovative techniques for the benefit of the patient, while stimulating our community to raise the bar on added-value science, but at the same time removing the bar on processes with limited or no added value.