The quest for assay robustness across the life cycle of a bioanalytical method

Incurred sample reanalysis at GSK: what have we learned?

Outcomes of incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) studies have been reviewed from a decade of internally supported bioanalysis. From over 1000 bioanalytical pharmacokinetic end points, 26 bioanalytical studies have failed against predefined ISR acceptance criteria, ultimately resulting in the rejection of three partial and two full datasets (instability or preanalytic contamination). The remaining investigations highlighted methodological root causes including unexpected within-study assay variability, inappropriate assay range and sample homogeneity. However, the data variability remained acceptable for the purposes of decision-making and asset progression. Overall, ISR adds value in early development to characterize the reliability of a nascent assay and then also at the latter stages where pharmacokinetic data are pivotal to submission. However, for the intermediate development studies there is a question whether ISR adds much additional value in understanding assay performance or whether the industry is just too conservative to follow the guidance. This is where the future debate must be.

The application of control charts in regulated bioanalysis for monitoring long-term reproducibility

In regulated bioanalysis, the acceptance of results is batch-wise. When during clinical development derived pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic results from different studies will be combined or compared, it is recommendable to monitor the long-term reproducibility of bioanalytical assays. Long-term reproducibility can be evaluated by control charts generated from control samples included in each batch. We present a methodology for the implementation, construction and evaluation of control charts next to the regular batch acceptance of bioanalytical results. Decision rules can be set up for a statistical evaluation of the results. Violation of a decision rule may lead to a root-cause investigation and corrective actions to improve assay robustness. Three examples of control charts, for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analytes are presented.

An interlaboratory transfer of a multi-analyte assay between continents

Alex has worked at GlaxoSmithKline for the past 15 years and currently works within the bioanalytical and toxicokinetic group in the United Kingdom. Alex's role in previous years has been the in-house support of preclinical and clinical bioanalysis, from method development through to sample analysis activities as well as acting as PI for GLP bioanalysis and toxicokinetics. For the past two years, Alex has applied this analytical and regulatory experience to focus on the outsourcing of preclinical bioanalysis, toxicokinetics and clinical bioanalysis, working closely with multiple bioanalytical and in-life CRO partners worldwide. Alex works to support DMPK and Safety Assessment outsourcing activities for GSK across multiple therapeutic areas, from the first GLP study through to late stage clinical PK studies.

Transfer and cross-validation of an existing analytical assay between a laboratory providing current analytical support, and a laboratory needed for new or additional support, can present the bioanalyst with numerous challenges. These challenges can be technical or logistical in nature and may prove to be significant when transferring an assay between laboratories in different continents. Part of GlaxoSmithKline's strategy to improve confidence in providing quality data, is to cross-validate between laboratories. If the cross-validation fails predefined acceptance criteria, then a subsequent investigation would follow. This may also prove to be challenging. The importance of thorough planning and good communication throughout assay transfer, cross-validation and any subsequent investigations is illustrated in this case study.