PURPOSE: With this publication a subcommittee of the AAPS Ligand Binding Assay Bioanalytical Focus Group (LBABFG) makes recommendations for the development, validation, and implementation of ligand binding assays (LBAs) that are intended to support pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic assessments of macromolecules. METHODS: This subcommittee was comprised of 10 members representing Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and the contract research organization industries from the United States, Canada, and Europe. Each section of this consensus document addresses a specific analytical performance characteristic or aspect for validation of a LBA. Within each section the topics are organized by an assay's life cycle, the development phase, pre-study validation, and in-study validation. Because unique issues often accompany bioanalytical assays for macromolecules, this document should be viewed as a guide for designing and conducting the validation of ligand binding assays. RESULTS: Values of +/- 20% (25% at the lower limit of quantification [LLOQ]) are recommended as default acceptance criteria for accuracy (% relative error [RE], mean bias) and interbatch precision (%coefficient of variation [CV]). In addition, we propose as secondary criteria for method acceptance that the sum of the interbatch precision (%CV) and the absolute value of the mean bias (%RE) be less than or equal to 30%. This added criterion is recommended to help ensure that in-study runs of test samples will meet the proposed run acceptance criteria of 4-6-30. Exceptions to the proposed process and acceptance criteria are appropriate when accompanied by a sound scientific rationale. CONCLUSIONS: In this consensus document, we attempt to make recommendations that are based on bioanalytical best practices and statistical thinking for development and validation of LBAs.
PURPOSE: With this publication a subcommittee of the AAPS Ligand Binding Assay Bioanalytical Focus Group (LBABFG) makes recommendations for the development, validation, and implementation of ligand binding assays (LBAs) that are intended to support pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic assessments of macromolecules. METHODS: This subcommittee was comprised of 10 members representing Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and the contract research organization industries from the United States, Canada, and Europe. Each section of this consensus document addresses a specific analytical performance characteristic or aspect for validation of a LBA. Within each section the topics are organized by an assay's life cycle, the development phase, pre-study validation, and in-study validation. Because unique issues often accompany bioanalytical assays for macromolecules, this document should be viewed as a guide for designing and conducting the validation of ligand binding assays. RESULTS: Values of +/- 20% (25% at the lower limit of quantification [LLOQ]) are recommended as default acceptance criteria for accuracy (% relative error [RE], mean bias) and interbatch precision (%coefficient of variation [CV]). In addition, we propose as secondary criteria for method acceptance that the sum of the interbatch precision (%CV) and the absolute value of the mean bias (%RE) be less than or equal to 30%. This added criterion is recommended to help ensure that in-study runs of test samples will meet the proposed run acceptance criteria of 4-6-30. Exceptions to the proposed process and acceptance criteria are appropriate when accompanied by a sound scientific rationale. CONCLUSIONS: In this consensus document, we attempt to make recommendations that are based on bioanalytical best practices and statistical thinking for development and validation of LBAs.
Authors: V P Shah; K K Midha; J W Findlay; H M Hill; J D Hulse; I J McGilveray; G McKay; K J Miller; R N Patnaik; M L Powell; A Tonelli; C T Viswanathan; A Yacobi Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: J W Findlay; W C Smith; J W Lee; G D Nordblom; I Das; B S DeSilva; M N Khan; R R Bowsher Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.935
Authors: K J Miller; R R Bowsher; A Celniker; J Gibbons; S Gupta; J W Lee; S J Swanson; W C Smith; R S Weiner Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: V P Shah; K K Midha; S Dighe; I J McGilveray; J P Skelly; A Yacobi; T Layloff; C T Viswanathan; C E Cook; R D McDowall Journal: Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet Date: 1991 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.441
Authors: George D Demetri; Christopher R Garrett; Patrick Schöffski; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Serge Leyvraz; Herbert I Hurwitz; Antonio Lopez Pousa; Axel Le Cesne; David Goldstein; Luis Paz-Ares; Jean-Yves Blay; Grant A McArthur; Qiang Casey Xu; Xin Huang; Charles S Harmon; Vanessa Tassell; Darrel P Cohen; Paolo G Casali Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ago B Ahene; Chris Morrow; David Rusnak; Susan Spitz; Joel Usansky; Holger Pils; Francesca Civoli; Kinnari Pandya; Brian Sue; Daniel Leach; John Derent Journal: AAPS J Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Mary Zacour; Brian J Ward; Angela Brewer; Patrick Tang; Guy Boivin; Yan Li; Michelle Warhuus; Shelly A McNeil; Jason J LeBlanc; Todd F Hatchette Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2016-01-27
Authors: JoMarie Smolec; Binodh DeSilva; Wendell Smith; Russell Weiner; Marian Kelly; Ben Lee; Masood Khan; Richard Tacey; Howard Hill; Abbie Celniker; Vinod Shah; Ronald Bowsher; Anthony Mire-Sluis; John W A Findlay; Mary Saltarelli; Valerie Quarmby; David Lansky; Robert Dillard; Martin Ullmann; Stephen Keller; H Thomas Karnes Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2005-08-24 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Jean W Lee; Viswanath Devanarayan; Yu Chen Barrett; Russell Weiner; John Allinson; Scott Fountain; Stephen Keller; Ira Weinryb; Marie Green; Larry Duan; James A Rogers; Robert Millham; Peter J O'Brien; Jeff Sailstad; Masood Khan; Chad Ray; John A Wagner Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2006-01-12 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Thomas J Esparza; Hanzhi Zhao; John R Cirrito; Nigel J Cairns; Randall J Bateman; David M Holtzman; David L Brody Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 10.422