samedan logo
 
 
 
spacer
home > ebr > spring 2008 > validating immunoassays: best practice principles
PUBLICATIONS
European Biopharmaceutical Review

Validating Immunoassays: Best Practice Principles

Emma Waite at Tepnel Research Products and Services assesses the guidelines on the validation of immunoassays, and discusses the challenges of validation, weighing up how they differ from chromatographic assays

Bioanalysis can be both qualitative and quantitative in the determination of drugs and metabolites in biological fluids, and used to support bioequivalence, pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic studies. Traditionally this has been carried out using chromatographic techniques for the analysis of small molecules. However, with the ever-increasing number of macromolecular therapeutics coming onto the market, bioanalytical methods have diverged and many ligand binding assays such as immunoassays are being used. It is essential that high quality data are produced in these studies, since the results will be used in support of regulatory submissions. Several bioanalytical method validation conferences have been held to address the quality of data submitted to regulatory authorities. This article will review the progress and evolution of the guidelines on validation of immunoassays and briefly discuss the major issues related to their validation and how they differ from chromatographic assays.

HISTORY OF BIOANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION WORKSHOPS

The first workshop on bioanalytical method validation was a meeting between the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1990 (1). This workshop resulted in the draft Guidance on Bioanalytical Method Validation which was issued by the FDA in 1999. A section on microbiological and ligand-based assays was included with the recommendations, and described only selectivity and quantification issues. The second AAPS workshop was held in 2000 and was instrumental in finalising the FDA Bioanalytical Guidance which was issued in 2001 (2,3).


Read full article from PDF >>

Rate this article You must be a member of the site to make a vote.  
Average rating:
0
     

There are no comments in regards to this article.

 You must be a member of the site to make a comment.
spacer
Dr Emma Waite, BSc, MSc, PhD, is the Biopharmaceutical Laboratory Manager at Tepnel Research Products and Services. Emma has 10 years of experience gained in academic research and in the diagnostic and pharmaceutical industries. Emma obtained her degree in Biochemistry and Genetics from Nottingham University, and a Masters in Archaeological Science from Bradford University. She conducted her PhD research in amino acid racemisation in forensic and archaeological science at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Emma has worked on antibody and antibody fragment product development and testing and is experienced in all stages of the product development process, including lab-scale process development, assay development and validation, process scale-up and GMP manufacturing.
spacer
Dr Emma Waite
spacer
spacer
Print this page
Send to a friend
Privacy statement
News and Press Releases

Ubiquigent celebrates milestone anniversary of DUBprofiler™ compound profiling platform

 Dundee, UK, 14th December 2021 – Today, Ubiquigent Limited (Ubiquigent) celebrates the 10th anniversary of its DUBprofiler™ compound profiling platform, together with KSQ Therapeutics joining its expanding customer base.
More info >>

White Papers

Driving ROI: The Case for Investing in Contract & Site Regulatory Document Management Services

DrugDev

With tight timelines and complicated regulatory documentation requirements, getting a clinical trial up and running quickly is easier said than done. Key milestones can be achieved only after the successful negotiation of clinical trial agreements and completion of essential regulatory documents. Many clinical trials are hindered by inefficient, labor-intensive processes. Prolonged, inefficient activation can hamper investigator satisfaction and, ultimately, have a negative bottom-line impact for sponsors and CROs. In addition, the Sunshine Act is heightening the importance of financial disclosure in clinical trials. Without a robust financial disclosure strategy, sponsors cannot ensure that physician self-reported financial disclosure data are aligned with the payment data being reported through the Sunshine Act, increasing financial and regulatory risk.
More info >>

 

 

 

©2000-2011 Samedan Ltd.
Add to favourites

Print this page

Send to a friend
Privacy statement