Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Pharmacokinetics Department, 8 Rydygiera Street, 01-793, Warsaw, Poland.
Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Department of Physical Pharmacy and Pharmacokinetics, 6 Święcickiego Street, 60-781, Poznań, Poland.
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019 Feb 20;165:381-385. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.12.030. Epub 2018 Dec 19.
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.
生物分析涉及在各种生物基质中鉴定和定量分析物。任何分析方法的验证有助于获得可靠的结果,这对于药物剂量和患者安全的正确决策是必要的。在生物分析方法的情况下,验证还涵盖药代动力学和毒理学研究的步骤,例如样品采集、处理、运输、储存和准备。我们注意到了美国 FDA 最新指南和欧洲药品管理局(EMA)生物分析方法验证指南之间的差异。我们旨在从实验室的角度指出这两份文件的优势。美国 FDA 和 EMA 的文件相似,但并不完全相同。EMA 更准确地描述了实验的实际操作,而美国 FDA 则更全面地介绍了报告建议。推荐的验证参数也存在差异。我们希望国际协调理事会将这两份文件的优势结合起来,以避免术语混淆以及遵守两个或更多指南所带来的不必要的麻烦。