See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12030372

Bioanalytical Method ValidationA Revisit

with a Decade of Progress
ARTICLE in PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH JANUARY 2001
Impact Factor: 3.95 DOI: 10.1023/A:1007669411738 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

1,044

1,477

575

13 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Gordon Mckay

Chandra Viswanathan

University of Saskatchewan

Reliance Industries Limited

131 PUBLICATIONS 2,480 CITATIONS

89 PUBLICATIONS 3,468 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Avraham Yacobi
133 PUBLICATIONS 3,751 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Gordon Mckay

Retrieved on: 11 August 2015

Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 17, No. 12, 2000

Research Article

Workshop/Conference Report
January 1214, 2000), sponsored by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists and the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration. The bioanalytical method validation workshop of January 1214, 2000 was directed towards small molecules. A separate workshop was held in March 13, 2000 to
discuss validation principles for macromolecules. The purpose of this report is to represent the progress in analytical
methodologies over the last decade and assessment of the
major agreements and issues discussed with regard to small
molecules at both the conference and the workshop. The report is also intended to provide guiding principles for validation of bioanalytical methods employed in support of bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies in
man and in animals.

Bioanalytical Method ValidationA

Revisit with a Decade of Progress
Vinod P. Shah,1 Kamal K. Midha,2,19
John W. A. Findlay,3 Howard M. Hill,4
James D. Hulse,5 Iain J. McGilveray,6
Gordon McKay,2 Krys J. Miller,7
Rabindra N. Patnaik,1 Mark L. Powell,8
Alfred Tonelli,9 C. T. Viswanathan,1 and
Avraham Yacobi10

Received July 31, 2000; accepted September 14, 2000

OBJECTIVES

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The objectives of the conference and the workshop were

as follows:
To agree on what should be required in bioanalytical
method validation and the procedures to establish validation.
To determine processes of application of the validation procedures in bioavailability, bioequivalence and
pharmacokinetics studies.
To review the progress, impact and advances made
during the last decade of bioanalytical methods validation since the first conference on Bioanalytical
Methods Validation, held in 1990.
To identify, discuss and resolve scientific issues related
to the validation of quantitative bioanalytical methodology implemented over the past decade.
To evaluate and discuss the comments on the FDA
Draft Guidance, Bioanalytical Methods Validation for
Human Studies.
To develop an updated report on bioanalytical method
validation (which may be referred to in developing
future formal guidances).

This report is a synthesis of (1) the earlier conference on

Analytical Methods ValidationBioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies (Conference held in Arlington, VA, December 35, 1990 and the report published in
Pharmaceutical Research, 9: 588-592, 1992) and (2) the workshop on Bioanalytical Methods ValidationA Revisit with a
Decade of Progress, (Workshop held in Arlington, VA,

Contributors: Michael J Avery,11 Brian Booth,1 Ronald Bowsher,12

Raymond H. Farman,5 John W.A. Findlay,3 Howard M. Hill,4 James
D. Hulse,5 H. Thomas Karnes,13 Ronald E. Kavanagh,1 Catherine A.
Knupp,8 Robert Masse,14 Bogdan K. Matuszewski,15 Iain J. McGilveray,6 Gordon McKay,2 Kamal K. Midha,2 Krys J. Miller,7 Rabindra
N. Patnaik,1 Norman J. Pound,16 Mark L. Powell,8 James A. Settledge,17 Vinod P. Shah,1 Ronald M. Stroshane,18 Alfred Tonelli,9
C.T. Viswanathan,1 and Danlin Wu.9
1
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Rockville, MD, 20857.
2
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada,
S7NOWO.
3
Pharmacia Corporation, Skokie, IL 60077.
4
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Huntingdon, Cambridge PE17 5HS, UK.
5
MDS Harris, Lincoln, NE 58502.
6
McGilveray Pharmacon Inc., Nepean, Ontario, Canada.
7
Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.
8
Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Inc., New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
9
Purdue Pharma, LP, Ardsley, NY 10502.
10
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA INC., Hawthorne, NY 10532.
11
Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT 06340.
12
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN 46285.
13
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219.
14
Phoenix International Life Sciences, St. Lanrent, Quebec, HHR
2N6 Canada.
15
Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA 19454.
16
Therapeutic Products Programme, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1B6,
Canada.
17
Taylor Technologies, Princeton, NJ 08540.
18
Wyeth-Ayerst Research, Princeton, NJ 08543.
19
To whom correspondance should be addressed.

Acceptable practices for documenting and validating bioanalytical methods with regard to processes, parameters, and
data treatments were discussed because of their importance in
the assessment of pharmacokinetic, bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. The general field of hyphenated mass
spectrometric-based assays was discussed in depth, as were
ligand-based assays. High throughput systems and support of
their reliability were also discussed. Other topics considered
essential in the conduct of pharmacokinetic/bioequivalence
studies including the measurement and stability of drug metabolites and regulatory submission data packages were deliberated. The need for stereoselective determinations was
discussed in the earlier conference.
INTRODUCTION
Analytical methods employed for the quantitative determination of drugs and their metabolites in biological samples
are the key determinants in generating reproducible and re-

1551

0724-8741/00/1200-1551$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

1552
liable data which in turn are used in the evaluation and interpretation of bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic findings. It is essential to employ well-characterized
and fully validated analytical methods to yield reliable results
which can be satisfactorily interpreted. It is recognized that
analytical methods and techniques are constantly undergoing
changes and improvements; and in many instances, they are at
the cutting edge of the technology. It is also important to
emphasize that each analytical technique has its own characteristics, which will vary from analyte to analyte. Moreover,
the appropriateness of the technique may also be influenced
by the ultimate objective of the study. Specific validation criteria are needed for methods intended for analysis of each
analyte (drug and/or metabolite). While validation of each
method will stand on its own, there may be situations when
comparison of methods will be necessary, e.g., when more than
one method has been employed in a long-term study. When
sample analysis for a given study is conducted at more than one
site, it is necessary to validate the analytical methods(s) at
each site and provide appropriate validation information for
different sites to establish interlaboratory reliability. Unless a
method is used on a regular basis that provides confidence in its
continued validity, it is essential to document that the method is
still valid prior to analysis of samples in a study.
The original bioanalytical validation conference workshop was the first major meeting dedicated to investigating
and harmonizing procedures required in method validations.
The original 1990 conference report (Pharmaceutical Research: 9:588592, 1992) functioned well as an industry outline for practice by bioanalytical laboratories worldwide and
as a reference by the regulatory agencies worldwide. The recent advances in technology, a decade of experience and different perspectives in science and compliance warrant an updating of this significant document and reconfirming and updating the principles of bioanalytical method validation.
In the last decade there have been tremendous advancements in the field of mass spectrometry with the development
of new interfaces, ionization and detection techniques. These
advancements resulted in the rapid emergence and widespread commercial use of hyphenated mass spectrometry
(LC-MS-MS) based assays, which have largely replaced conventional HPLC, GC and GC-MS assays. During this time,
the use of multi-well plates, automated robotic sample processing and electronic data reporting have become common
place. Given the certainty of continued technological advances, the future will very likely bring new, even more powerful bioanalytical approaches as the search for more rapid
throughput and increased sensitivity continues. Despite these
widespread changes in technology, the need for clearly defined validation criteria for bioanalytical methods intended
for analyses of each analyte (drug and/or metabolite(s)) in
each separate biological matrix, remains. In the case of hyphenated mass spectrometry techniques, such as LC-MS-MS,
there may be unique requirements that demand attention.
This current summary of the Bioanalytical Methods
Validationa Revisit with a Decade of Progress workshop
sponsored by AAPS and FDA expands and updates all aspects of the previous report.
BIOANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION
Bioanalytical method validation includes all of the procedures required to demonstrate that a particular bioanalyti-

Shah et al.
cal method for the quantitative determination of the concentration of an analyte (or series of analytes) in a particular
biological matrix is reliable for the intended application. The
most widely employed bioanalytical techniques include, but
are not limited to, conventional chromatographic based methods (such as GC-ECD and HPLC-UV), mass spectrometry
based methods (such as GC-MS and LC-MS), tandem mass
spectrometry based methods (such as LC-MS-MS) and ligand-based assays (such as RIA and ELISA). Many of the
principles, procedures, and requirements of bioanalytical
method validation are common to all types of analytical methodologies.
It is accepted that during the course of a typical drug
development program, a defined bioanalytical method will
undergo many modifications. These evolutionary changes
(e.g. addition of a metabolite, lowering of the lower limit of
quantification (LLOQ), etc.) are required to support specific
studies and will require different levels of validation to demonstrate continually the validity of an assays performance. In
addition to assay modifications, the required utilization of a
defined assay will often change as the growing number of
samples leads to the potential necessity of multiple laboratories being involved. This common scenario raises the question
of assay comparability at different laboratories and what
types of validation data are necessary to qualify the different laboratories. Moreover, the possibility of a bioanalytical
method not being used on a regular basis will require adequate revalidation data when needed to be used, in order to
document and demonstrate that a method is still valid prior to
analyses of samples in a study. Throughout this conference
report, references will be made to different levels and types of
method validations, including Full Validation, Partial Validation, and Cross Validation. These different types of bioanalytical method validations are defined and characterized
as follows:
(1) Full Validation
Full Validation is necessary when developing and
implementing a bioanalytical method for the first time.
Full Validation is required for a new drug entity.
If metabolites are added to an existing assay for quantification, then Full Validation of the revised assay will
be necessary for all analytes measured.
(2) Partial Validation
Partial Validations are modifications of validated bioanalytical methods that do not necessarily require full revalidations. Partial Validation can range from as little as one
intra-assay accuracy and precision determination to a
nearly Full Validation. Typical bioanalytical method
changes which fall into this category include, but are not limited to:
Bioanalytical method transfers between laboratories
or analysts.
Instrument and/or Software Platform changes.
Change in species within matrix (e.g. rat plasma to
mouse plasma).
Changes in matrix within a species (e.g., human
plasma to human urine).

Bioanalytical Method Validation Report

Selectivity demonstration of an analyte in the presence
of specific metabolites.
Selectivity demonstration of an analyte in the presence
of concomitant medications.
Change in analytical methodology (e.g., change in detection systems).
Change in sample processing procedure(s).
Rare matrices.
Change in anti-coagulant in harvesting biological fluid.
Limited volume changes (e.g. planned pediatric
study).
(3) Cross Validation
Cross Validation is a comparison of two bioanalytical
methods. Cross Validations are necessary when two or more
bioanalytical methods are used to generate data within the
same study. For example, an original validated bioanalytical
method serves as the reference and the revised bioanalytical method is the comparator. The comparisons should be
done both ways. Cross validation with spiked matrix and subject samples:
Should be conducted at each site or laboratory to establish interlaboratory reliability when sample analyses within a single study is conducted at more than one
site, or more than one laboratory.
Should be considered when data generated using different analytical techniques (e.g. LC-MS-MS vs.
ELISA) in different studies are included in a regulatory submission.
BIOANALYTICAL METHOD DEVELOPMENT
ESTABLISHMENT (CHEMICAL ASSAYS)
The following principles of bioanalytical method validation provide steps for the development of a new method or
establishing an existing method in a particular laboratory for
the first time. The parameters essential to ensure the acceptability of the performance of a bioanalytical method are accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility and
stability. All these parameters need to be defined during Full
Validation of a bioanalytical method. Although there are
various stages in the development and validation of a bioanalytical procedure, the bioanalytical method validation can be
envisaged to consist of two distinct phases: (1) the bioanalytical method development phase in which the assay is defined
and validated and (2) application to actual analysis of samples
from pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, bioequivalence and
drug interaction studies. The following principles of bioanalytical method validation provide steps for the development
and Full Validation of a new bioanalytical method or establishing an existing method in a particular laboratory for the
first time. Full Validation should be performed to support
pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, bioequivalence and drug interaction studies in a new drug application (NDA) or an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA).
Quantification of metabolites, if and when considered
necessary, should follow an identical protocol for validation
including accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility and stability.
Quantitative determination of stereoisomers in any studies including pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, bioequivalence

1553
and drug interaction studies, if and when considered necessary, should follow an identical protocol for validation including accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility
and stability of the intended isomers.
Principles of Bioanalytical Method Validation and
Establishment
Parameters essential to ensure the acceptability of the
performance of a bioanalytical method validation are accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, reproducibility and stability.
A specific, detailed description of the bioanalytical
method should be written. This may be in the form of a protocol, study plan, report and/or Standard Operating Procedure.
Each step in the bioanalytical method should be investigated to determine the extent to which environmental, matrix, material, or procedural variables, from the time of collection of the material up to analysis and including the time of
analysis, may affect the estimation of analyte in the matrix.
Variability of matrix due to physiological state may need to
be considered. In the case of LC-MS-MS based procedures, it
is essential that appropriate steps be taken to ensure the lack
of a matrix effect(s) throughout the application of the
method, especially if the nature of the matrix changes from
that used during initial method validation.
A bioanalytical method should be validated for the intended use or application. All experiments used to make
claims or draw conclusions about the validity of the method
should be presented in a report (method validation report).
Whenever possible, the same biological matrix as that in
the intended samples should be used for validation purposes.
(For tissues of limited availability, such as bone marrow,
physiologically appropriate proxy matrices may suffice.)
The stability of the analyte (drug and/or metabolite(s)) in
the matrix during the collection process and the sample storage period should be assessed, preferably prior to sample
analysis.
For those compounds with potentially labile metabolites,
it is recommended that stability of the analyte in matrix from
dosed subjects (or species) be confirmed.
The accuracy, precision, reproducibility, response function, and selectivity of the method with respect to endogenous
substances, metabolite(s), and known degradation products
should be established with reference to the biological matrix.
With regard to selectivity, there should be evidence that the
substance being quantified is the intended analyte.
The concentration range over which the analyte will be
determined must be defined in the bioanalytical method,
based on the evaluation of actual standard samples over the
range, including their statistical variation. This defines the
standard curve.
It is necessary to use a sufficient number of standards to
define adequately the relationship between concentration and
response. The relationship between response and concentration must be demonstrated to be continuous and reproducible. The number of standards to be used will be a function of
the dynamic range and nature of the concentration-response
relationship. In many cases, five to eight concentrations (excluding blank values) may define the standard curve. More
standard concentrations may be necessary for nonlinear than
for linear relationships.

1554
The ability, in terms of accuracy and precision, to dilute
samples originally above the upper limit of the standard curve
should be demonstrated in the validation.
The accuracy and precision with which known concentrations of an analyte in biological matrix can be determined,
must be demonstrated. This can be accomplished by analysis
of replicate sets of analyte samples of known concentrations
quality control (QC) samples from an equivalent biological
matrix. At a minimum, three concentrations representing the
entire range of the standard curve should be studied: one
within 3 of the LLOQ (low QC sample), one near the center
(middle QC), and one near the upper boundary of the standard curve (high QC). In consideration of high throughput
analyses including but not limited to multiplexing, multicolumn and parallel systems, sufficient QC samples are required to ensure control of the assay. The number of QC
samples to ensure proper control of the assay should be determined based on the run size. The placement of QC samples
should be judiciously considered in the run.
For a bioanalytical method to be considered valid, specific a priori acceptance criteria must be set and achieved for
accuracy and precision for the validation of QC samples over
the range of the standards.
Repeat analysis of incurred samples is usually not necessary. Any potential issues of degradation should be investigated in a stability experiment utilizing incurred samples.
Specific Recommendations for Bioanalytical
Method Validation
The matrix-based standard curve should consist of a
minimum of five standard points, excluding blanks, using
single or replicate samples. The standard curve should cover
the entire range of expected concentrations.
Standard curve fitting is determined by applying the simplest algorithm (model) which best describes the concentration-response relationship using appropriate weighting and
statistical tests for goodness of fit requirement. This is
based on the actual standard points during each run in the
analysis. It must be continuous and reproducible, and should
be based on minimizing the percent relative error in the backcalculated values.
The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is the lowest
concentration of the standard curve which can be measured
with acceptable accuracy and precision. The LLOQ should be
determined using at least five samples independent of standards and determining the coefficient of variation and/or appropriate confidence interval. The LLOQ should serve as the
lowest concentration on the standard curve and should not be
confused with the limit of detection (LOD; see glossary) and/
or the low QC sample. The highest standard will define the
Upper Limit of Quantitation (ULOQ) of an analytical
method.
For the validation of a bioanalytical method, the accuracy and precision should be determined using a minimum of
five (excluding blank sample) determinations per concentration level. The mean value should be within 15% of the
theoretical value except at LLOQ, where it should not deviate
by more than 20%. The precision around the mean value
should not exceed 15% coefficient of variation (CV), except
for LLOQ, where it should not exceed 20%CV. Other methods of assessing accuracy and precision, which meet these
limits may be equally acceptable.

Shah et al.
The stability of the analyte in biological matrix at intended storage temperature(s) should be established. In addition, the influence of freeze/thaw cycles (a minimum of
three cycles at two concentrations in triplicate) should be
studied.
The stability of the analyte in matrix at ambient temperature should be evaluated over a time period that encompasses
the duration of typical sample preparation, sample handling
and analytical run time.
Reinjection reproducibility should be evaluated to determine if an analytical run could be reanalyzed in case of unexpected delay in the analyses such as instrument failure.
The specificity of the assay methodology should be established using a minimum of six independent sources of the
same matrix. This requirement for six independent matrices
to be tested for interference may not be necessary for hyphenated mass spectrometry based methods. In the case of
LC-MS and LC-MS-MS based procedures, matrix effects
should be investigated to ensure that precision, selectivity and
sensitivity will not be compromised. Assessment of method
selectivity requires evaluation during method development
and validation and may continue throughout application of
the method in actual study samples.
Recovery should be reproducible at each concentration.
Acceptance/Rejection criteria for spiked, matrix-based
calibration standards and validation QC samples should be
based on nominal (theoretical) concentration of analyte(s).
Specific a priori criteria should be set up and achieved for
accuracy and precision over the range of the standards, if so
desired.
APPLICATION OF A VALIDATED
BIOANALYTICAL METHOD TO ROUTINE
DRUG ANALYSIS
Many of the above principles under method establishment and validation are relevant to within study validation.
This section will emphasize the validation parameters that
should be evaluated during routine application of a validated
bioanalytical method to a particular study.
Following a successful validation which meets an a priori
set acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision, analysis of
biological samples can be done by single determination without a need for duplicate or replicate analysis. The need for
duplicate analysis may arise for special cases. For example, in
the case of a difficult procedure for labile analyte(s), when the
precision and accuracy tolerances are difficult to achieve, duplicates analyses may be essential. Under these conditions, a
rationale and standard operating procedure for duplicate
analyses and for reporting results should be developed a
priori.
A matrix-based standard curve should be generated for
each analytical batch for each analyte and should be used for
calculating the concentration of analyte in the unknown
samples assayed with that run. It is important to use a matrixbased standard curve that will cover the entire range of concentrations in the unknown samples. Estimation of unknowns
by extrapolations of standard curve below the LLOQ or
above the ULOQ is not recommended. Instead, it is recommended that the standard curve be redetermined or samples
be reassayed after dilution with the matrix.

Bioanalytical Method Validation Report

A matrix-based standard curve should consist of a
minimum of five to eight standard points, excluding
blanks (either single or replicate), covering the entire
range.
Response Function: Typically, the same curve fitting,
weighting and goodness of fit determined during prestudy validation should be utilized for the standard
curve within study. Response function is determined
by appropriate statistical tests based on the actual
standard points during each run in the validation.
Changes in response function relationship between
prestudy validation and routine run validation are indicative of potential problems.
The QC samples should be used to accept or reject the
run. These QC samples are matrix spiked with analyte.
System suitability: Based on the analyte and technique, a specific standard operating procedure (or
sample) can be identified to assure the optimum operation of the system employed.
Any required sample dilutions must utilize like matrix
(e.g. human to human) obviating the need to incorporate actual within-study dilution matrix QC samples.
Acceptance Criteria for the Batch
Standards and QC samples can be prepared from the
same spiking stock solution, provided the solution stability
and accuracy have been verified. A single source of matrix
may also be used, provided selectivity has been verified.
Standard curve samples can be positioned anywhere in
the run. An example of standard curve sample position is at
the beginning and end of the run. Blanks, QCs and study
samples can be arranged as considered appropriate within the
batch.
Matrix-based standard calibration samples. 75%, or a
minimum of 6 standards, when back-calculated (including
ULOQ) should fall within 15%of nominal, except for
LLOQ when it should be within 20% of the nominal value.
Values falling outside these limits can be discarded provided
they do not change the established model algorithm). Acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision as outlined in the
section specific recommendation for method validation
should be provided for both within and between batch experiment.
Quality-Control Samples: Replicate quality-control
samples, (at least duplicated), at a minimum of three concentrations [one within 3x of the LLOQ (low QC), one in the
midrange (middle QC), and one approaching the high end of
the range (high QC)] should be incorporated into each run.
The results of the QC samples provide the basis of accepting
or rejecting the run. At least 67% (four out of six) of the QC
samples must be within 15% of their respective nominal
(theoretical) values; 33% of the QC samples (not all replicates at the same concentration) may be outside the 15% of
the nominal value. A confidence interval approach yielding
comparable accuracy and precision is an acceptable alternative.
Incorporated into a run should be a minimum of 5%QCs
relative to the number of samples in a run (in multiples of
three), or 6 total QCs, whichever is greater.
Repeat Analysis: A standard operating procedure or
guideline for repeat analysis and their acceptance criteria
must be established a priori. This SOP or guideline should

1555
define acceptable reasons for repeating sample analysis, such
as sample processing errors, equipment failure, poor chromatography, etc. Cautious use of pharmacokinetic fit such as
double peak may call for repeat analysis of some samples in
the study. The rationale for the repeat analysis and the reporting of the repeat analysis should be clearly documented.
The need for occasional reintegration in chromatography
should be conducted according to a priori criteria.
Samples involving multiple analytes should not be rejected based on the data from one analyte failing the acceptance criteria. The data from rejected runs does not need to
be documented, but the fact that a run was rejected should be
filed including the reason for failure. The documentation of
accepted runs should include outlier standards and QC
samples with reasons for decision(s).
BIOANALYTICAL METHODS VALIDATION
(MICROBIOLOGICAL AND LIGAND
BASED ASSAYS)
The balance of new methodology for the quantification
of conventional, low molecular weight drugs in biological fluids has shifted dramatically in favor of mass spectrometry
based methods, particularly LC-MS and LC-MS-MS. Nonetheless, there remain situations in which immunoassays or, in
some cases, microbiological assays, are the methods of choice.
These include assays for analytes that are not amenable to
chromatographic analysis and assays for support of Phase III
and IV clinical studies, where the high throughput and relatively low per sample cost of immunoassays may be advantageous. Many of the bioanalytical validation parameters and
principles discussed above are also applicable to microbiological and ligand based binding assays.
Selectivity Issues
As with chromatographic methods, ligand binding assays
must be shown to be selective for the analyte. Two types of
selectivity may be considered, as indicated below:
Specific Nonselectivity (interference from substances
that are physiochemically similar to the analyte)
Evaluate crossreactivity of metabolites, concomitant
medications or endogenous compounds individually
and in combination with the analyte of interest.
When possible, compare the immunoassay with a validated, reference method (such as often LC-MS) using
incurred samples and pre-determined criteria for
agreement of accuracy of immunoassay and reference
method.
Use study (incurred) samples to assess dilutional linearity to the reference standard.
For some analytes, selectivity may be improved by incorporation of separation steps prior to immunoassay.
Nonspecific Nonselectivity (also termed matrix effects;
interference from matrix components that are unrelated to
the analyte, such as from homolysis, serum proteins, lipemia,
etc.)
Compare standard curves in biological fluids with standards in buffer to detect matrix effects.
Evaluate parallelism of diluted study samples with diluted standards to detect matrix effects.

1556

Shah et al.

Quantification Issues
Immunoassay standard curves are inherently nonlinear
and, in general, require more concentration points to define
the fit over the standard curve range than do chemical assays.
In addition to their nonlinear characteristics, the responseerror relationship for immunoassay standard curves is a nonconstant function of the mean response (heteroscadisticity).
For these reasons, a minimum of six non-zero calibrator concentrations, run in duplicate, is recommended. The concentration-response relationship is most often fitted to a 4- or 5parameter logistic model, although others may be used with
suitable validation. The use of anchoring points in the asymptotic high- and low-concentration ends of the standard
curve may improve the overall curve fit. Generally, these anchoring points will be at concentrations that are below the
established LLOQ and above the established ULOQ. Whenever possible, calibrators should be prepared in the same matrix as the study samples, or in an alternative matrix of equivalent performance (background, etc.).
Both ULOQ and lower LLOQ must be defined by acceptable accuracy, precision, or confidence interval criteria
based on the study requirements.
For all assays it is the accuracy of the reported results
which is the key factor. This accuracy may be improved by the
use of replicate samples. In the case where replicate samples
need to be measured during the validation to improve accuracy, the same procedure must be followed for unknown
samples.
If separation is employed prior to assay for study samples
but not for standards, it is necessary to establish recovery and
use recovery in determining results. Possible approaches to
assess efficiency and reproducibility of recovery are (i) the
use of radiolabeled tracer analyte (quantity too small to affect
the assay), (ii) prior establishment of reproducible recovery,
(iii) the use of an internal standard which is not recognized by
the antibody but can be measured by another technique.
Key reagents, such as antibody, tracer, reference standard and matrix should be characterized appropriately and
stored under defined conditions.
Assessments of analyte stability should be conducted in
true study matrix (e.g. should not employ a matrix stripped to
remove endogenous interferences).
Due to the greater inherent imprecision of immunoassays, QC sample acceptance criteria of 25% for accuracy in
routine assay implementation are proposed. Thus, at least
67% of QC samples must be within 25% of their nominal
values, with no two at the same concentration level exceeding
25% of nominal.
Changes in key reagents require assay re-optimization or
validation as follows:
For Labeled analyte (tracer)
Binding should be re-optimized.
Performance should be verified with standard curve
and QCs,
Antibody
Key cross-reactivities should be checked.
Tracer experiments above should be repeated.

Matrix
Tracer experiments above should be repeated.
Pre-study validation experiments should include a minimum of 6 runs conducted over several days, with at least four
concentrations (LLOQ, low, medium and high) analyzed in
duplicate in each run.
USE OF COMMERCIAL KITS
The performance of a commercial kit must be validated
under the conditions of intended use. Performance characteristics evaluated should include accuracy, precision, stability of
key reagents under study conditions and relevant selectivity
verification of antiserum and assay, including interferences
from compounds included in the study samples to be analyzed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Kristi Celmer at MDS Harris
for her assistance with formatting the workshop report.
GLOSSARY
Accuracy: The degree of closeness of the determined
value to the nominal or known true value under prescribed
conditions. This is sometimes termed trueness.
Analyte: A specific chemical moiety being measured,
which can be intact drug, biomolecule or its derivative, metabolite and/or degradation product in a biologic matrix.
Analytical Batch (or Run): A complete set of analytical
and study samples with appropriate number of standards and
QCs for their validation. Several runs (batches) may be completed in one day or one run (or batch) may take several days
to complete.
Analytical Standard: An analyte of known purity and molecular composition.
Analytical Stock/Standard Solution: A known amount of
an analytical standard dissolved in a known volume of solvent
which is further diluted to generate working or secondary
standard solution(s) used to prepare calibration standards
and QC samples.
Biological matrix: A discrete material of biological origin
that can be sampled and processed in a reproducible manner.
Examples are blood, serum, plasma, urine, feces, saliva, sputum and various discrete tissues.
Calibration Standard: A biological matrix to which a
known amount of analyte has been added or spiked. Calibration standards (also referred to as standard curve samples)
are used to construct calibration curves (also referred to as
standard curve) from which the concentrations of analyte(s)
in QCs and in unknown study samples are determined.
Internal Standard: Test compound(s) (e.g. structurally
similar analog, stable labeled compound, etc.) added to both
calibration standards and samples at known and constant concentration to facilitate quantification of the target analyte(s).
Limit of detection (LOD): The lowest concentration of
an analyte that the bioanalytical procedure can reliably differentiate from background noise.
Lower Limit of quantification (LLOQ): The lowest
amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy.

Bioanalytical Method Validation Report

Linear range: The interval between the upper and lower
concentration (amounts) of analyte in the sample (including
these concentrations) for which it has been demonstrated that
the analytical procedure has a suitable level of precision, accuracy and linearity.
Matrix effect: The direct or indirect alteration or interference in response due to the presence of unintended analytes (for analysis) or other interfering substances in the
sample.
Method: A comprehensive description of all procedures
used in sample analysis.
Precision: The precision expresses the closeness of agreement (degree of scatter) between a series of measurements
obtained from multiple sampling of the same homogenous
sample under the prescribed conditions.
Quantification Range: Range of concentration including
ULOQ and LLOQ which can be reliably and reproducibly
quantified with acceptable accuracy and precision through the
use of a concentration response relationship.
Recovery: Recovery is the extraction efficiency of an analytical process, reported as a percentage of the known amount
of an analyte carried through the sample extraction and processing steps of the method.
Reproducibility: Reproducibility is the precision between
two laboratories. It also represents precision of the method
under same operating conditions over a short period of time.
Sample: A generic term encompassing controls, blanks,
unknowns and processed samples, as described below:
Blank: A sample of a biological matrix to which no analyte(s) have been added. It is to assess the specificity of the
bioanalytical method.
Quality Control (QC): A sample used to monitor the
performance of a bioanalytical method and to assess the integrity and validity of the results of the unknown samples
analyzed in an individual batch.
Unknown: A biological sample that is the subject of the
analysis.
Processed: The final extract (prior to instrumental analysis) of a sample that has been subjected to various manipulations (extraction, dilutions, concentration, etc.)
Selectivity: Selectivity is the ability of the bioanalytical
method to measure unequivocally and differentiate the analyte(s) in the presence of components, which may be expected
to be present. Typically these might include metabolites, impurities, degradants, matrix components, etc.
Stability: The chemical stability of an analyte in a given
matrix under specific conditions for given time intervals.

1557
Standard Curve: The relationship between the experimental response value and the analytical concentration (also
called a calibration curve).
System suitability: A reference standard used to check
instrument performance, e.g. sensitivity and chromatographic
retention prior to running the analytical batch.
Upper Limit of quantification (ULOQ): The highest
amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
Full Validation: Establishment of all acceptable validation parameters for the bioanalytical method for each analyte
in order to apply to sample analysis.
Partial Validation: Modification of validated bioanalytical methods that do not necessarily require full re-validation.
Cross Validation: Comparison of validation parameters
of two or more bioanalytical methods.
REFERENCES
[FDA] Food and Drug Administration: International Conference on
Harmonization: Guideline on validation of analytical procedures:
methodology, Federal Register 60(40): 1120011262, 1995.
[FDA] Food and Drug Administration: International Conference on
Harmonization: Guideline on validation of analytical procedures:
definitions and terminology, Federal Register 62(96): 27464
27467, 1997.
J. W. A. Findlay. Validation in practiceExperience with immunoassay. In H. H. Blume and K. K. Midha (eds.), Bio-International
2, Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies,
Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Stuttgart, 1995 pp. 361370.
J. W. A. Findlay and I. Das. Validation of immunoassay for macromolecules from biotechnology. J. Clin. Ligand Assay. 21:249253
(1998).
J. W. A. Findlay, W. C. Smith, W. Lee, G. D. Nordblom, I. Das, B. S.
DeSilva, M. N. Khan, and R. R. Bowsher. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: A pharmaceutical industry perspective.
J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 21:12491273 (2000).
C. Hartmann, J. Smeyers-Verbeke, D. L. Massart, and R. D. McDowall. Validation of bioanalytical chromatographic methods. J.
Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 17:193218 (1998).
H. T. Karnes, G. Shiu, and V. P. Shah. Validation of bioanalytical
methods. Pharm. Res. 8:421426 (1991).
R. O. Kringle. An assessment of the 4-6-20 rule of acceptance of
analytical runs in bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm. Res. 11:556560 (1994).
V. P. Shah, K. K. Midha, S. V. Dighe. Analytical methods validation:
Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic Studies
(Conference report), Pharm Res. 9:588592 (1992).
The United States Pharmacopeia XXII: Validation of Compendial
Methods, USP Convention Inc. Rockville, MD. 1982, 1995.
J. Wieling. Rational experimental design for bioanalytical methods
validation. Illustration using an assay method for total captopril
in plasma. J. Chromatography 730:381394 (1996).