Publications by authors named "Maria Cruz Caturla"

19 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

12th GCC Closed Forum: critical reagents; oligonucleotides; CoA; method transfer; HRMS; flow cytometry; regulatory findings; stability and immunogenicity.

Bioanalysis 2019 Jun 19;11(12):1129-1138. Epub 2019 Jul 19.

WuXi Apptec, Plainsboro, NJ 08536, USA.

The 12th GCC Closed Forum was held in Philadelphia, PA, USA, on 9 April 2018. Representatives from international bioanalytical Contract Research Organizations were in attendance in order to discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The issues discussed at the meeting included: critical reagents; oligonucleotides; certificates of analysis; method transfer; high resolution mass spectrometry; flow cytometry; recent regulatory findings and case studies involving stability and nonclinical immunogenicity. Conclusions and consensus from discussions of these topics are included in this article.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio-2019-0131DOI Listing
June 2019

Recommendations for classification of commercial LBA kits for biomarkers in drug development from the GCC for bioanalysis.

Bioanalysis 2019 Apr 17;11(7):645-653. Epub 2019 Apr 17.

WuXi Apptec, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.

Over the last decade, the use of biomarker data has become integral to drug development. Biomarkers are not only utilized for internal decision-making by sponsors; they are increasingly utilized to make critical decisions for drug safety and efficacy. As the regulatory agencies are routinely making decisions based on biomarker data, there has been significant scrutiny on the validation of biomarker methods. Contract research organizations regularly use commercially available immunoassay kits to validate biomarker methods. However, adaptation of such kits in a regulated environment presents significant challenges and was one of the key topics discussed during the 12th Global Contract Research Organization Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) meeting. This White Paper reports the GCC members' opinion on the challenges facing the industry and the GCC recommendations on the classification of commercial kits that can be a win-win for commercial kit vendors and end users.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio-2019-0072DOI Listing
April 2019

11th GCC Closed Forum: cumulative stability; matrix stability; immunogenicity assays; laboratory manuals; biosimilars; chiral methods; hybrid LBA/LCMS assays; fit-for-purpose validation; China Food and Drug Administration bioanalytical method validation.

Bioanalysis 2018 Apr 27;10(7):433-444. Epub 2018 Apr 27.

Worldwide Clinical Trials, Austin, TX, USA.

The 11th Global CRO Council Closed Forum was held in Universal City, CA, USA on 3 April 2017. Representatives from international CRO members offering bioanalytical services were in attendance in order to discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The second CRO-Pharma Scientific Interchange Meeting was held on 7 April 2017, which included Pharma representatives' sharing perspectives on the topics discussed earlier in the week with the CRO members. The issues discussed at the meetings included cumulative stability evaluations, matrix stability evaluations, the 2016 US FDA Immunogenicity Guidance and recent and unexpected FDA Form 483s on immunogenicity assays, the bioanalytical laboratory's role in writing PK sample collection instructions, biosimilars, CRO perspectives on the use of chiral versus achiral methods, hybrid LBA/LCMS assays, applications of fit-for-purpose validation and, at the Global CRO Council Closed Forum only, the status and trend of current regulated bioanalytical practice in China under CFDA's new BMV policy. Conclusions from discussions of these topics at both meetings are included in this report.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio-2018-0014DOI Listing
April 2018

The 10th GCC Closed Forum: rejected data, GCP in bioanalysis, extract stability, BAV, processed batch acceptance, matrix stability, critical reagents, ELN and data integrity and counteracting fraud.

Bioanalysis 2017 Apr 24;9(7):505-516. Epub 2017 Mar 24.

WuXi Apptec, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.

The 10th Global CRO Council (GCC) Closed Forum was held in Orlando, FL, USA on 18 April 2016. In attendance were decision makers from international CRO member companies offering bioanalytical services. The objective of this meeting was for GCC members to meet and discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The issues discussed at this closed forum included reporting data from failed method validation runs, GCP for clinical sample bioanalysis, extracted sample stability, biomarker assay validation, processed batch acceptance criteria, electronic laboratory notebooks and data integrity, Health Canada's Notice regarding replicates in matrix stability evaluations, critical reagents and regulatory approaches to counteract fraud. In order to obtain the pharma perspectives on some of these topics, the first joint CRO-Pharma Scientific Interchange Meeting was held on 12 November 2016, in Denver, Colorado, USA. The five topics discussed at this Interchange meeting were reporting data from failed method validation runs, GCP for clinical sample bioanalysis, extracted sample stability, processed batch acceptance criteria and electronic laboratory notebooks and data integrity. The conclusions from the discussions of these topics at both meetings are included in this report.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio-2017-5000DOI Listing
April 2017

9th GCC closed forum: CAPA in regulated bioanalysis; method robustness, biosimilars, preclinical method validation, endogenous biomarkers, whole blood stability, regulatory audit experiences and electronic laboratory notebooks.

Bioanalysis 2016 Mar 26;8(6):487-95. Epub 2016 Feb 26.

WuXi/XBL, 107 Morgan Lane, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.

The 9th GCCClosed Forum was held just prior to the 2015 Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (WRIB) in Miami, FL, USA on 13 April 2015. In attendance were 58 senior-level participants, from eight countries, representing 38 CRO companies offering bioanalytical services. The objective of this meeting was for CRO bioanalytical representatives to meet and discuss scientific and regulatory issues specific to bioanalysis. The issues selected at this year's closed forum include CAPA, biosimilars, preclinical method validation, endogenous biomarkers, whole blood stability, and ELNs. A summary of the industry's best practices and the conclusions from the discussion of these topics is included in this meeting report.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio.16.16DOI Listing
March 2016

8th GCC: consolidated feedback to US FDA on the 2013 draft FDA guidance on bioanalytical method validation.

Bioanalysis 2014 ;6(22):2957-63

Covance Laboratories, Chantilly, VA, USA.

The 8th GCC Closed Forum for Bioanalysis was held in Baltimore, MD, USA on 5 December 2013, immediately following the 2013 AAPS Workshop (Crystal City V): Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation--The 2013 Revised FDA Guidance. This GCC meeting was organized to discuss the contents of the draft revised FDA Guidance on bioanalytical method validation that was published in September 2013 and consolidate the feedback of the GCC members. In attendance were 63 senior-level participants, from seven countries, representing 46 bioanalytical CRO companies/sites. This event represented a unique opportunity for CRO bioanalytical experts to share their opinions and concerns regarding the draft FDA Guidance, and to build unified comments to be provided to the FDA.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio.14.287DOI Listing
July 2015

Recommendations on incurred sample stability (ISS) by GCC.

Bioanalysis 2014 Sep;6(18):2385-90

Quintiles Bioanalytical & ADME Labs, Ithaca, NY, USA.

The topic of incurred sample stability (ISS) has generated considerable discussion within the bioanalytical community in recent years. The subject was an integral part of the seventh annual Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (WRIB) held in Long Beach, CA, USA, in April 2013, and at the Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) meeting preceding it. Discussion at both events focused on the use of incurred samples for ISS purposes in light of results from a recent GCC survey completed by member companies. This paper reports the consensus resulting from these discussions and serves as a useful reference for depicting ISS issues and concerns, summarizing the GCC survey results and providing helpful recommendations on ISS in the context of bioanalytical method development and application.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio.14.155DOI Listing
September 2014

Recommendations on bioanalytical method stability implications of co-administered and co-formulated drugs by Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC).

Bioanalysis 2012 Sep;4(17):2117-26

Advion Bioanalytical Laboratories, Quintiles, NY, USA.

An open letter written by the Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis (GCC) describing the GCC survey results on stability data from co-administered and co-formulated drugs was sent to multiple regulatory authorities on 14 December 2011. This letter and further discussions at different GCC meetings led to subsequent recommendations on this topic of widespread interest within the bioanalytical community over the past 2 years.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio.12.192DOI Listing
September 2012

Conference report: the 3rd Global CRO Council for Bioanalysis at the International Reid Bioanalytical Forum.

Bioanalysis 2011 Dec;3(24):2721-7

Accelera, Nerviano, Italy.

The 3rd Global CRO Council Closed Forum was held on the 3rd and 4th July 2011 in Guildford, United Kingdom, in conjunction with the 19th International Reid Bioanalytical Forum. In attendance were 21 senior-level representatives from 19 CROs on behalf of nine European countries and, for many of the attendees, this occasion was the first time that they had participated in a GCC meeting. Therefore, this closed forum was an opportunity to increase awareness of the aim of the GCC and how it works, share information about bioanalytical regulations and audit findings from different agencies, their policies and procedures and also to discuss some topics of interest and aim to develop ideas and provide recommendations for bioanalytical practices at future GCC meetings in Europe.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bio.11.242DOI Listing
December 2011

Comparative study on the bioequivalence of two formulations of pravastatin. Data from a crossover, randomised, open-label bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers.

Arzneimittelforschung 2006 ;56(2):70-5

Medical Department, Grupo Tecnimede, Prior Velho, Portugal.

An open-label, randomised, crossover single-dose study, using two periods, two sequences, with a minimum washout period of 7 days, was conducted in order to assess the comparative bioavailability of a pravastatin (CAS 81131-70-6) 40 mg formulation and that of a reference formulation. Blood samples were collected up to +14 h post dosing, the plasma was separated and pravastatin concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatographic method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (HPLC-MS/MS), with a lower limit of quantification of 0.40 ng/mL. Bioequivalence analyses were conducted using two models. The main analysis was done according to a general linear model (model I) using formulation, period and sequence as fixed model effects, and subject(sequence) and residual as random effects; gender-related differences were investigated using ANOVA (model II), including formulation, period, sequence, gender, sequence-by-gender interaction and gender-by-formulation interaction as fixed model effects and subject within sequence-by-gender interaction and residual as random effect. Mean values of the individual Cmax were 126.73 +/- 61.99 ng/mL and 123.52 +/- 52.78 ng/mL for the test and reference, spectively. Mean +/- SD total area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUClast) was 224.26 +/- 104.74 ng x h/mL for the test formulation and 216.55 +/- 80.30 ng x h/mL for the reference formulation. Mean +/- SD total area under the curve (AUCinf) was 226.72 +/- 104.69 ng x h/mL for the test formulation and 218.81 +/- 79.95 ng x h/mL for the reference. Terminal elimination half-life was 2.15 +/- 0.85 h for test and 1.97 +/- 0.54 h for the reference. Ninety percent confidence intervals were comprised within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria (80-125 %) for all of the parameters analysed, both using model I and model II. Model II returned a statistically significant gender effect (p < 0.05) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf but the effect became non-significant (p > 0.05) when the dose was adjusted per body weight for all three parameters. The comparison between male and female mean body weight showed a significant difference: p = 0.03, 95 % confidence intervals 68.27-76.93 kg (men), 56.84-60.61 kg (women). These results suggest that the effect of gender in the bioequivalence analysis in model I could be due to a difference in body weight between males and females. Both formulations were shown to be bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption, irrespectively of the model used.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296704DOI Listing
April 2006

Comparative study on the bioequivalence of two different gabapentin formulations. A randomised, two-period, two-sequence, crossover clinical trial in healthy volunteers.

Arzneimittelforschung 2006 ;56(2):59-63

Medical Department, Grupo Tecnimede, Prior Velho, Portugal.

The bioequivalence of two capsule formulations containing 400 mg gabapentin (CAS 60142-96-3) was assessed in 24 healthy volunteers in an open, randomised, crossover, 2 periods x 2 sequences, with a minimum washout period of 7 days, single-dose study. Plasma samples were obtained at fixed time points, over 48 h (baseline (pre-dose), +0.5 h, +1 h, +1.5, +2, +2.5, +3, +3.5, +4, +8, +5, +6, +8, +10, +12, +24, +36 and +48 h after administration) and gabapentin concentrations were determined by means of an HPLC-MS method (LLOQ 50.2 ng/mL). Pharmacokinetic parameters used for bioequivalence assessment (AUCtlast, AUCinf and Cmax) were determined from the gabapentin concentration data using non-compartmental analysis. The results showed that all 90 % confidence intervals (obtained by ANOVA) were all within the predefined ranges: 93.87-111.87 % for Cmax 94.04-108.21 % for AUCtlast and 94.23-108.29 % for AUCinf. Consequently, this bioequivalence study was well designed in order to conclude that the test formulation and reference formulation were bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296702DOI Listing
April 2006

Comparative bioavailability/ bioequivalence of two different sertraline formulations: a randomised, 2-period x 2-sequence, crossover clinical trial in healthy volunteers.

Arzneimittelforschung 2005 ;55(4):191-7

Medical Department, Grupo Tecnimedea, Prior Velho (Portugal).

An open-label, randomised, crossover single dose study, using 2 periods x 2 sequences, with a minimum washout period of 4 weeks, was conducted in order to assess the comparative bioavailability of two formulations of sertraline hydrochloride (CAS 79617-96-2) 100 mg tablets. Plasma samples were obtained at intake (baseline) and at +1 h, +2 h, +3 h, +4 h, +5 h, +6 h, +7 h, +8 h, +9 h, +12 h, +24 h, +48 h, +72 h and +96 h post administration. Sertraline plasma concentrations were determined by high pressure liquid chromatography with tandem mass detection (HPLC-MS/MS) and the lower limit of quantification was set at 100.15 pg/mL. Pharmacokinetic parameters used for bioequivalence assessment (AUClast, AUCinf and Cmax) were determined by non-compartmental analysis. Classical 90 % confidence intervals (90CI) were calculated for the overall sample, and for males and females separately, and gender effects were investigated using an appropriate model. The results showed that overall classical 90CI were 84.55-100.32 % for Cmax 86.96-98.68 % for AUClast, and 86.79-98.93 for AUCinf, that is, they were all within the predefined ranges for bioequivalence acceptance. Separate gender analysis showed very similar results for males and females when analysed independently, and no gender effects were detected in bioequivalence analysis (p > 0.05). It may be therefore concluded that the evaluated formulations are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296844DOI Listing
June 2005

Truncated AUC in the evaluation of fluconazole bioequivalence. A cross-over, randomised, open-label study in healthy volunteers.

Arzneimittelforschung 2004 ;54(11):752-6

Servicio de Farmacología Clínica, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

The bioequivalence of two capsule formulations (test and reference) containing 200 mg fluconazole (CAS 86386-73-4) was assessed in 24 healthy volunteers in an open, randomised, crossover, 2 periods x 2 sequences single dose study with a minimum washout period of 14 days. Plasma samples were obtained over 168 h (at baseline, 1 h, 2 h, 2.5 h, 3 h, 3.5 h, 4 h, 5 h, 6 h, 8 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 120 h and 168 h after administration) and fluconazole concentrations were determined by means of an HPLC-WV method (limit of quantification: 0.2 microg/mL). Pharmacokinetic parameters used for bioequivalence assessment (AUClast, AUCinf and Cmax) were determined from the fluconazole concentration data using non-compartmental analysis. The results showed that all 90% confidence intervals (obtained by ANOVA) were 100.89-110.24 for Cmax, 99.07-107.35 for AUClast and 95.42-105.17 for AUCinf, that is, all within the predefined ranges. Furthermore AUCs truncated at 24, 48, 72 and 120 h were also within the 80-125% range. It may be therefore concluded that the evaluated formulations are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1297032DOI Listing
January 2005

A new high-absorption-rate Paracetamol 500-mg formulation: a comparative bioavailability study in healthy volunteers.

Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2003 Jul;64(7):401-11

Clinical Pharmacology Study Unit, Clinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

Background: Paracetamol is often the analgesic or antipyretic of choice, especially for patients for whom salicylates or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are contraindicated.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the absorption rate of a new tablet formulation of paracetamol (500 mg) with a reference formulation of paracetamol at the same dose.

Methods: This was a single-center, Phase I, open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover, single-dose, comparative bioavailability clinical trial. During both study periods, healthy volunteers were given a single oral dose of a more hydrophilic test formulation of paracetamol, or a reference formulation. Fifteen plasma samples were obtained to determine paracetamol concentrations and to calculate kinetic parameters.

Results: The study participants comprised 24 healthy volunteers (12 men, 12 women; mean [SD] age, 22.8 [1.5] years). The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for the test versus the reference formulation were as follows: median time to maximum concentration (Tmax), 0.42 versus 0.75 hour; mean (SD) maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax), 9.85 (2.40) μg/mL versus 8.33 (2.22) μg/mL; and mean (SD) area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞), 30.16 (8.87) μg·h/mL versus 28.49 (8.57) μg · h/mL. The 90% CIs of the ratios were as follows: base e logarithm (Ln)-transformed Cmax, 105.08% to 137.59%; Ln-AUC0-∞, 102.02% to 110.43%; and the difference in Tmax, -0.375 to -0.085 hours.

Conclusions: The speed of release and absorption was statistically significantly higher with the test formulation compared with the reference one (evaluated using Tmax, Cmax, and Cmax/AUC parameters). This speed is especially important for a rapid analgesic or antipyretic effect.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-393X(03)00110-3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053016PMC
July 2003