1. Peter van Amsterdam
Head Bioanalytics, Abbott Healthcare Products
DARQA themadag ‘When GCP meets GLP’, 30 Jan 2015, Utrecht
2. The views and conclusions presented in this slide deck are
those of the author/presenter and do not necessarily reflect
the representative affiliation or company's position on the
subject.
Exaggeration is often chosen as a style model to emphasize
the similarities or differences between various situations.
The focus is on the bioanalytical arena
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 2
3. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 3
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
5. 1965: EEC 65/65 (reaction to Thalidomide)
o No real focus on bioanalysis
1978: 21 CFR 58
1982: OECD 1
o Both are General GLP guidelines (preclinical safety)
o Quality system ensure the uniformity, consistency, reliability, reproducibility,
quality, and integrity pre-clinical safety tests.
Eighties (flowing over in the Nineties)
o Increased focus on Bioequivalence studies (including paragraphs on
bioanalytical methodology to be applied)
o EU, FDA, Australia, Canada to lead
BMV workshop – (Crystal City-I)
o < 1990 = lack of uniformity in industry wrt validation bioanalytical methods
o Crystal City-I was first international conference with focus on Bioanalytical
method validation and sample analysis
o Resulted in Shah paper (Pharm Res. 1992;9:588-592).
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 5
6. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 6
Crystal City I
Shah
2001 FDA
Guidance
CC-I CC-II CC-III
Crystal City
Conferences
Conference papers
Regulatory
Guidance
Additional white
papers
CC-IV
(ISR)
CC-IV Fast
1990 2000 2010
CC III
Viswanathan
CC II
Shah (chrom.)
Miller (LBA)
DeSilva
7. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 7
20201960 1970 1980
1965:
65/65/EEC
1979:
US 58cfr21
1982:
OECD GLP
A B C
Anvisa RDC 899
HC removes ISR
1988:
Australian draft
CO6: 7581c
EMA draft
Anvisa update
Open letter to
FDA & EMA
GBC
formed
More countries or
regions likely to issue
Guidelines
D
E
1990 2000 2010
Thalidomide
A. scientist adopting home designed quality
systems
B. scientist shopping for inspiration in other areas
– peers, DIN, EPA,..
C. scientist regrouped around Shah paper
D. multiple countries issuing regulations of BA included in BE
guidelines
E. Industry increase meeting frequency (e.g. APA, EBF, CVG)
recommendation papers after (broad) internal discussions
EMA final
MHLW chrom
MHLW LBA
CFDA draft
8. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 8
A bucket full of other
adjacent regulations:
21 CFR 58 (GLP), OECD-
GLP, 21 CFR 11 (CSV),
ICH-S3A (TK), ICH-E6
(GCP), ICH M3 (MIST),
MHRA GCLP, EMA GCLP,
21 CFR 320.29 (BE), …,
…, …,
9. 1963 FDA drafting the GMP concept
1964 Declaration of Helsinki
1973 New Zealand draft GLP concept
1978 FDA GLP final
1978 FDA GMP final
1981 OECD GLP
1982 MHLW GLP
1983 EPA GLP
1989 Revised EPA GLP
1989 ICH global standards for Clinical Research
1997 21 CFR 11
1997 Revised OECD GLP
1997 ICH GCP
2001 EU Clinical Trials directive
2005 EU GCP directive
2009 MHRA GCP for laboratories
2009 WHO GCLP
2012 EMA 'GCLP' reflection paper
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 9
Hmmm….
~1980 GLP
~2000 GCP
~2010 GCLP
10. Within Pharma, bioanalytical departments are often part of
DMPK/Research.
o Basically a pre-clinical (GLP) area
o Science & technology driven
o High attrition rate
Within CROs, bioanalytical departments are often core
business.
o Can cover all R to D area’s (GLP and)
o Science & technology driven
o Client focus, costs & timelines driven
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 10
11. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 11
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
13. By design, e.g.:
Corporate strategy
o Science in house
o Operational external
Flexible workforce
o Cope with peaks in workload
o No redundancies in slow periods
Excess or shortage of money
o R&D expenditures as % of sales
Improvement of deliverables, e.g.:
Better suited then own labs
o Better equipped
o GxP compliant
o Right location
Faster then own labs
o Larger workforce
o More instruments
o Routine power
Specific expertise
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 13
19. Central Lab
Project manager
Logistics
o Kits
o Samples
Kit building
Safety analysis
Data basing
Reconciliation
QA
Reporting
Bioanalytical Lab(s)
Study lead
QA
Management
Sample receipt
Archives
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 19
20. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 20
Other
Ethical Committee
Safety Review Board
Health Authorities
And
Public disclosure
Share holders
Senior management
Financial analists
Clinical sites
Investigators
Hospital staff
Recruitment
Inclusion / Exclusion
Medical history
Dosing
Observations
Sampling
Pharmacists
21. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 21
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
23. In the Bioanalytical (‘GLP’) Environment
BioAnalysis Man
Knows BMV Guidelines
Knows (OECD) GLP
Knows (a bit) CSV
Knows the (relevant) SOPs
Knows his science
Can handle equipment
Can perform validations
Can run samples
Can report the results
23GCP meets GLP @DARQA30-Jan-2015
24. In the Research (GLP) environment
BioAnalysis Man
Knows bioanalysis
Knows (OECD) GLP
Knows a bit about DMPK
Knows a bit about the study
Takes care of the PK/PD samples
Part of team
Report appendix
24GCP meets GLP @DARQA30-Jan-2015
25. In the Clinical (GCP) environment
2530-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA
BioAnalysis Man
Knows bioanalysis
Knows some GCP
Knows a bit about DMPK
Knows a bit about the study
Takes care of the PK/PD samples
May be part of sub-team
Report appendix / part of the reported data
26. In the BA lab, bioanalytical objectives
o “You can do anything you want“
• Change method, amend something, redo an experiment, ….
• (as long as you follow some SOPs and QA and management rules)
In a GLP study
o “You can mostly do what you want“
• Change method, amend something, redo an experiment, BUT …
• (as long as you follow the SOPs, protocol, SD input/agreement and QA and
management rules)
In a GCP study
o “You can hardly do what you want“
• NO to change of method, amend something, redo an experiment, UNLESS ..
• (and follow the SOPs, protocol, sponsor input/agreement, patient rights,
and QA and management rules, ….)
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 26
27. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 27
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
29. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 29
From: Principles and Practice of ICH GLP
Rebecca Luk, Pfizer (2012)
30. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 30
EMA:
EMA BMV: The validation of bioanalytical methods and the analysis of study samples for clinical
trials in humans should be performed following the principles of GCP. Further can be found in
the “Reflection Paper for Laboratories That Perform The Analysis Or Evaluation Of Clinical Trial
Samples.” (EMA/INS/GCP/532137/2010).
EMA BMV: The validation of bioanalytical methods used in non-clinical pharmaco toxicological
studies that are carried out in conformity with the provisions related to Good Laboratory Practice
should be performed following the Principles of GLP.
EMA BE: The bioanalytical part of bioequivalence trials should be performed in accordance with
the principles of GLP. However, as human bioanalytical studies fall outside the scope of GLP, the
sites conducting the studies are not required to be monitored as part of a national GLP
compliance programme.
Note: OECD GLP
Draft FDA: Pre-clinical adhere to GLP (21 CFR 58), Clinical adhere to 21 CFR 320.29
ANVISA: Not addressed
MHLW: Not clearly addressed
31. Availability of the clinical protocol
Central lab between clinic and BA lab
Lab manual
Sample roster ≠ sample tube label
Data base (LIMS) requirements
Timelines
Reporting final data before issuing final report
Who to report what to (communication plan)
Patients and IC
CRFs
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 31
32. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 32
From: Unexpected Results in a Bioanalytical Laboratory – a Safety and Compliance Issue?
Silke Luedtke, Boehringer Ingelheim (2011)
33. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 33
From: Unexpected Results in a Bioanalytical Laboratory – a Safety and Compliance Issue?
Silke Luedtke, Boehringer Ingelheim (2011)
34. Excerpt from the MHRA "Guidance for the notification of serious breaches of
GCP or the trial protocol", released 2006, update Jan 2013
non-compliance with GCP or the protocol
If this non-compliance has a significant impact on the integrity of trial
subjects in the UK or on the scientific value of the trial, this will constitute a
serious breach. For example, widespread and uncontrolled use of protocol
waivers affecting eligibility criteria, which leads to harm to trial subjects in
the UK or which has a significant impact on the scientific value of the trial.
Another example would be an investigator repeatedly failing to reduce or
stop the dose of an IMP in response to a trigger defined in the protocol (for
example, abnormal laboratory results).
Examples of Serious Breaches Notified to MHRA
Investigator site failed to reduce or stop trial medication, in response to
certain laboratory parameters, as required by the protocol. This occurred
with several subjects over a one year period, despite identification by the
monitor of the first two occasions. Subjects were exposed to an increased
risk of thrombosis.
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 34
35. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 35
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
36. Is the bioanalytical laboratory (CRO) able to:
o Identify significant deviations from the protocol?
o Identify misdosing?
• Overdosing
• Underdosing
• Wrong medication
o Identify differences in drug clearance (a subjects ability to
metabolise or excrete an investigational drug)?
o Identify sloppy conduct at a clinical site?
o Report in a timely manner?
o Report to the right parties involved?
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 36
37. Yes, e.g. in a non-placebo controlled trial with cross-over
design some subjects had normal PK profiles for treatment
1 but hardly any profile for treatment 2
subjects did not take medication in treatment cycle 2
clinic did not notice as e.g. no vomiting etc was reported
Could be a compliance issue due to misconduct
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 37
38. Yes, e.g. placebo or reference drug and active treatment
mixed-up
may not be a safety issue for subject if the dose was
approved for the trial
Compliance issue as it demonstrates that procedures at
the clinic are prone to error
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 38
39. Yes, e.g. some or all subjects show much higher plasma
levels than expected (e.g. from sponsor info or literature or
comparison to historic data)
may be a safety issue for the subject(s)
Could be a compliance and safety issue as it indicates
that the study is not executed according to protocol and
subjects may have been overdosed
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 39
40. Yes, e.g. some or all subjects show much lower plasma
levels than expected (e.g. from sponsor info or literature or
comparison to historic data)
may be a safety issue for the subject(s): undertreatment
of patients
Could be a compliance and safety issue as it indicates
that the study is not executed according to protocol and
patients may have been underdosed
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 40
41. Yes, but may need help from a DMPK scientist (from the
sponsor)
e.g. profile differs significantly from others, no hint for
analytical problem like matrix effect
Could be a safety issue
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 41
42. Yes, e.g. sample mislabeling, wrong collection tubes, wrong
matrix, large volume variations, strongly hemolyzed, …
may not be a safety issue
sloppiness/errors in sample collection and handling can
be indicative of bigger compliance issues
Compliance issue as it demonstrates that procedures at
the clinic are prone to error
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 42
43. Not always but very often, i.e. for clinical trials were the
bioanalyst is unblinded and sample analysis is performed
while the trial is still ongoing
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 43
44. Yes, if there is a communication plan
Maybe yes, with known contact details of key (sponsor)
people
Likely not in cases of ‘thrown over the fence’
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 44
45. 30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 45
1. Some history lessons
2. Outsourcing
3. Perspective / Perception
4. GCP in the BA lab
5. Anomalous results
6. Case studies
46. In een multiple ascending dose study met een NCE worden plasma
monsters direct na de 1e en na de 7e dag geanalyseerd door een
CRO BA-lab. Gebaseerd op de PK (plasma spiegels) en de klinische
observaties wordt door de sponsor de beslissing genomen wat de
volgende (hogere) dosis gaat worden of dat de studie gestopt moet
worden.
Wanneer de sponsor de resultaten van de eerste (laagste) dosering
krijgt valt op dat er 1 subject is met 5-10x hogere plasma spiegels
dan de overige 5 subjects op drug.
Hebben we een probleem?
Wat had het BA lab (eerder) moeten doen?
Wat moet de sponsor doen?
Kan de volgende hogere dosering volgens plan plaatsvinden?
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 46
47. Om een op tijd belangrijke beslissing te kunnen nemen in een
fase III programma is het gewenst dat de resultaten van een
zeer grote fase I dubbelblinde DDI studie halverwege de
bioanalyse pharmacokinetisch verwerkt en geëvalueerd
worden. Hiervoor wordt een derde onafhankelijk partij
gecontracteerd zodat de sponsor en de onderzoeker en
biometrie van de CRO blind kunnen blijven. Het lab stuurt de
data en randomisatielijst naar de 3e partij en de sponsor …
Hebben we een probleem?
Wat moet de sponsor doen?
Wat moet het BA lab doen?
Wat moet de 3e partij doen?
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 47
48. Bij de pharmacokinetische verwerking en statische analyse
van een dubbelblinde PK studie blijken 3 subjects zeer
vreemde PK curves te laten zien. De sponsor wordt gevraagd
wat met deze subjects te doen. De bioanalyticus van de
sponsor ontdekt dat er bij deze 3 subjects zeer waarschijnlijk
de data van de QCs tussen de monster data is gekomen
waardoor ‘alles is opgeschoven’
Curve 1: QC-HI ipv t=0, QC-ME ipv t=1, QC-LO ipv t=2, t=0 ipv t=3 …
Curve 2: t=n-21 ipv t=02, t=n-11 ipv t=12, t1=n1 ipv t=22, t=02 ipv t=32 …
Hebben we een probleem?
Wat had het BA lab (eerder) moeten doen?
Wat moet de sponsor doen?
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 48
49. Na 3 succesvolle fase I studies wordt een bioanalyse methode
enigszins aangepast: ander merk HPLC kolom en wordt bij de
MS/MS overgegaan van API-CI naar ESI (zachtere ionisatie).
De methode wordt prachtig gevalideerd en toegepast bij studie
nummer 4. De chromatogrammen van vrijwel alle subject
samples laten onverwacht in meer of mindere mate een
schouder zien op de analyte piek.
Hebben we een probleem?
Wat moet de sponsor doen?
Wat moet het BA lab doen?
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 49
50. DARQA for giving me the opportunity to present at their
meeting.
The regulators and inspectors for stimulating us to
continuously improve our work
Philip Timmerman (JnJ) for some of the ‘History’ slides
Silke Lüdtke (BI) for some of the ‘Anomalous’ slides
You, for your attention
30-Jan-2015 GCP meets GLP @DARQA 50