Doubts regarding IS variation, ISR failure & SEL/SPE Acceptance criteria [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2021-05-12 12:51 (931 d 08:09 ago) – Posting: # 22344
Views: 1,394

Dear Thangairulappan S,

❝ 1) Why we are fixing IS variation range ±50% from the average IS response of accepted CCs &

❝ QCs.

Your choice. Guidelines say you should monitor IS response, but do not specify how. Bear in mind that ±x% limits are useful, but not sufficient. Tons of reasons why in this issue of Bioanalysis.

❝ (while using a deuterated IS why we not keeping ±15% or ±20% or some other range).

Actually, a number of labs are pleading that you could use wider acceptance limits if using a stable isotope labelled IS. The tighter the limits you set, the higher the number of samples you will have to re-analyse because of IS variation, with little or no added value.

❝ 2) If in one project ISR failure observed frequently/continuously means what will go to next

❝ actions and please give some examples with clarification for the reasons for those

❝ failures.

Some good reading material:

Aimin Tan, Sofi Gagnon-Carignan, Sylvain Lachance et al.
Beyond successful ISR: case-by-case investigations for unmatched reassay results when ISR passed
Bioanalysis (2011) 3(9), 1031–1038

Manish Yadav, Pranav S Shrivastav
Incurred sample reanalysis (ISR): a decisive tool in bioanalytical research
Bioanalysis (2011) 3(9), 1007–1024

Some interesting information also in this more recent paper. However I would not follow all of their proposals and recommendations, as they may not be accepted by regulators:

Morten Anders Kall, Marco Michi, Barry van der Strate et al.
Incurred sample reproducibility: 10 years of experiences: views and recommendations from the European Bioanalysis Forum
Bioanalysis (2018) 10(21), 1723–1732


Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,811 posts in 4,783 threads, 1,639 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:00 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge
in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people.
The specialist knows more and more about less and less
and finally knows everything about nothing.    Konrad Lorenz

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz