pb070681
☆    

2008-04-25 19:10
(6633 d 08:51 ago)

Posting: # 1796
Views: 5,018
 

 Batch acceptance [Bioanalytics]

My batch consist of

1) plasma blank
2) plasma blank+internal standard
3) calibration standards and ..................

I observed interference at RT of Drug in plasma blank which is more than 20% of calibration standard 1 (LLOQ)
but not observed in next sample ie plasma blank+internal standard

is it necessary to repeat batch? pls provide referance if any?


Regards

Pramod
Ohlbe
★★★

France,
2008-04-30 03:03
(6629 d 00:58 ago)

@ pb070681
Posting: # 1809
Views: 4,081
 

 Interferences

Dear Pramod,

What does your SOP say ;-) ?

IMHO the main goal of the plasma blank is to make sure that you have no interference at the retention time of your internal standard. I would rather interpret interferences at the RT of the analyte in the Blank+IS.

Interference in the blanks is not part of the batch acceptance criteria in the http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4252fnl.pdf FDA guideline.

The question you may get if you have a significant peak in the blank, but not in the blank+IS, is: where does this peak come from ? Could it be a contamination during sample processing (what sample preparation method are you using ?), or carry-over (what did you inject before your blank ?) ?

Regards
Ohlbe


Edit: Link corrected for FDA’s new site. [Helmut]
pb070681
☆    

2008-04-30 22:47
(6628 d 05:14 ago)

@ Ohlbe
Posting: # 1811
Views: 4,020
 

 Interferences

Dear

This might be contamination during sample processing because batch started with blank. so can i accept that batch or reject?
Ohlbe
★★★

France,
2008-05-01 00:40
(6628 d 03:21 ago)

@ pb070681
Posting: # 1812
Views: 4,021
 

 Interferences

Dear Pramod,

If you have anything in your SOP, follow it. If not: personally I would accept the run, and record the justification for this acceptance in the raw data (no interference in Blank+IS). Then, write the SOP ;-).

If you suspect contamination during sample processing, you should also investigate how it may have happened and how to prevent it.

Regards
Ohlbe
vpardhasaradhi
☆    

2008-05-01 21:48
(6627 d 06:13 ago)

@ Ohlbe
Posting: # 1813
Views: 3,920
 

 Interferences

Dear Ohlbe and Pramod,

Do you think the batch construction is OK? Is it not better to construct the batch in the following way inorder to have additional check on the injector carryover in every batch.

1. Solvent blank
2. Calibration standards....
3. Plasma blank
4. Plasma blank + Internal standard

Regards,

V.Pardhasaradhi
Jaime_R
★★  

Barcelona,
2008-05-04 15:47
(6624 d 12:14 ago)

@ Ohlbe
Posting: # 1814
Views: 3,902
 

 Interferences

Dear Ohlbe & Pramod!

❝ Interference in the blanks is not part of the batch acceptance criteria in

❝ the FDA guideline.


Yes, and furthermore I do not understand the agitation... ;-)
According to http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4252fnl.pdf FDA's guideline lack of interference (<20% of LLOQ's response) must be demonstrated in six different sources of plasma. In other words if 0/6 is the limit, 1/7 should be fine. Not stepping into statistical issues, that would mean expecting interferences in 3 subjects of a 24 subject's study...


Edit: Link corrected for FDA’s new site. [Helmut]

Regards, Jaime
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
146 visitors (1 registered, 145 guests [including 38 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5