INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICALREQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE
ICH HARMONISED GUIDELINEBIOANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION AND STUDYSAMPLE ANALYSIS
M10
Final version
Adopted on 24 May 2022

This Guideline has been developed by the appropriate ICH Expert Working Group andhas been subject to consultation by the regulatory parties, in accordance with the ICH
Process. At Step 4 of the Process the final draft is recommended for adoption to theregulatory bodies of ICH regions.

M10
Document History
CodeHistory

M10

Endorsement by the Members of the ICH Assembly 26 February 2019
under Step 2 and release for public consultation(document dated 15 January 2019).
Endorsement by the Regulatory Members of the 24 May 2022
ICH Assembly under Step 4, including a title change
from “Bioanalytical Method Validation” to“Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study
Sample Analysis”

M10

Date

Legal notice: This document is protected by copyright and may, with the exception of the ICH
logo, be used, reproduced, incorporated into other works, adapted, modified, translated or
distributed under a public license provided that ICH's copyright in the document is acknowledgedat all times. In case of any adaption, modification or translation of the document, reasonable
steps must be taken to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made toor based on the original document. Any impression that the adaption, modification or translationof the original document is endorsed or sponsored by the ICH must be avoided.
The document is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. In no event shall the ICH or theauthors of the original document be liable for any claim, damages or other liability arising fromthe use of the document.
The above-mentioned permissions do not apply to content supplied by third parties. Therefore,
for documents where the copyright vests in a third party, permission for reproduction must be
obtained from this copyright holder.

ICH M10 Guideline

ICH HARMONISED GUIDELINEBIOANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION AND STUDYSAMPLE ANALYSIS
M10
ICH Consensus Guideline
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Objective .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 6
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Method Development ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Method Validation ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Full Validation ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Partial Validation ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Cross Validation ........................................................................................................ 9
3. CHROMATOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Reference Standards ............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Validation............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 Selectivity ................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.2 Specificity .................................................................................................................11
3.2.3 Matrix Effect .............................................................................................................11
3.2.4 Calibration Curve and Range ................................................................................. 12
3.2.5 Accuracy and Precision ........................................................................................... 13
3.2.5.1 Preparation of Quality Control Samples .............................................................. 13

3

ICH M10 Guideline

3.2.5.2 Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision ................................................................. 14
3.2.6 Carry-over ............................................................................................................... 14
3.2.7 Dilution Integrity ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2.8 Stability.................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.9 Reinjection Reproducibility ..................................................................................... 18
3.3 Study Sample Analysis ....................................................................................................... 18
3.3.1 Analytical Run ......................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for an Analytical Run ............................................................. 19
3.3.3 Calibration Range ................................................................................................... 21
3.3.4 Reanalysis of Study Samples ................................................................................... 21
3.3.5 Reinjection of Study Samples .................................................................................. 23
3.3.6 Integration of Chromatograms ................................................................................ 23
4. LIGAND BINDING ASSAYS............................................................................................ 23
4.1 Key Reagents...................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Reference Standard.................................................................................................. 23
4.1.2 Critical Reagents ..................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Validation............................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.1 Specificity ................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.2 Selectivity ................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.3 Calibration Curve and Range ................................................................................. 26
4.2.4 Accuracy and Precision ........................................................................................... 27
4.2.4.1 Preparation of Quality Control Samples .............................................................. 27
4.2.4.2 Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision ................................................................. 27
4.2.5 Carry-over ............................................................................................................... 28
4.2.6 Dilution Linearity and Hook Effect ......................................................................... 28
4.2.7 Stability.................................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Study Sample Analysis ....................................................................................................... 30
4.3.1 Analytical Run ......................................................................................................... 30
4.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for an Analytical Run ............................................................. 31
4

ICH M10 Guideline

4.3.3 Calibration Range ................................................................................................... 32
4.3.4 Reanalysis of Study Samples ................................................................................... 32
5. INCURRED SAMPLE REANALYSIS (ISR) .................................................................. 33
6. PARTIAL AND CROSS VALIDATION ........................................................................... 35
6.1 Partial Validation ................................................................................................................ 35
6.2 Cross Validation ................................................................................................................. 36
7. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 37
7.1 Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules .............................................. 37
7.1.1 Quality Control Samples for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous
Molecules ......................................................................................................................... 39
7.1.2 Selectivity, Recovery and Matrix Effects for Methods for Analytes that are also
Endogenous Molecules ..................................................................................................... 39
7.1.3 Parallelism for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules .......... 40
7.1.4 Accuracy and Precision for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous
Molecules ......................................................................................................................... 40
7.1.5 Stability for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules ............... 41
7.2 Parallelism .......................................................................................................................... 41
7.3 Recovery............................................................................................................................. 42
7.4 Minimum Required Dilution .............................................................................................. 42
7.5 Commercial and Diagnostic Kits ....................................................................................... 42
7.6 New or Alternative Technologies ....................................................................................... 43
7.6.1 Dried Matrix Methods ............................................................................................. 44
8. DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................................................... 44
8.1 Summary Information ........................................................................................................ 45
8.2 Documentation for Validation and Bioanalytical Reports .................................................. 45
9. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................ 53

5

ICH M10 Guideline

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
This guideline is intended to provide recommendations for the validation of bioanalyticalmethods for chemical and biological drug quantification and their application in the analysis ofstudy samples. Adherence to the principles presented in this guideline will ensure the quality
and consistency of the bioanalytical data in support of the development and market approval ofboth chemical and biological drugs.
The objective of the validation of a bioanalytical method is to demonstrate that it is suitable for
its intended purpose. Changes from the recommendations in this guideline may be acceptable
if appropriate scientific justification is provided. Applicants are encouraged to consult theregulatory authority(ies) regarding significant changes in method validation approaches whenan alternate approach is proposed or taken.
1.2 Background
Concentration measurements of chemical and biological drug(s) and their metabolite(s) inbiological matrices are an important aspect of drug development. The results of studies
employing such methods contribute to regulatory decisions regarding the safety and efficacy of
drug products. It is therefore critical that the bioanalytical methods used are well characterised,
appropriately validated and documented in order to ensure reliable data to support regulatory
decisions.
This guideline intends to facilitate development of drugs in accordance with the principles of
3Rs (Reduce, Refine, Replace) for animal studies, where valid.
1.3 ScopeThis guideline describes the validation of bioanalytical methods and study sample analysis thatare expected to support regulatory decisions. The guideline is applicable to the bioanalyticalmethods used to measure concentrations of chemical and biological drug(s) and their
metabolite(s) in biological samples (e.g., blood, plasma, serum, other body fluids or tissues)
obtained in nonclinical toxicokinetic (TK) studies conducted according to the principles of GLP,
nonclinical pharmacokinetic (PK) studies conducted as surrogates for clinical studies, and allphases of clinical trials, including comparative bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) studies,in regulatory submissions. Full method validation is expected for the primary matrix intended
to support regulatory submissions. Additional matrices should be validated as necessary.

6ICH M10 Guideline

For studies that are not submitted for regulatory approval or not considered for regulatory
decisions regarding safety, efficacy or labelling (e.g., exploratory investigations), applicants
may decide on the level of qualification that supports their own internal decision making.
The information in this guideline applies to the quantitative analysis by ligand binding assays(LBAs) and chromatographic methods such as liquid chromatography (LC) or gas
chromatography (GC), which are typically used in combination with mass spectrometry (MS)detection.
For studies that are subject to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) or Good Clinical Practice (GCP)
the bioanalysis of study samples should also conform to their requirements.
The bioanalysis of biomarkers and bioanalytical methods used for the assessment of
immunogenicity are not within the scope of this guideline.
2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 Method Development
The purpose of bioanalytical method development is to define the design, operating conditions,limitations and suitability of the method for its intended purpose and to ensure that the method
is ready for validation.
Before or during the development of a bioanalytical method, the applicant is encouraged to, if
feasible, understand the analyte of interest (e.g., the physicochemical properties of the drug, invitro and in vivo metabolism, preferential distribution between red blood cells and plasma, andprotein binding) and consider aspects of any prior analytical methods that may be applicable.
Method development involves identifying the procedures and conditions involved withquantifying the analyte. Method development can include the characterisation of the following
bioanalytical elements: reference standards, critical reagents, calibration curve, quality control
samples (QCs), selectivity and specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision, recovery, stability of
the analyte, minimum required dilution (MRD).
Bioanalytical method development does not require extensive record keeping or notation. Oncethe method has been developed, bioanalytical method validation proves that the method issuited to the analysis of the study samples.
If a problem is encountered with the method during the analysis of nonclinical or clinical study
samples that requires that the analysis be stopped, any changes to the method and the rationale
should be documented.
7

ICH M10 Guideline

2.2 Method Validation
2.2.1 Full Validation
Bioanalytical method validation is essential to ensure the acceptability of assay performanceand the reliability of analytical results. A bioanalytical method is defined as a set of procedures
used for measuring analyte concentrations in biological samples. A full validation of abioanalytical method should be performed when establishing a bioanalytical method for thequantification of an analyte in clinical and in applicable nonclinical studies. Full validation
should also be performed when implementing an analytical method that is reported in theliterature and when a commercial kit is repurposed for bioanalytical use in drug development.
Usually, one analyte has to be determined, but on occasion it may be appropriate to measure
more than one analyte. This may involve two different drugs, a parent drug with its metabolites
or the enantiomers or isomers of a drug. In these cases, the principles of validation and analysis
apply to all analytes of interest. For chromatographic methods a full validation should include
the following elements, unless otherwise justified: selectivity, specificity, matrix effect,calibration curve (response function), range (lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) to upper
limit of quantification (ULOQ)), accuracy, precision, carry-over, dilution integrity, stability andreinjection reproducibility.
For LBAs the following elements should be evaluated, unless otherwise justified: specificity,selectivity, calibration curve (response function), range (LLOQ to ULOQ), accuracy, precision,
carry-over, dilution linearity, and stability. If necessary, parallelism can be conducted whenappropriate study samples are available.
The assessments that are performed during validation should be relevant to the sample analysis
workflow. The matrix used for bioanalytical method validation should be the same as the matrixof the study samples, including anticoagulants and additives. In some cases, it may be difficult
to obtain an identical matrix to that of the study samples (e.g., rare matrices such as tissue,
cerebrospinal fluid, bile or in cases where free drug is measured). In such cases, surrogate
matrices may be acceptable for analytical method validation.
The choice of surrogate matrix should be scientifically justified. Matrix differences within
species (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender) are generally not considered different when validating amethod.
A specific, detailed, written description of the bioanalytical method and validation procedure
should be established a priori. This description may be in the form of a protocol, study plan,
report, notebook or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
8

ICH M10 Guideline

2.2.2 Partial Validation
Modifications to a fully validated analytical method may be evaluated by partial validation.
Partial validation can range from as little as one accuracy and precision determination to anearly full validation (Refer to Section 6.1). The items in a partial validation should bedetermined according to the extent and nature of the changes made to the method.
2.2.3 Cross Validation
Cross validation is required to demonstrate how the reported data are related when multiple
bioanalytical methods and/or multiple bioanalytical laboratories are involved. (Refer to
Section 6.2)

3. CHROMATOGRAPHY
3.1 Reference Standards
During method validation and the analysis of study samples, a blank biological matrix is spiked
with the analyte(s) of interest using solutions of reference standard(s) to prepare calibration
standards and QCs. Calibration standards and QCs should be prepared from separate stock
solutions. However, calibration standards and QCs may be prepared from the same stock
solution provided the accurate preparation and stability of the stock solution should have beenverified.
A suitable internal standard (IS) should be added to all calibration standards, QCs and study
samples during sample processing. The absence of an IS should be justified.
It is important that the reference standard is well characterised and the quality (e.g., purity,
identity) of the reference standard and the suitability of the IS is ensured, as the quality willaffect the outcome of the analysis and, therefore, the study data. The reference standard usedduring validation and study sample analysis should be obtained from an authentic and traceable
source. The reference standard should be identical to the analyte. If this is not possible, anestablished form (e.g., salt or hydrate) of known quality should be used.
Suitable reference standards include compendial standards, commercially available standards
or sufficiently characterised standards prepared in-house or by an external organisation. A
certificate of analysis (CoA) or an equivalent alternative is required to ensure quality and toprovide information on the purity, storage conditions, retest/expiration date and batch numberof the reference standard.

9

ICH M10 Guideline

A CoA is not required for the IS as long as the suitability for use is demonstrated, e.g., a lack ofanalytical interference is shown for the substance itself or any impurities thereof.
When MS detection is used, the use of the stable isotope-labelled analyte as the IS isrecommended whenever possible. However, it is essential that the labelled standard is of highisotope purity and that no isotope exchange reaction occurs. The presence of unlabelled analyteshould be checked and if unlabelled analyte is detected, the potential influence should be
evaluated during method validation.
Stock and working solutions should only be prepared from reference standards that are within
the stability period as documented in the CoA (either expiration date or the retest date).
3.2 Validation

3.2.1 Selectivity
Selectivity is the ability of an analytical method to differentiate and measure the analyte in thepresence of potential interfering substances in the blank biological matrix.
Selectivity should be evaluated using blank samples (matrix samples processed without
addition of an analyte or IS) obtained from at least 6 individual sources/lots (non-haemolysedand non-lipaemic). Use of fewer sources may be acceptable in the case of rare matrices.
Selectivity for the IS should also be evaluated.
The evaluation of selectivity should demonstrate that no significant response attributable tointerfering components is observed at the retention time(s) of the analyte or the IS in the blanksamples. Responses attributable to interfering components should not be more than 20% of theanalyte response at the LLOQ and not more than 5% of the IS response in the LLOQ sample
for each matrix.
For the investigation of selectivity in lipaemic matrices at least one source of matrix should be
used. To be scientifically meaningful, the matrix used for these tests should be representative
as much as possible of the expected study samples. A naturally lipaemic matrix with abnormallyhigh levels of triglycerides should be obtained from donors. Although it is recommended to use
lipaemic matrix from donors, if this is difficult to obtain, matrix can be spiked with triglycerides
even though it may not be representative of study samples. However, if the drug impacts lipid
metabolism or if the intended patient population is hyperlipidaemic, the use of spiked samples
is discouraged. This evaluation is not necessary for nonclinical studies unless the drug impacts
lipid metabolism or is administered in a particular animal strain that is hyperlipidaemic.

10

ICH M10 Guideline

For the investigation of selectivity in haemolysed matrices at least one source of matrix should
be used. Haemolysed matrices should be obtained by spiking matrix with haemolysed whole
blood (at least 2% V/V) to generate a visibly detectable haemolysed sample.
3.2.2 Specificity
Specificity is the ability of a bioanalytical method to detect and differentiate the analyte fromother substances, including its related substances (e.g., substances that are structurally similar
to the analyte, metabolites, isomers, impurities, degradation products formed during sample
preparation, or concomitant medications that are expected to be used in the treatment of patientswith the intended indication).
If the presence of related substances is anticipated in the biological matrix of interest, the impact
of such substances should be evaluated during method validation, or alternatively, in the predose study samples. In the case of LC-MS based methods, to assess the impact of such
substances, the evaluation may include comparing the molecular weight of a potential
interfering related substance with the analyte and chromatographic separation of the related
substance from the analyte.
Responses detected and attributable to interfering components should not be more than 20% of
the analyte response at the LLOQ and not more than 5% of the IS response in the LLOQ sample.
The possibility of back-conversion of a metabolite into the parent analyte during the successive
steps of the analysis (including extraction procedures or in the MS source) should also be
evaluated when relevant (e.g., potentially unstable metabolites such as ester analytes toester/acidic metabolites, unstable N-oxides or glucuronide metabolites, lactone-ring structures).
It is acknowledged that this evaluation will not be possible in the early stages of drug
development of a new chemical entity when the metabolism is not yet evaluated. However, it
is expected that this issue should be investigated, and partial validation performed if needed.
The extent of back-conversion, if any, should be established and the impact on the study results
should be discussed in the Bioanalytical Report.
3.2.3 Matrix Effect
A matrix effect is defined as an alteration of the analyte response due to interfering and often
unidentified component(s) in the sample matrix. During method validation the matrix effectbetween different independent sources/lots should be evaluated.
The matrix effect should be evaluated by analysing at least 3 replicates of low and high QCs,
each prepared using matrix from at least 6 different sources/lots. For each individual matrix
11

ICH M10 Guideline

sources/lots evaluated, the accuracy should be within ±15% of the nominal concentration andthe precision (per cent coefficient of variation (%CV)) should not be greater than 15%. Use of
fewer sources/lots may be acceptable in the case of rare matrices.
The matrix effect should also be evaluated in relevant patient populations or special populations(e.g., hepatically impaired or renally impaired) when available. An additional evaluation of thematrix effect is recommended using haemolysed or lipaemic matrix samples during method
validation on a case-by-case basis, especially when these conditions are expected to occur
within the study.
3.2.4 Calibration Curve and Range
The calibration curve demonstrates the relationship between the nominal analyte concentrationand the response of the analytical platform to the analyte. Calibration standards, prepared byspiking matrix with a known quantity of analyte(s), span the calibration range and comprise thecalibration curve. Calibration standards should be prepared in the same biological matrix as thestudy samples. The calibration range is defined by the LLOQ, which is the lowest calibration
standard, and the ULOQ, which is the highest calibration standard. There should be one
calibration curve for each analyte studied during method validation and for each analytical run.
A calibration curve should be generated with a blank sample, a zero sample (blank sample
spiked with IS), and at least 6 concentration levels of calibration standards, including the LLOQ
and the ULOQ.
A simple regression model that adequately describes the concentration-response relationshipshould be used. The selection of the regression model should be directed by written procedures.
The regression model, weighting scheme and transformation should be determined during themethod validation. Blank and zero samples should not be included in the determination of theregression equation for the calibration curve. Each calibration standard may be analysed in
replicate, in which case data from all acceptable replicates should be used in the regression
analysis.
The calibration curve parameters should be reported (e.g., slope and intercept in the case of alinear model). The back-calculated concentrations of the calibration standards should bepresented together with the calculated mean accuracy and precision values. All acceptable
curves obtained during validation, based on a minimum of 3 independent runs over several days,
should be reported. The accuracy of the back-calculated concentrations of each calibration
standard should be within ±20% of the nominal concentration at the LLOQ and within ±15%12

ICH M10 Guidelineat all the other levels. At least 75% of the calibration standards with a minimum of 6 calibration
standard levels should meet the above criteria.
In the case that replicates are used, the criteria (within ±15% or ±20% for LLOQ) should also
be fulfilled for at least 50% of the calibration standards tested per concentration level. In thecase that a calibration standard does not comply with these criteria, this calibration standard
sample should be rejected, and the calibration curve without this calibration standard should be
re-evaluated, including regression analysis. For accuracy and precision runs, if all replicates of
the LLOQ or the ULOQ calibration standard in a run are rejected, then the run should be
rejected, the possible source of the failure should be determined and the method revised, if
necessary. If the next validation run also fails, then the method should be revised before
restarting validation.
The calibration curve should be prepared using freshly spiked calibration standards in at least
one assessment. Subsequently, frozen calibration standards can be used within their defined
period of stability.
3.2.5 Accuracy and Precision
3.2.5.1 Preparation of Quality Control Samples
The QCs are intended to mimic study samples and should be prepared by spiking matrix witha known quantity of analyte, storing them under the conditions anticipated for study samples
and analysing them to assess the validity of the analytical method.
Calibration standards and the QCs should be prepared from separate stock solutions in order toavoid biased estimations which are not related to the analytical performance of the method. If
calibration standards and the QCs may be prepared from the same stock solution, the accuracy
and stability of the stock solution should be verified. A single source of blank matrix may be
used, which should be free of interference or matrix effects, as described in Section 3.2.3.
During method validation the QCs for accuracy and precision runs should be prepared at aminimum of 4 concentration levels within the calibration curve range: the LLOQ, within threetimes of the LLOQ (low QC), around 30 - 50% of the calibration curve range (medium QC)
and at least 75% of the ULOQ (high QC).
For non-accuracy and precision validation runs, low, medium and high QCs may be analysedin duplicate. These QCs, along with the calibration standards, will provide the basis for theacceptance or rejection of the run.

13

ICH M10 Guideline

3.2.5.2 Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision
Accuracy and precision should be determined by analysing the QCs within each run (withinrun) and in different runs (between-run). Accuracy and precision should be evaluated using thesame runs and data.
Within-run accuracy and precision should be evaluated by analysing at least 5 replicates at each
QC concentration level in each analytical run. Between-run accuracy and precision should be
evaluated by analysing each QC concentration level in at least 3 analytical runs over at least
two days. To enable the evaluation of any trends over time within one run, it is recommended
to demonstrate accuracy and precision of the QCs over at least one of the runs in a size
equivalent to a prospective analytical run of study samples. Reported method validation data
and the determination of accuracy and precision should include all results obtained, including
individual QCs outside of the acceptance criteria, except those cases where errors are obvious
and documented. Within-run accuracy and precision data should be reported for each run. If thewithin-run accuracy or precision criteria are not met in all runs, an overall estimate of withinrun accuracy and precision for each QC level should be calculated. Between-run (intermediate)
precision and accuracy should be calculated by combining the data from all runs.
The calibration curves for these assessments should be prepared using freshly spiked calibration
standards in at least one run. If freshly spiked calibration standards are not used in the otherruns, stability of the frozen calibration standards should be demonstrated.
The accuracy at each concentration level should be within ±15% of the nominal concentration,
except at the LLOQ, where it should be within ±20%. The precision (%CV) of theconcentrations determined at each level should not exceed 15%, except at the LLOQ, where it
should not exceed 20%. For non-accuracy and precision validation runs, at least 2/3 of the total
QCs and at least 50% at each concentration level should be within ±15% of the nominal values.
3.2.6 Carry-overCarry-over is an alteration of a measured concentration due to residual analyte from a preceding
sample that remains in the analytical instrument.
Carry-over should be assessed and minimised during method development. During validation
carry-over should be assessed by analysing blank samples after the calibration standard at the
ULOQ. Carry-over in the blank samples following the highest calibration standard should not
be greater than 20% of the analyte response at the LLOQ and 5% of the response for the IS. If
it appears that carry-over is unavoidable, study samples should not be randomised. Specificmeasures should be considered, validated and applied during the analysis of the study samples,
14

ICH M10 Guideline

so that carry-over does not affect accuracy and precision. This could include the injection ofblank sample(s) after samples with an expected high concentration, before the next study
sample.
3.2.7 Dilution Integrity
Dilution integrity is the assessment of the sample dilution procedure, when required, to confirm
that it does not impact the accuracy and precision of the measured concentration of the analyte.
The same matrix from the same species used for preparation of the QCs should be used for
dilution.
Dilution QCs should be prepared with analyte concentrations in matrix that are greater than the
ULOQ and then diluted with blank matrix. At least 5 replicates per dilution factor should betested in one run to determine if concentrations are accurately and precisely measured within
the calibration range. The dilution factor(s) and concentrations applied during study sample
analysis should be within the range of the dilution factors and concentrations evaluated during
validation. The mean accuracy of the dilution QCs should be within ±15% of the nominal
concentration and the precision (%CV) should not exceed 15%.
In the cases of rare matrices, use of a surrogate matrix for dilution may be acceptable. It should
be demonstrated that this does not affect precision and accuracy.
3.2.8 Stability
Stability evaluations should be carried out to ensure that every step taken during sample
preparation, processing and analysis as well as the storage conditions used do not affect theconcentration of the analyte.
The storage and analytical conditions applied to the stability tests, such as the sample storage
times and temperatures, sample matrix, anticoagulant and container materials, should reflect
those used for the study samples. Reference to data published in the literature is not consideredsufficient. Validation of storage periods should be performed on QCs that have been stored fora time that is equal to or longer than the study sample storage periods.
Stability of the analyte in the matrix is evaluated using low and high concentration QCs.
Aliquots of the low and high QCs are analysed at time zero and after the applied storage
conditions that are to be evaluated. One bulk QC should be prepared at each concentration level.
For each concentration tested, the bulk sample should be divided into a minimum of 3 aliquotsthat will be stored, stressed and analysed.

15

ICH M10 Guideline

The QCs should be analysed against a calibration curve, obtained from freshly spiked
calibration standards in a run with its corresponding freshly spiked QCs or QCs for which
stability has been proven. The mean concentration at each QC level should be within ±15% of
the nominal concentration. If the concentrations of the study samples are consistently higher
than the ULOQ of the calibration range, the concentration of the high QC should be adjusted toreflect these higher concentrations. It is recognised that this may not be possible in nonclinicalstudies due to solubility limitations.
For fixed dose combination products and specifically labelled drug regimens, the freeze-thaw,
bench-top and long-term stability tests of an analyte in matrix should be conducted with thematrix spiked with all of the dosed compounds.
The following stability tests should be evaluated:
1) Stability of the Analyte in Matrix
Freeze-Thaw Stability in Matrix
To assess the impact of repeatedly removing samples from frozen storage, the stability of
the analyte should be assessed after multiple cycles of freezing and thawing. Low and highQCs should be thawed and analysed according to the same procedures as the study samples.
QCs should be kept frozen for at least 12 hours between the thawing cycles. QCs for freezethaw stability should be assessed using freshly prepared calibration standards and QCs, or
QCs for which stability has been proven. The number of freeze-thaw cycles validated should
equal or exceed that of the freeze-thaw cycles undergone by the study samples, but aminimum of three cycles should be conducted.
Bench-Top (short-term) Stability in Matrix
Bench top matrix stability experiments should be designed and conducted to cover thelaboratory handling conditions for the study samples.
Low and high QCs should be thawed in the same manner as the study samples and kept on
the bench top at the same temperature and for at least the same duration as the study samples.
The total time on the bench top should be concurrent; it is not acceptable to use additive
exposure to bench top conditions (i.e., time from each freeze-thaw evaluation should not be
added up).
Long-Term Stability in Matrix

16

ICH M10 Guideline

The long-term stability of the analyte in matrix stored in the freezer should be established.
Low and high QCs should be stored in the freezer under the same storage conditions and at
least for the same duration as the study samples.
For chemical drugs, the stability at one temperature (e.g., -20°C) to can be extrapolated tolower temperatures (e.g., -70/-80°C).
For biological drugs, a bracketing approach can be applied, e.g., in the case that the stability
has been demonstrated at -70/-80°C and at -20°C, then it is not necessary to investigate thestability at temperatures in between those two points at which study samples will be stored.
2) Stability of the Analyte in Processed Samples
The stability of processed samples, including the time until completion of analysis (in theautosampler/instrument), should be determined. For example:•

Stability of the processed sample under the storage conditions to be used during theanalysis of study samples (dry extract or in the injection phase)•

On-instrument/autosampler stability of the processed sample at injector or autosampler
temperature.

The total time that a processed sample is stored must be concurrent (i.e., autosampler andother storage times cannot be added together).
3) Stability of the Analyte and IS in Stock and Working Solutions
The stability of the stock and working solutions of the analyte and IS should be determined
under the storage conditions used during the analysis of study samples by using the lowest
and the highest concentrations of these solutions. They should be assessed using the
response of the detector. Stability of the stock and working solutions should be tested with
an appropriate dilution, taking into consideration the linearity and measuring range of thedetector. If the stability varies with concentration, then the stability of all concentrations of
the stock and working solutions needs to be assessed. If no isotopic exchange occurs for the
stable isotopically-labelled IS under the same storage conditions as the analyte for which
the stability is demonstrated, then no additional stability determinations for the IS arenecessary. If the reference standard expires, or it is past the retest date, the stability of thestock solutions made previously with this lot of reference standard are defined by the
expiration or retest date established for the stock solution. The practice of making stock and17

ICH M10 Guideline

working solutions from reference standards solely for extending the expiry date for the useof the reference standard is not acceptable.
In addition, the following test should be performed if applicable:4) Stability of the Analyte in Whole Blood
Sufficient attention should be paid to the stability of the analyte in the sampled matrix(blood) directly after collection from subjects and prior to preparation for storage to ensurethat the concentrations obtained by the analytical method reflect the concentrations of theanalyte in the subject’s blood at the time of sample collection.
If the matrix used is plasma, the stability of the analyte in blood should be evaluated duringmethod development (e.g., using an exploratory method in blood) or during method
validation. The results should be provided in the Validation Report.
3.2.9 Reinjection Reproducibility
Reproducibility of the method is assessed by replicate measurements of the QCs and is usually
included in the assessment of precision and accuracy. However, if samples could be reinjected(e.g., in the case of instrument interruptions or other reasons such as equipment failure),
reinjection reproducibility should be evaluated to establish the viability of the processed
samples and to support their storage prior to reinjection.
Reinjection reproducibility is assessed by reinjecting a run that is comprised of calibration
standards and a minimum of 5 replicates of the low, middle and high QCs after storage. The
precision and accuracy of the reinjected QCs establish the viability of the processed samples.
The results should be included in the Validation Report or provided in the Bioanalytical Reportof the study where it was conducted.
3.3 Study Sample Analysis
The analysis of study samples can be carried out after validation has been completed, however,
it is understood that some parameters may be completed at a later stage (e.g., long-term
stability). By the time the data are submitted to a regulatory authority, the bioanalytical method
validation should have been completed. The study samples, QCs and calibration standards
should be processed in accordance with the validated analytical method. If system suitability isassessed, a predefined specific study plan, protocol or SOP should be used. System suitability,
including apparatus conditioning and instrument performance, should be determined using
samples that are independent of the calibration standards and QCs for the run. Subject samples
18

ICH M10 Guideline

should not be used for system suitability. The IS responses of the study samples should bemonitored to determine whether there is systemic IS variability. Refer to Table 1 for
expectations regarding documentation.
3.3.1 Analytical Run
An analytical run consists of a blank sample (processed matrix sample without analyte andwithout IS), a zero sample (processed matrix with IS), calibration standards at a minimum of 6
concentration levels, at least 3 levels of QCs (low, medium and high) in duplicate (or at least
5% of the number of study samples, whichever is higher) and the study samples to be analysed.
The QCs should be interspersed in the run in such a way that the accuracy and precision of thewhole run is ensured. Study samples should always be bracketed by QCs.
The calibration standards and QCs should be spiked independently using separately preparedstock solutions, unless the accuracy and stability of the stock solutions have been verified. All
samples (calibration standards, QCs and study samples) should be processed and extracted as
one single batch of samples in the order in which they are intended to be analysed. Analysing
samples that were processed as several separate batches in a single analytical run is discouraged.
If such an approach cannot be avoided, for instance due to bench top stability limitations, eachbatch of samples should include low, medium and high QCs.
For comparative BA/BE studies, it is advisable to analyse all samples of one subject together
in one analytical run to reduce variability.
The impact of any carry-over that occurs during study sample analysis should be assessed andreported (Refer to Section 3.2.6). If carry-over is detected, its impact on the measured
concentrations should be mitigated (e.g., non-randomisation of study samples, injection ofblank samples after samples with an expected high concentration) or the validity of the reported
concentrations should be justified in the Bioanalytical Report.
3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for an Analytical Run
Criteria for the acceptance or rejection of an analytical run should be defined in the protocol, inthe study plan or in an SOP. In the case that a run contains multiple batches, acceptance criteria
should be applied to the whole run and to the individual batches. It is possible for the run tomeet acceptance criteria, even if a batch within that run is rejected for failing to meet the batch
acceptance criteria. Calibration standards in a failed batch cannot be used to support theacceptance of other batches within the analytical run.

19

ICH M10 Guideline

The back-calculated concentrations of the calibration standards should be within ±15% of thenominal value, except for the LLOQ for which it should be within ±20%. At least 75% of thecalibration standard concentrations, which should include a minimum of six concentrationlevels, should fulfil these criteria. If more than six calibration standard levels are used and oneof the calibration standards does not meet the criteria, this calibration standard should be
rejected and the calibration curve without this calibration standard should be re-evaluated anda new regression analysis performed.
If the rejected calibration standard is the LLOQ, the new lower limit for this analytical run is
the next lowest acceptable calibration standard of the calibration curve. This new lower limit
calibration standard will retain its original acceptance criteria (i.e., ±15%). If the highest
calibration standard is rejected, the ULOQ for this analytical run is the next acceptable highest
calibration standard of the calibration curve. The revised calibration range should cover at least
3 QC concentration levels (low, medium and high). Study samples outside of the revised range
should be reanalysed. If replicate calibration standards are used and only one of the LLOQ orULOQ standards fails, the calibration range is unchanged.
At least 2/3 of the total QCs and at least 50% at each concentration level should be within ±15%of the nominal values. If these criteria are not fulfilled the analytical run should be rejected. A
new analytical batch should be prepared for all study samples within the failed analytical run
for subsequent analysis. In the cases where the failure is due to an assignable technical cause,
samples may be reinjected.
Analytical runs containing samples that are diluted and reanalysed should include dilution QCs
to verify the accuracy and precision of the dilution method during study sample analysis. The
concentration of the dilution QCs should exceed that of the study samples being diluted (or of
the ULOQ) and they should be diluted using the same dilution factor. If multiple dilution factors
are used in one analytical run, then dilution QCs need only be diluted by the highest and lowest
dilution factors. The within-run acceptance criteria of the dilution QC(s) will only affect theacceptance of the diluted study samples and not the outcome of the analytical run.
When several analytes are assayed simultaneously, there should be one calibration curve foreach analyte studied. If an analytical run is acceptable for one analyte but has to be rejected foranother analyte, the data for the accepted analyte should be used. The determination of therejected analyte requires re-extraction and analysis only for the analyte that is reanalysed. Only
data for this reanalysed analyte needs to be reported.
The back-calculated concentrations of the calibration standards and QCs of passed and acceptedruns should be reported. The overall (between-run) accuracy and precision of the QCs of all
20

ICH M10 Guideline

accepted runs should be calculated at each concentration level and reported in the analyticalreport (Refer to Section 8 Documentation and Table 1). If the overall mean accuracy and/or
precision fails the 15% criterion, an investigation to determine the cause of the deviation should
be conducted. In the case of comparative BA/BE studies, it may result in the rejection of thedata.
3.3.3 Calibration Range
If a narrow range of analyte concentrations of the study samples is known or anticipated before
the start of study sample analysis, it is recommended to either narrow the calibration curve
range, adapt the concentrations of the QCs, or add new QCs at different concentration levels as
appropriate, to adequately reflect the concentrations of the study samples.
At the intended therapeutic dose(s), if an unanticipated clustering of study samples at one endof the calibration curve is encountered after the start of sample analysis, the analysis should be
stopped and either the standard calibration range narrowed (i.e., partial validation), existing QC
concentrations revised, or QCs at additional concentrations added to the original curve within
the observed range before continuing with study sample analysis. It is not necessary to reanalyse
samples analysed before optimising the calibration curve range or QC concentrations.
The same applies if a large number of the analyte concentrations of the study samples are above
the ULOQ. The calibration curve range should be changed, if possible, and QC(s) added or
their concentrations modified. If it is not possible to change the calibration curve range or thenumber of samples with a concentration above the ULOQ is not large, samples should be diluted
according to the validated dilution method.
At least 2 QC levels should fall within the range of concentrations measured in study samples.
If the calibration curve range is changed, the bioanalytical method should be revalidated (partial
validation) to verify the response function and to ensure accuracy and precision.
3.3.4 Reanalysis of Study Samples
Possible reasons for reanalysis of study samples, the number of replicates and the decision
criteria to select the value to be reported should be predefined in the protocol, study plan or
SOP, before the actual start of the analysis of the study samples. For study samples in which
multiple analytes are being analysed, a valid result for one analyte should not be rejected if theother analyte fails the acceptance criteria.

21

ICH M10 Guideline

The number of samples (and percentage of total number of samples) that have been reanalysedshould be reported and discussed in the Bioanalytical Report. For comparative BA/BE studies,a separate table should report values from rejected runs.
Some examples of reasons for study sample reanalysis are:•

Rejection of an analytical run because the run failed the acceptance criteria with regard toaccuracy of the calibration standards and/or the precision and accuracy of the QCs•

IS response significantly different from the response for the calibration standards and QCs(as pre-defined in an SOP)•The concentration obtained is above the ULOQ•

The concentration observed is below the revised LLOQ in runs where the lowest calibration
standard has been rejected from a calibration curve, resulting in a higher LLOQ comparedwith other runs•

Improper sample injection or malfunction of equipment•

The diluted study sample is below the LLOQ•

Identification of quantifiable analyte levels in pre-dose samples, control or placebo samples•

Poor chromatography (as pre-defined in an SOP)

For comparative BA/BE studies, reanalysis of study samples for a PK reason (e.g., a sample
concentration does not fit with the expected profile) is not acceptable, as it may bias the study
result.
Any reanalysed samples should be identified in the Bioanalytical Report and the initial value,
the reason for reanalysis, the values obtained in the reanalyses, the final accepted value and ajustification for the acceptance should be provided. Further, a summary table of the total numberof samples that have been reanalysed for each reason should be provided. In cases where thefirst analysis yields a non-reportable result, a single reanalysis is considered sufficient (e.g.,concentration above the ULOQ or equipment malfunction). In cases where the value needs tobe confirmed (e.g., pre-dose sample with measurable concentrations) replicate determinations
are required if sample volume allows.
The safety of trial subjects should take precedence over any other aspect of the trial.
Consequently, there may be other circumstances when it is necessary to reanalyse specific study
samples for the purpose of a safety investigation.
22

ICH M10 Guideline

3.3.5 Reinjection of Study Samples
Reinjection of processed samples can be made in the case of equipment failure if reinjection
reproducibility has been demonstrated during validation or provided in the Bioanalytical Report
where it was conducted. Reinjection of a full analytical run or of individual calibration
standards or QCs simply because the calibration standards or QCs failed, without any identified
analytical cause, is not acceptable.
3.3.6 Integration of Chromatograms
Chromatogram integration and reintegration should be described in a study plan, protocol or
SOP. Any deviation from the procedures described a priori should be discussed in the
Bioanalytical Report. The list of chromatograms that required reintegration, including any
manual integrations, and the reasons for reintegration should be included in the Bioanalytical
Report. Original and reintegrated chromatograms and initial and repeat integration results
should be kept for future reference and submitted in the Bioanalytical Report for comparative
BA/BE studies.
4. LIGAND BINDING ASSAYS
4.1 Key Reagents
4.1.1 Reference Standard
The reference standard should be well characterised and documented (e.g., CoA and origin). A
biological drug has a highly complex structure and its reactivity with binding reagents forbioanalysis may be influenced by a change in the manufacturing process of the drug substance.
It is recommended that the manufacturing batch of the reference standard used for the
preparation of calibration standards and QCs is derived from the same batch of drug substanceas that used for dosing in the nonclinical and clinical studies whenever possible. If the reference
standard batch used for bioanalysis is changed, bioanalytical evaluation should be carried out
with QCs from the original material and the new material prior to use to ensure that theperformance characteristics of the method are within the acceptance criteria.
4.1.2 Critical Reagents
Critical reagents, including binding reagents (e.g., binding proteins, aptamers, antibodies or
conjugated antibodies) and those containing enzymatic moieties, have direct impact on the
results of the assay and, therefore, their quality should be assured. Critical reagents bind theanalyte and, upon interaction, lead to an instrument signal corresponding to the analyte
concentration. The critical reagents should be identified and defined in the assay method.
23

ICH M10 Guideline

Reliable procurement of critical reagents, whether manufactured in-house or purchasedcommercially, should be considered early in method development. The data sheet for the criticalreagent should include at a minimum identity, source, batch/lot number, purity (if applicable),concentration (if applicable) and stability/retest date/storage conditions (Refer to Table 1).
Additional characteristics may be warranted.
A critical reagent lifecycle management procedure is necessary to ensure consistency between
the original and new batches of critical reagents. Reagent performance should be evaluatedusing the bioanalytical method. Minor changes to critical reagents would not be expected toinfluence the method performance, whereas major changes may significantly impact theperformance. If the change is minor (e.g., the source of one reagent is changed), a single
comparative accuracy and precision assessment is sufficient for characterisation. If the change
is major, then additional validation experiments are necessary. Ideally, assessment of changes
will compare the method with the new reagents to the method with the old reagents directly.
Major changes include, but are not limited to, change in production method of antibodies,
additional blood collection from animals for polyclonal antibodies and new clones or new
supplier for monoclonal antibody production.
Retest dates and validation parameters should be documented in order to support the extension
or replacement of the critical reagent. Stability testing of the reagents should be based upon theperformance in the bioanalytical method and upon general guidance for reagent storage
conditions. It can be extended beyond the expiry date from the supplier. The performanceparameters should be documented in order to support the extension or replacement of the criticalreagent.
4.2 Validation
Most often microtitre plates are used for LBAs and study samples can be analysed using anassay format of 1 or more well(s) per sample. The assay format should be specified in the
protocol, study plan or SOP. If method development and method validation are performed using
1 or more well(s) per sample, then study sample analysis should also be performed using 1 ormore well(s) per sample, respectively. If multiple wells per sample are used, the reportablesample concentration should be determined either by calculating the mean of the responses
from the replicate wells or by averaging the concentrations calculated from each response. Dataevaluation should be performed on reportable concentrations.

24

ICH M10 Guideline

4.2.1 Specificity
Specificity is related to the concept of cross-reactivity in LBA. It is important that the binding
reagent specifically binds to the target analyte but does not cross-react with coexisting
structurally related molecules (e.g., endogenous compounds, isoforms or structurally relatedconcomitant medication). Specificity is evaluated by spiking blank matrix samples with related
molecules at the maximal concentration(s) of the structurally related molecule anticipated instudy samples.
The accuracy of the target analyte at the LLOQ and at the ULOQ should be investigated in thepresence of related molecules at the maximal concentration(s) anticipated in study samples. The
response of blank samples spiked with related molecules should be below the LLOQ. The
accuracy of the target analyte in presence of related molecules should be within ±25% of thenominal values.
In the event of non-specificity, the impact on the method should be evaluated by spiking
increasing concentrations of interfering molecules in blank matrix and measuring the accuracyof the target analyte at the LLOQ and ULOQ. It is essential to determine the minimum
concentration of the related molecule where interference occurs. Appropriate mitigation during
sample analysis should be employed, e.g., it may be necessary to adjust the LLOQ/ULOQ
accordingly or consider a new method.
During method development and early method validation, these “related molecules” arefrequently not available. Additional evaluation of specificity may be conducted after theoriginal validation is completed.
4.2.2 Selectivity
Selectivity is the ability of the method to detect and differentiate the analyte of interest in thepresence of non-specific matrix components. The matrix can contain non-specific matrix
component such as degrading enzymes, heterophilic antibodies or rheumatoid factor which may
interfere with the analyte of interest.
Selectivity should be evaluated at the low end of an assay where problems occur in most cases,
but it is recommended that selectivity is also evaluated at higher analyte concentrations.
Therefore, selectivity is evaluated using blank samples obtained from at least 10 individual
sources and by spiking the individual blank matrices at the LLOQ and at the high QC level.
Use of fewer sources may be acceptable in the case of rare matrices. The response of the blanksamples should be below the LLOQ in at least 80% of the individual sources.

25

ICH M10 Guideline

The accuracy should be within ±25% at the LLOQ and within ±20% at the high QC level of thenominal concentration in at least 80% of the individual sources evaluated.
Selectivity should be evaluated in lipaemic samples and haemolysed samples (Refer to Section
3.2.1). For lipaemic and haemolysed samples, tests can be evaluated once using a single sourceof matrix. Selectivity should be assessed in samples from relevant patient populations (e.g.,
renally or hepatically impaired patients, inflammatory or immuno-oncology patients if
applicable). In the case of relevant patient populations, there should be at least five individual
patients.
4.2.3 Calibration Curve and Range
The calibration curve demonstrates the relationship between the nominal analyte concentrationand the response of the analytical platform to the analyte. Calibration standards, prepared byspiking matrix with a known quantity of analyte, span the calibration range and comprise thecalibration curve. Calibration standards should be prepared in the same biological matrix as thestudy samples. The calibration range is defined by the LLOQ, which is the lowest calibration
standard, and the ULOQ, which is the highest calibration standard. There should be one
calibration curve for each analyte studied during method validation and for each analytical run.
If needed, the use of surrogate matrix should be scientifically justified.
A calibration curve should be generated with at least 6 concentration levels of calibration
standards, including LLOQ and ULOQ standards, plus a blank sample. The blank sample
should not be included in the calculation of calibration curve parameters. Anchor point samples
at concentrations below the LLOQ and above the ULOQ of the calibration curve may also be
used to improve curve fitting. The relationship between response and concentration for acalibration curve is most often fitted by a 4- or 5-parameter logistic model if there are data
points near the lower and upper asymptotes. Oher models should be suitably justified.
A minimum of 6 independent runs should be evaluated over several days considering the factorsthat may contribute to between-run variability.
The accuracy and precision of back-calculated concentrations of each calibration standard
should be within ±25% of the nominal concentration at the LLOQ and ULOQ, and within ±20%
at all other levels. At least 75% of the calibration standards excluding anchor points, and aminimum of 6 concentration levels of calibration standards, including the LLOQ and ULOQ,
should meet the above criteria. The anchor points do not require acceptance criteria since they
are beyond the quantifiable range of the curve.

26

ICH M10 Guideline

The calibration curve should preferably be prepared using freshly spiked calibration standards.
If freshly spiked calibration standards are not used, the frozen calibration standards can be usedwithin their defined period of stability.
4.2.4 Accuracy and Precision
4.2.4.1 Preparation of Quality Control Samples
The QCs are intended to mimic study samples and should be prepared by spiking matrix witha known quantity of analyte, stored under the conditions anticipated for study samples andanalysed to assess the validity of the analytical method.
The dilution series for the preparation of the QCs should be completely independent from thedilution series for the preparation of calibration standard samples. They may be prepared fromthe same stock solution (or working stock) provided the accurate preparation and stability havebeen verified. The QCs should be prepared at a minimum of 5 concentration levels within thecalibration curve range: The analyte should be spiked at the LLOQ, within three times of the
LLOQ (low QC), around the geometric mean of the calibration curve range (medium QC), andat least at 75% of the ULOQ (high QC) and at the ULOQ.
For non-accuracy and precision validation runs, low, medium and high QCs may be analysedin duplicate. These QCs, along with the calibration standards, will provide the basis for theacceptance or rejection of the run.
4.2.4.2 Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision
Accuracy and precision should be determined by analysing the QCs within each run (withinrun) and in different runs (between-run). Accuracy and precision should be evaluated using thesame runs and data.
Accuracy and precision should be determined by analysing at least 3 replicates per run at each
QC concentration level (LLOQ, low, medium, high, ULOQ) in at least 6 runs over 2 or moredays. Reported method validation data and the determination of accuracy and precision should
include all results obtained, except those cases where errors are obvious and documented.
Within-run accuracy and precision data should be reported for each run. If the within-run
accuracy or precision criteria are not met in all runs, an overall estimate of within-run accuracy
and precision for each QC level should be calculated. Between-run (intermediate) precision andaccuracy should be calculated by combining the data from all runs.
The overall within-run and between-run accuracy at each concentration level should be within±20% of the nominal values, except for the LLOQ and ULOQ, which should be within ±25%27ICH M10 Guidelineof the nominal value. Within-run and between-run precision of the QC concentrations
determined at each level should not exceed 20%, except at the LLOQ and ULOQ, where it
should not exceed 25%.
For non-accuracy and precision validation runs, at least 2/3 of the total QCs and at least 50% at
each concentration level should be within ±20% of the nominal values.
Furthermore, the total error (i.e., sum of absolute values of the errors in accuracy (%) and
precision (%)) should be evaluated. The total error should not exceed 30% (40% at LLOQ and
ULOQ).
4.2.5 Carry-overCarry-over is generally not an issue for LBA analyses. However, if the analytical platform isprone to carry-over, the potential of carry-over should be investigated by placing blank samples
after the calibration standard at the ULOQ. The response of blank samples should be below the
LLOQ.
4.2.6 Dilution Linearity and Hook EffectDue to the narrow assay range in many LBAs, study samples may require dilution in order toachieve analyte concentrations within the range of the assay. Dilution linearity should beassessed to confirm: (i) that measured concentrations are not affected by dilution within thecalibration range and (ii) that sample concentrations above the ULOQ of a calibration curve are
not impacted by hook effect (i.e., a signal suppression caused by high concentrations of theanalyte), whereby yielding an erroneous result.
The same matrix as that of the study sample should be used for preparation of the QCs fordilution.
Dilution linearity should be demonstrated by generating a dilution QC, i.e., spiking the matrix
with an analyte concentration above the ULOQ, analysed undiluted (for hook effect) anddiluting this sample (to at least 3 different dilution factors) with blank matrix to a concentration
within the calibration range. For each dilution factor tested, at least 3 independently prepared
dilution series should be performed using the number of replicates that will be used in sample
analysis. The absence or presence of response reduction (hook effect) is checked in the dilution
QCs and, if observed and unable to be eliminated with reasonable measures, steps should betaken to mitigate this effect during the analysis of study samples.
The calculated mean concentration for each dilution should be within ±20% of the nominal
concentration after correction for dilution and the precision should not exceed 20%.
28

ICH M10 Guideline

The dilution factor(s) applied during study sample analysis should be within the range ofdilution factors evaluated during validation.
4.2.7 Stability
Stability evaluations should be carried out to ensure that every step taken during sample
preparation, processing and analysis as well as the storage conditions used do not affect theconcentration of the analyte.
The storage and analytical conditions applied to the stability tests, such as the sample storage
times and temperatures, sample matrix, anticoagulant, and container materials should reflect
those used for the study samples. Reference to data published in the literature is not consideredsufficient. Validation of storage periods should be performed on QCs that have been stored fora time that is equal to or longer than the study sample storage periods.
Stability of the analyte in the studied matrix should be evaluated using low and highconcentration QCs. Aliquots of the low and high QCs are analysed at time zero and after theapplied storage conditions that are to be evaluated. One bulk QC should be prepared at eachconcentration level. For each concentration tested, the bulk sample should be divided into aminimum of three aliquots that will be stored, stressed and analysed.
The QCs are analysed against a calibration curve, obtained from freshly spiked calibration
standards in a run with its corresponding freshly spiked QCs or QCs for which stability has
been proven. While the use of freshly prepared calibration standards and QCs is the preferredapproach, it is recognised that in some cases, for macromolecules, it may be necessary to freeze
them overnight. In such cases, valid justification should be provided and freeze-thaw stability
demonstrated. QCs should be kept frozen for at least 12 hours between the thawing cycles. The
mean concentration at each QC level should be within ±20% of the nominal concentration.
Since sample dilution may be required for many LBA methods due to a narrow calibration range,
the concentrations of the study samples may be consistently higher than the ULOQ of thecalibration curve. If this is the case, the concentration of the QCs should be adjusted,considering the applied sample dilution, to represent the actual sample concentration range.
For fixed dose combination products and specifically labelled drug regimens, the freeze-thaw,
bench-top and long-term stability tests of an analyte in matrix should be conducted with thematrix spiked with all of the dosed compounds, on a case-by-case basis.

29

ICH M10 Guideline

As mentioned in Section 3.2.8, the investigation of stability should cover bench top (short-term)
stability at room temperature or sample preparation temperature and freeze-thaw stability. In
addition, long-term stability should be studied.
For chemical drugs, the stability at one temperature (e.g., -20°C) can be extrapolated to lower
temperatures (e.g., -70/-80°C).
For biological drugs, a bracketing approach can be applied, e.g., in the case that the stability
has been demonstrated at -70/-80°C and at -20°C, then it is not necessary to investigate thestability at temperatures in between those two points at which study samples will be stored.
4.3 Study Sample Analysis
The analysis of study samples can be carried out after validation has been completed, however,
it is understood that some parameters may be completed at a later stage (e.g., long-term
stability). By the time the data are submitted to a regulatory authority, the bioanalytical method
validation should have been completed. The study samples, QCs and calibration standards
should be processed in accordance with the validated analytical method. Refer to Table 1 for
expectations regarding documentation.
4.3.1 Analytical Run
An analytical run consists of a blank sample, calibration standards at a minimum of 6
concentration levels, at least 3 levels of QCs (low, medium and high) applied as two sets (or atleast 5% of the number of study samples, whichever is higher) and the study samples to beanalysed. The blank sample should not be included in the calculation of calibration curveparameters. The QCs should be placed in the run in such a way that the accuracy and precisionof the whole run is ensured taking into account that study samples should always be bracketed
by QCs.
Most often microtitre plates are used for LBAs. An analytical run may comprise of one or moreplate(s). Typically, each plate contains an individual set of calibration standards and QCs. If
each plate contains its own calibration standards and QCs then each plate should be assessedon its own. However, for some platforms the sample capacity may be limited. In this case, setsof calibration standards may be placed on the first and the last plate, but QCs should be placedon every single plate. QCs should be placed at least at the beginning (before) and at the end(after) of the study samples of each plate. The QCs on each plate and each calibration curveshould fulfil the acceptance criteria for an analytical run (Refer to Section 4.3.2). For the
calculation of concentrations, the calibration standards should be combined to conduct one

30

ICH M10 Guideline

regression analysis. If the combined calibration curve does not pass the acceptance criteria thewhole run fails.
4.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for an Analytical Run
Criteria for the acceptance or rejection of an analytical run should be defined in the protocol, inthe study plan or in an SOP. In the case that a run contains multiple batches, acceptance criteria
should be applied to the whole run and to the individual batches. It is possible for the run tomeet acceptance criteria, even if a batch within that run is rejected for failing to meet the batch
acceptance criteria. Calibration standards in a failed batch cannot be used to support theacceptance of other batches within the analytical run.
The back-calculated concentrations of the calibration standards should be within ±20% of thenominal value at each concentration level, except for the LLOQ and the ULOQ, for which it
should be within ±25%. At least 75% of the calibration standards, with a minimum of 6
concentration levels, should fulfil this criterion. This requirement does not apply to anchor
calibration standards. If more than 6 calibration standards are used and one of the calibration
standards does not meet these criteria, this calibration standard should be rejected and thecalibration curve without this calibration standard should be re-evaluated and a new regression
analysis performed.
If the rejected calibration standard is the LLOQ, the new lower limit for this analytical run is
the next lowest acceptable calibration standard of the calibration curve. If the highest calibration
standard is rejected, the new upper limit for this analytical run is the next acceptable highest
calibration standard of the calibration curve. The new lower and upper limit calibration standard
will retain their original acceptance criteria (i.e., 20%). The revised calibration range should
cover all QCs (low, medium and high). The study samples outside of the revised assay range
should be reanalysed.
Each run should contain at least 3 levels of QCs (low, medium and high). During study sample
analysis, the calibration standards and QCs should mimic the analysis of the study sample withregard to the number of wells used per study sample. At least 2/3 of the QCs and 50% at eachconcentration level should be within 20% of the nominal value at each concentration level.
Exceptions to these criteria should be justified and predefined in the SOP or protocol.
The overall mean accuracy and precision of the QCs of all accepted runs should be calculated
at each concentration level and reported in the analytical report. In the case that the overallmean accuracy and/or precision exceeds 20%, additional investigations should be conducted to31

ICH M10 Guideline

determine the cause(s) of this deviation. In the case of comparative BA/BE studies, it may resultin the rejection of the data.
4.3.3 Calibration Range
At least 2 QC sample levels should fall within the range of concentrations measured in study
samples. At the intended therapeutic dose(s), if an unanticipated clustering of study samples at
one end of the calibration curve is encountered after the start of sample analysis, the analysis
should be stopped and either the standard calibration range narrowed (i.e., partial validation),existing QC concentrations revised, or QCs at additional concentrations added to the original
curve within the observed range before continuing with study sample analysis. It is notnecessary to reanalyse samples analysed before optimising the calibration curve range or QC
concentrations.
4.3.4 Reanalysis of Study Samples
Possible reasons for reanalysis of study samples, the number of reanalyses and the decision
criteria to select the value to be reported should be predefined in the protocol, study plan or
SOP, before the actual start of the analysis of the study samples.
The number of samples (and percentage of total number of samples) that have been reanalysedshould be reported and discussed in the Bioanalytical Report. For comparative BA/BE studies,a separate table should report values from rejected runs.
Some examples of reasons for study sample reanalysis are:•

Rejection of an analytical run because the run failed the acceptance criteria with regard toaccuracy of the calibration standards and/or the precision and accuracy of the QCs,•

The concentration obtained is above the ULOQ•

The concentration obtained is below the LLOQ in runs where the lowest calibration
standard has been rejected from a calibration curve, resulting in a higher LLOQ comparedwith other runs•

Malfunction of equipment•

The diluted sample is below the LLOQ•

Identification of quantifiable analyte levels in pre-dose samples, control or placebo samples.

32

ICH M10 Guideline•

When samples are analysed in more than one well and non-reportable values are obtained
due to one replicate failing the pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., excessive variability
between wells, one replicate being above the ULOQ or below the LLOQ).

For comparative BA/BE studies, reanalysis of study samples for a PK reason (e.g., a sample
concentration does not fit with the expected profile) is not acceptable, as it may bias the study
result.
The reanalysed samples should be identified in the Bioanalytical Report and the initial value,
the reason for reanalysis, the values obtained in the reanalyses, the final accepted value and ajustification for the acceptance should be provided. Further, a summary table of the total numberof samples that have been reanalysed due to each reason should be provided. In cases where thefirst analysis yields a non-reportable result, a single reanalysis is considered sufficient (e.g.,concentration above the ULOQ or excessive variability between wells). The analysis of thesamples should be based on the same number of wells per study sample as in the initial analysis.
In cases where the value needs to be confirmed, (e.g., pre-dose sample with measurable
concentrations) multiple determinations are required where sample volume allows.
The safety of trial subjects should take precedence over any other aspect of the trial.
Consequently, there may be other circumstances when it is necessary to reanalyse specific study
samples for the purpose of an investigation.
5. INCURRED SAMPLE REANALYSIS (ISR)
The performance of study samples may differ from that of the calibration standards and QCs
used during method validation, which are prepared by spiking blank matrix. Differences inprotein binding, back-conversion of known and unknown metabolites, sample inhomogeneity,
concomitant medications or biological components unique to the study samples may affectmeasured concentrations of the analyte in study samples. ISR is intended to verify the reliabilityof the reported sample analyte concentrations.
ISR should be performed at least in the following situations:•

For nonclinical studies within the scope of this guideline, ISR should, in general, be
performed at least once per species.

•

All pivotal comparative BA/BE studies•

First clinical trial in subjects•

Pivotal early patient trial(s), once per patient population
33

ICH M10 Guideline•First or pivotal trial in patients with impaired hepatic and/or renal function

ISR is conducted by repeating the analysis of a subset of samples from a given study in separate(i.e., different to the original) runs on different days using the same bioanalytical method.
The extent of ISR depends upon the analyte and the study samples and should be based uponan in-depth understanding of the analytical method and analyte. However, as a minimum, if thetotal number of study samples is less than or equal to 1000, then 10% of the samples should bereanalysed; if the total number of samples is greater than 1000, then 10% of the first 1000
samples (100) plus 5% of the number of samples that exceed 1000 samples should be assessed.
Objective criteria for choosing the subset of study samples for ISR should be predefined in the
protocol, study plan or an SOP. While the subjects/animals should be picked as randomly as
possible from the dosed study population, adequate coverage of the concentration profile isimportant. Therefore, it is recommended that the samples for ISR be chosen around the
maximum concentration (Cmax) and some in the elimination phase. Additionally, the samples
chosen should be representative of the whole study.
Samples should not be pooled, as pooling may limit anomalous findings. ISR samples and QCs
should be processed and analysed in the same manner as in the original analysis. ISR should be
performed within the stability window of the analyte, but not on the same day as the original
analysis.
The percent difference between the initial concentration and the concentration measured during
the repeat analysis should be calculated in relation to their mean value using the following
equation:% difference =repeat value − initial value
× 100
mean value

For chromatographic methods, the percent difference should be within ±20% for at least 2/3 ofthe repeats. For LBAs, the percent difference should be within ± 30% for at least 2/3 of therepeats.
If the overall ISR results fail the acceptance criteria, an investigation should be conducted andthe causes remediated. There should be an SOP that directs how investigations are triggered
and conducted. If an investigation does not identify the cause of the failure, the potential impactof an ISR failure on study validity should also be provided in the Bioanalytical Report. If ISR
meets the acceptance criteria yet shows large or systemic differences between results for
multiple samples, this may indicate analytical issues and it is advisable to investigate this further.

34

ICH M10 Guideline

Examples of trends that are of concern may include:•

All ISR samples from one subject fail•All ISR samples from one run failAll aspects of ISR evaluations should be documented to allow reconstruction of the study andany investigations. Individual samples that are quite different from the original value (e.g., >50%, “flyers”) should not trigger reanalysis of the original sample and do not need to beinvestigated. ISR sample data should not replace the original study sample data.
6. PARTIAL AND CROSS VALIDATION
6.1 Partial Validation
Partial validations evaluate modifications to already fully validated bioanalytical methods.
Partial validation can range from as little as one within-run accuracy and precision
determination, to a nearly full validation. If stability is established at one facility it does notnecessarily need to be repeated at another facility.
For chromatographic methods, typical bioanalytical method modifications or changes that fall
into this category include, but are not limited to, the following situations:•

Analytical site change using same method (i.e., bioanalytical method transfers between
laboratories)•

A change in analytical method (e.g., change in detection systems, platform)•

A change in sample processing procedures•

A change in sample volume (e.g., the smaller volume of paediatric samples)•

Changes to the calibration concentration range•

A change in anticoagulant (but not changes in the counter-ion) in biological fluids (e.g.,
heparin to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA))•

Change from one matrix within a species to another (e.g., switching from human plasma toserum or cerebrospinal fluid) or changes to the species within the matrix (e.g., switchingfrom rat plasma to mouse plasma)•

A change in storage conditions

35

ICH M10 Guideline

For LBAs, typical bioanalytical method modifications or changes that fall into this category
include, but are not limited to, the following situations:•

Changes in LBA critical reagents (e.g., lot-to-lot changes)•

Changes in MRD•

A change in storage conditions•

Changes to the calibration concentration range•

A change in analytical method (e.g., change in detection systems, platform)•

Analytical site change using same method (i.e., bioanalytical method transfers between
laboratories)•

A change in sample preparation•

A change in anticoagulant (but not changes in the counter-ion) in biological fluids (e.g.,
heparin to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA))

The parameters of the partial validations should meet the full validation criteria. If these criteria
are not satisfied, additional investigation and validation is warranted.
6.2 Cross Validation
Cross validation is required to demonstrate how the reported data are related when multiple
bioanalytical methods and/or multiple bioanalytical laboratories are involved.
Cross validation is required under the following situations:•

Data are obtained from different fully validated methods within a study.

•

Data are obtained within a study from different laboratories with the same bioanalyticalmethod.

•Data are obtained from different fully validated methods across studies that are going to be
combined or compared to support special dosing regimens, or regulatory decisions
regarding safety, efficacy and labelling.

If data are obtained from different fully validated methods, and these data are not to be
combined across studies, cross validation is not generally required.
Cross validation should be performed in advance of study samples being analysed, if possible.

36ICH M10 Guideline

Cross validation should be assessed by measuring the same set of QCs (low, medium and high)at least in triplicate and study samples (if available) that span the study sample concentration
range (n≥30) with both methods, or in both laboratories.
Bias can be assessed by Bland-Altman plots or Deming regression. Other methods appropriate
for assessing agreement between two methods (e.g., concordance correlation coefficient) may
be used too. Alternatively, the concentration vs. time curves for study samples could be plottedfor samples analysed by each method to assess bias.
The use of multiple bioanalytical methods for the measurement of the same analyte in the
conduct of one comparative BA/BE study is strongly discouraged.
7. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules
For analytes that are also endogenous molecules (e.g., replacement therapies), the accuracy ofthe measurement of the analytes poses a challenge when the method cannot distinguish between
the therapeutic agent and the endogenous molecule. Furthermore, the endogenous levels of theanalyte may vary because of age, gender, race, diurnal variations, illness or as side effect ofdrug treatment. This section describes some of the approaches that may be used to assess
concentrations of analytes that are also endogenous molecules. As a reminder, biomarkers areoutside of the scope of this guideline.
If available, biological matrix to prepare calibration standards and QCs should be the same as
the study samples (i.e., authentic biological matrix) and it should be free of matrix effect andinterference, as described in Sections 3 and 4. The endogenous concentration in the biologicalmatrix chosen should be low enough to obtain an adequate signal-to-noise ratio (e.g., <20% of
the LLOQ).
In those cases where matrices without interference are not available, the following approaches
can be used to calculate the concentration of the analyte in the study samples: 1) the surrogate
matrix approach, 2) the surrogate analyte approach, 3) the background subtraction approachand 4) the standard addition approach.
1)

Surrogate Matrix Approach:
The matrix for the calibration standards is substituted by a surrogate matrix. Surrogate
matrices can vary widely in complexity from simple buffers or artificial matrices that
try to mimic the authentic one, to stripped matrices or matrices from other species.

37

ICH M10 Guideline2)

Surrogate Analyte Approach:Stable-isotope labelled analytes are used as surrogate standards in mass spectrometricmethods to construct the calibration curve for the quantification of endogenous
analytes. In this approach, it is assumed that the physicochemical properties of theauthentic and surrogate analytes are the same with the exception of molecular weight.
However, isotope standards may differ in retention time and MS sensitivity, therefore,
before application of this approach, the ratio of the MS responses (i.e., the response
factor) of the labelled to unlabelled analyte should be close to unity and remain
constant over the entire calibration range. If the response factor does not comply withthese requirements, it should be incorporated into the regression equation of thecalibration curve.

3)

Background Subtraction Approach:
The concentration of the endogenous analyte observed in a pooled/representative
matrix is subtracted from the concentration observed in the spiked standards,
subsequently the net differences are used to construct the calibration curve.
When the background concentrations are lowered by dilution of the blank matrices
before spiking with the standards (e.g., if a lower LLOQ is required) the compositionof the matrices in the study samples and the calibration standards is different, which
may cause different recoveries and matrix effects. These differences should beconsidered when validating the method.

4)Standard Addition Approach:
The standard addition approach is only applicable for analytical platforms with linear
responses. Typically, the standard addition method is used to determine theconcentration of the endogenous analyte in the authentic matrix to be used for
preparation of standards and QCs. However, this approach can be employed for
determination of study samples as well. In this approach, every study sample isdivided into aliquots of equal volume. All aliquots, but one, are separately spiked withknown and varying amounts of the analyte standards to construct a calibration curvefor either the authentic blank matrix or every study sample (e.g., with 3 to 5 points).
The endogenous blank concentration or the study sample concentration is thendetermined as the negative x-intercept of the standard calibration curve prepared inthat particular study sample.

38

ICH M10 Guideline

Validation of an analytical method for an analyte that is also an endogenous compound will
require the following considerations, in addition to the validation shown in the Sections 3 and4.
7.1.1 Quality Control Samples for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules
The endogenous concentrations of the analyte in the biological matrix should be evaluated prior
to QC preparation. The matrices with the lowest possible level of the interfering endogenous
analyte should be used. The concentrations of the QCs should account for the endogenous
concentrations in the authentic matrix and be representative of the expected study sample
concentrations.
The QCs should resemble study samples and should be prepared in the same matrix. In principle,
all QC concentrations used for validation should be aliquots of the authentic biological matrix
unspiked (endogenous QC with a concentration between LLOQ and low QC, if possible) andspiked with known amounts of the authentic analyte (low QC, middle QC and high QC). In
spiked samples (e.g., LLOQ, low QC), the added amount should be enough to provide
concentrations that are three-fold higher or statistically different from the endogenous
concentration. If options such as multiple lots, alternative vendors and matrices of special
populations that might contain a lower concentration of the analyte continue to yield matrices
in which the endogenous levels are so high that it is not possible to prepare the low QC in theauthentic matrix, diluted (surrogate) matrix may be used.
7.1.2 Selectivity, Recovery and Matrix Effects for Methods for Analytes that are also
Endogenous Molecules
The assessment of selectivity is complicated by the absence of interference-free matrix. For
chromatography, peak purity should be investigated as part of method validation by analysing
matrices obtained from several donors (at least six normal blanks, one haemolysed blank andone lipemic blank) using a discriminative detection system (e.g., tandem mass spectrometry(MS/MS)). Other approaches, if justified by scientific principles, may also be considered.
For the Standard Addition and Background Subtraction Approaches, as the same biologicalmatrix and analyte are used for study samples and calibration standards, the same recovery andmatrix effect occurs in the study samples and the calibration standards. However, if theendogenous component were not completely identical (e.g., recombinant proteins) the potential
difference in recovery should be assessed in a parallelism test. For the Surrogate Matrix andSurrogate Analyte Approaches, the matrix effect and the extraction recovery may differ between
calibration standards and study samples. Matrix effect should be evaluated to ensure that it does
not impact accuracy and precision, mainly at LLOQ level.
39

ICH M10 Guideline•

If the Surrogate Matrix Approach is used, the impact of the different matrix effect andrecovery in both the surrogate and authentic matrix should be assessed. This should be
investigated in an experiment using QCs spiked with analyte in the matrix, theendogenous matrix only and spiked analyte in the surrogate matrix alone against thesurrogate calibration curve.

•

If the Surrogate Analyte Approach is used in mass spectrometry chromatographic
methods, the impact of the different matrix effect and recovery between surrogate andauthentic endogenous analytes should be evaluated. This should be investigated in anexperiment using QCs spiked with analyte in the matrix, the endogenous matrix onlyand spiked surrogate analyte in the matrix against the surrogate calibration curve.

•

In certain cases, dilution of the QCs with surrogate matrix may be necessary (e.g., forbackground subtraction methods) where the endogenous level is high and the LLOQ
needs to be reduced. In these cases, the recovery and matrix effect experiments should
be repeated with authentic biological matrices with endogenous concentrations
between LLOQ and low QC, if available.

Refer to Sections 3 and 4 for the acceptance criteria for chromatography and LBAs, respectively.
Since the composition of the biological matrix might affect method performance, it is necessary
to investigate matrices from at least six (chromatographic methods)/ten (LBA) different donors,
except in the Standard Addition Approach, where each sample is analysed with its own
calibration curve.
7.1.3 Parallelism for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules
Parallelism assures that observed changes in response per given changes in analyte
concentrations are equivalent for the surrogate and the authentic biological matrix across therange of the method. Parallelism should be evaluated in the Surrogate Matrix and Surrogate
Analyte Approaches, taking into account that parallelism is assessed differently in LBA andchromatographic methods.
7.1.4 Accuracy and Precision for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules
Accuracy and precision should meet criteria specified in Sections 3 and 4 for chromatography
and LBAs, respectively.
In case of using a surrogate matrix or analyte approaches, the assessment of accuracy andprecision should be performed by analysing the QCs against the surrogate calibration curve.
40

ICH M10 Guideline

The concentration of the endogenous molecule in the blank matrix may be determined andsubtracted from the total concentrations observed in the spiked samples. Accuracy isrecommended to be calculated using the following formula when QCs are spiked with theauthentic analyte in the matrix containing endogenous levels of the analyte:
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 (%) = 100 ×(Measured concentration of spiked sample − endogenous concentration )Spiked concentration

Only the precision can be determined from the analysis of each unspiked/endogenous QC.
7.1.5 Stability for Methods for Analytes that are also Endogenous Molecules
To mimic study samples as much as possible, stability experiments should be investigated withthe authentic analyte in the authentic biological matrix and with unspiked/endogenous QCs(blank matrix with endogenous molecule) as well as spiked low QC and high QCs as definedin Section 7.1.1. However, if a surrogate matrix is used for calibration standards, stability should
also be demonstrated for the analyte in the surrogate matrix, as this could differ from stability
in the authentic biological matrix.
7.2 Parallelism
Parallelism is defined as a parallel relationship between the calibration curve and seriallydiluted study samples to detect any influence of dilution on analyte measurement. Althoughlack of parallelism is a rare occurrence for bioanalytical methods for PK evaluation, parallelismof LBA should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, e.g., where interference caused by a matrix
component (e.g., presence of endogenous binding protein) is suspected during study sample
analysis. Parallelism investigations, or the justification for its absence, should be included in
the Bioanalytical Report. Some methods may demonstrate parallelism for one patient
population, but lack it for another population. Generally, these experiments should be conductedduring the analysis of the study samples due to the unavailability of study samples duringmethod development or validation. A study sample with a high concentration (preferably close
to Cmax) should be diluted to at least three concentrations with blank matrix. The consistencyof the back calculated concentrations between samples in a dilution series should not exceed
30% CV. However, when applying the 30% criterion, data should be carefully monitored as
results that pass this criterion may still reveal trends of non-parallelism. In the case that the
sample does not dilute linearly (i.e., in a non-parallel manner), a procedure for reporting a result
should be defined a priori.

41

ICH M10 Guideline

7.3 Recovery
For methods that employ sample extraction, the recovery (extraction efficiency) should be
evaluated. Recovery is reported as a percentage of the known amount of an analyte carriedthrough the sample extraction and processing steps of the method. Recovery is determined bycomparing the analyte response in a biological sample that is spiked with the analyte andprocessed, with the response in a biological blank sample that is processed and then spiked withthe analyte. Recovery of the analyte does not need to be 100%, but the extent of recovery of ananalyte and of the IS (if used) should be consistent. Recovery experiments are recommended tobe performed by comparing the analytical results for extracted samples at multiple
concentrations, typically three concentrations (low, medium and high).
7.4 Minimum Required Dilution
MRD is a dilution factor employed in samples that are diluted with buffer solution to reducethe background signal or matrix interference on the analysis using LBA. The MRD should be
identical for all samples including calibration standards and the QCs and it should bedetermined during method development. If MRD is changed after establishment of the method,
partial validation is necessary. MRD should be defined in the Validation Report of the analyticalmethod.
7.5 Commercial and Diagnostic Kits
Commercial or diagnostic kits (referred to as kits) are sometimes co-developed with new
chemical or biological drugs for point-of-care patient diagnosis. The recommendations in thissection of the guideline do not apply to the development of kits that are intended for point-ofcare patient diagnosis (e.g., companion or complimentary diagnostic kits). Refer to theappropriate guideline documents regarding regulatory expectations for the development ofthese kits.
If an applicant repurposes a kit (instead of developing a new method) or utilises “research use
only” kits to measure chemical or biological drug concentrations during the development of anovel drug, the applicant should assess the kit validation to ensure that it conforms to the drug
development standards described in this guideline.
Validation considerations for kit assays include, but are not limited to, the following:•

If the reference standard in the kit differs from that of the study samples, testing should
evaluate differences in assay performance of the kit reagents. The specificity, accuracy,
precision and stability of the kit assay should be demonstrated under actual conditions of42

ICH M10 Guideline

use in the facility conducting the sample analysis. Modifications from kit processing
instructions should be completely validated.
•

Kits that use sparse calibration standards (e.g., one- or two-point calibration curves) should
include in-house validation experiments to establish the calibration curve with a sufficientnumber of standards across the calibration range.

•

Actual QC concentrations should be known. Concentrations of QCs expressed as ranges are
not sufficient for quantitative applications. In such cases QCs with known concentrations
should be prepared and used, independent of the kit-supplied QCs.

•

Calibration standards and QCs should be prepared in the same matrix as the study samples.
Kits with calibration standards and QCs prepared in a matrix different from the study
samples should be justified and appropriate experiments should be performed.

•

If multiple kit assay lots are used within a study, lot-to-lot variability and comparability
should be addressed for any critical reagents included in the kits.

•

If a kit using multiple assay plates is employed, sufficient replicate QCs should be used oneach plate to monitor the accuracy of the assay. Acceptance criteria should be established
for the individual plates and for the overall analytical run.

7.6 New or Alternative Technologies
When a new or alternative technology is used as the sole bioanalytical technology from theonset of drug development, cross validation with an existing technology is not required.
The use of two different bioanalytical technologies for the development of a drug may generate
data for the same product that could be difficult to interpret. This outcome can occur when one
platform generates drug concentrations that differ from those obtained with another platform.
Therefore, when a new or alternative analytical platform is replacing a previous platform usedin the development of a drug it is important that the potential differences are well understood.
The data generated from the previous platform/technology should be cross validated to that of
the new or alternative platform/technology. Seeking feedback from the regulatory authorities is
encouraged early in drug development. The use of two methods or technologies within acomparative BA/BE study is strongly discouraged.
The use of new technology in regulated bioanalysis should be supported by acceptance criteria
established a priori based on method development and verified in validation.

43

ICH M10 Guideline

7.6.1 Dried Matrix Methods
Dried matrix methods (DMM) is a sampling methodology that offers benefits such as collectionof reduced blood sample volumes as a microsampling technique for drug analysis and ease ofcollection, storage and transportation. In addition to the typical methodological validation for
LC-MS or LBA, use of DMM necessitates further validation of this sampling approach before
using DMM in studies that support a regulatory application, such as:•

Haematocrit (especially for spotting of whole blood into cards)•

Sample homogeneity (especially for sub-punch of the sample on the card/device)•

Extraction of the sample from the dried matrix•

DMM sample collection for ISRo Care should be taken to ensure sufficient sample volumes or numbers of
replicates are retained for ISRo Should be assessed by multiple punches of the sample or samples should betaken in duplicate

When DMM is used for clinical or nonclinical studies in addition to typical liquid approaches(e.g., liquid plasma samples) in the same studies, these two methods should be cross validated
as described (Refer to Section 6.2). For nonclinical TK studies, refer to Section 4.1 of ICH S3A
Q&A. Feedback from the appropriate regulatory authorities is encouraged in early drug
development.
8. DOCUMENTATION
General and specific SOPs and good record keeping are essential to a properly validated
analytical method. The data generated for bioanalytical method validation should be
documented and available for data audit and inspection. Table 1 describes the recommended
documentation for submission to the regulatory authorities and documentation that should beavailable at the analytical site at times of inspection. This documentation may be stored at theanalytical site or at another secure location. In this case the documentation should be readily
available when requested.
All relevant documentation necessary for reconstructing the study as it was conducted andreported should be maintained in a secure environment. Relevant documentation includes, but
is not limited to, source data, protocols and reports, records supporting procedural, operational,
and environmental concerns and correspondence records between all involved parties.
44ICH M10 Guideline

Regardless of the documentation format (i.e., paper or electronic), records should becontemporaneous with the event and subsequent alterations should not obscure the original data.
The basis for changing or reprocessing data should be documented with sufficient detail, andthe original record should be maintained.
8.1 Summary Information
Summary information should include the following items in Section 2.6.4/2.7.1 of the Common
Technical Document (CTD; or electronic CTD, eCTD)) or reports:•

A summary of methods used for each study should be included. Each summary
should provide the method title, method identification code, the assay type, theBioanalytical Report code, effective date of the method, and the associated
Validation Report codes.

•

A summary table of all the relevant Validation Reports should be provided for eachanalyte, including Partial Validation and Cross Validation Reports. The table should
include the method identification code, the type of method, the reason for the new
method or additional validation (e.g., to lower the limit of quantification). Changes
made to the method should be clearly identified.

•

A summary table cross-referencing multiple identification codes should be provided
when a method has different codes for the method, the Validation Reports and the
Bioanalytical Reports.

•

Discussion of method changes (e.g., evolution of methods, reason(s) for revisions,
unique aspects)•

For comparative BA/BE studies, a list of regulatory site inspections including dates
and outcomes for each analytical site if conducted over the last three years, and one
year post study completion.

8.2 Documentation for Validation and Bioanalytical Reports

Table 1 describes the recommended documentation for the Validation and Bioanalytical Reports.

45

Table 1: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Chromatographic
System Suitability•

Dates, times, and samples used forsuitability testing•

Not applicable•Not applicable

Synopsis•
Overview of Method
Evolution

History/evolution of methods (e.g.,
to explain revisions, unique aspects
with supportive data, if available)•

Not applicable•Not applicable

Reference Standards•••
Internal Standard••

CoA or equivalent alternative to•ensure quality (including purity),stability/expiration/retest date(s),batch number, and manufacturer orsourceRecords of receipt, use, and storage
conditions.
•
If expired, recertified CoA, or
retest of quality and identity withretest dates

A copy of the CoA or equivalent •alternative including batch/lot
number, source, quality(including purity), storage
conditions, and expiration/retest
date, or table with thisinformation.
•
If expired, quality and stability at
the time of use and retest dates
and retested values.

IS quality or demonstration of•suitability•
Records of receipt, use, and storage
conditions

Name of reagent or standard
Origin46••

A copy of the CoA or equivalentalternative including batch /lot
number, source, quality (including
purity), storage conditions, andexpiration/retest date or a table withthis information.
If expired, quality and stability at thetime of use and retest dates andretested values.
Name of reagent or standard
OriginTable 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Critical Reagents

•
•
•
•

Name of reagent
Batch/Lot number
Source/Origin
Concentration, if applicable

•
•
•
•

Name of reagent
Batch/Lot number
Source/Origin
Concentration, if applicable

•
•
•
•

Name of reagent
Batch/Lot number
Source/Origin
Concentration, if applicable••

Retest date (expiry date)
Storage conditions••

Retest date (expiry date)
Storage conditions••

Retest date (expiry date)
Storage conditions•

Record of preparation, and use ofstock/working solutions
Storage location and condition•

Notation that solutions wereused within stability period
Stock/working solution stability
Storage conditions•

Notation that solutions were usedwithin stability period
Stock/working solution stability †Storage conditions†

Stock/Working
Solutions

•

•
•

•
•

Blank Matrix•

Records of matrix descriptions, lot
numbers, receipt dates, storage
conditions, and source/supplier•

Description, lot number, receipt
dates

•

Description, lot number, receipt
dates††

Calibration
Standards and QCs••

Records and date of preparation
Record of storage temperature (e.g.,log of in/out dates, analyst,
temperatures, and freezer(s))•

Description of preparation
including matrix
Batch number, preparation dates
and stability period
Storage conditions(temperatures, dates, duration,
etc.)

•
•
•

Description of preparation†
Preparation dates and stability period
Storage conditions†

•
•

47

Table 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs;
Procedures)

Procedures for all aspects of analysis,
such as:• Method/procedure(validation/analytical)• Acceptance criteria (e.g., run,calibration curve, QCs)
• Instrumentation• Reanalysis• ISR• Record of changes to SOP(change, date, reason, etc.)•

A detailed description of themethod procedures•

Sample Tracking•

Study sample receipt, and condition
on receipt•

Not applicable

For All Studies•

Records that indicate how samples
were transported and received.
Sample inventory and reasons formissing samples
Location of storage (e.g., freezer
unit)
Tracking logs of QCs, calibration
standards, and study samples

•
•
•

•

A list of procedures/analytical
protocols used for the method

Dates of receipt of shipments numberof samples• Sample condition on receipt• Analytical site storage condition andlocation• Storage: total duration from sample
collection to analysis• List of any deviations from plannedstorage conditions, and potential
impactAdditionally, for Comparative BA/BE
Studies also include:• The subject ID

Freezer logs for QCs, calibration
standards, and study samples entry
and exit

48

Table 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Analysis

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Documentation and data for system
For All Studies:
For All Studies:suitability checks for chromatography• Table of all runs (including failed runs), • Table of all runs, status (accepted
Instrument use log, including dates ofand analysis dates
and failed), reason for failure, andanalysis for each run
analysis dates.
• Table of calibration standard
Sample extraction logs including
concentration and response functions• Table of calibration standard
documentation of processing ofresults (calibration curve parameters)
concentration and response function
calibration standards, QCs, and studyof all accepted runs with accuracy andresults (calibration curve
samples for each run, including dates
precision.
parameters) of all accepted runs withof extraction
accuracy and precision.
• Table of within- and between- run QC
Identity of QCs and calibration
results and calibration standards (from• Table of QCs results of all accepted
standard lots, and study samples inaccuracy and precision runs). Values
runs with overall (between-run)each runoutside the acceptance criteria should
accuracy and precision results of thebeclearlymarked.
QCs and between-run accuracy andDocumentation of instrument settings
precision results from accepted runs.
and maintenance• Include total error for LBA methodsof reinjected runs with results
Laboratory information management• Data on selectivity, specificity, dilution • Tablefromreinjectedruns and reason(s)system (LIMS)
linearity and sensitivity (LLOQ), carryfor
reinjection
over, recovery. Bench-top, freeze-thaw,
Validation information, including
long-term, extract, and stock solution• QCs graphs trend analysis
documentation and data for:stability
encouragedo Selectivity, specificity,• Partial/cross-validation, if applicablesensitivity, precision and• Study concentration results table.
accuracy, carry-over, dilution,• Append separate report for additional
Additionally, for Comparative BA/BE
recovery, matrix effectStudies also include:
validation, if any
o Bench-top, freeze-thaw, longterm, extract, and stock• Instrument ID for each run in
Additionally, for Comparative BA/BE
solution stability
comparative BA/BE studies†
Studies also include:o Cross/partial validations, if• IS response plots for each analyticalapplicable• Instrument ID for each run inrun, including failed runs
comparative BA/BE studies †• 100% of run summary table of• 100% of run summary table ofaccepted and failed runs
accepted and failed runs

49

Table 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Chromatograms
and Reintegration••

Electronic audit trail:
100% e-chromatograms of original and •reintegration from accepted and fail
runs

•
•

Reason for reintegration
Mode of reintegration 100% of run
summary tables of accepted and failed
runs, including calibration curve,
regression, weighting function, analyte
and IS response and retention time,
response ratio, integration type•

For All Studies:
Chromatograms may be submitted asa supplement•
Reason for reintegration
Chromatograms may besubmitted as a supplement
Additionally, for Comparative •BA/BE Studies also include•• 100% chromatograms oforiginal and reintegrationfrom accepted and fail runs. •For studies other than comparative
BA/BE,
randomly
selected
chromatograms from 5% of samples
submitted in application dossiers
Reason for reintegration
Identification and discussion ofchromatograms
withmanualreintegration
SOP for reintegration, as applicable

•
•

•

50

For All Studies:
Representative
chromatograms (originaland reintegration)

Bioanalytical Report*

100% of run summary table Additionally, for Comparative BA/BEof accepted and failed runs
Studies also include• 100% of chromatograms.
• Original
andreintegrated
chromatograms and initial and repeat
integration results• 100% of run summary table ofaccepted and failed runs

Table 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Deviations from
Procedures•

Contemporaneous documentation of
deviations/unexpected events
Investigation of unexpected events
Impact assessment•••

Description of
Deviations
Impact on study results
Description andsupporting data ofsignificant
investigations•••

Procedures for conducting reanalysis/repeat
analysis (define reasons for reanalysis, etc.)
Retain 100% of repeat/reanalysed data
Contemporaneous records of reason for
repeats•

Not applicable

For All Studies:• Table of sample IDs, reason
for repeat analysis, originaland repeat analysis values,
reason for reported values, run
IDs
Additionally, for Comparative
BA/BE Studies also include• For comparative BA/BE
studies, values from rejectedruns should be included in a
separate table.

••

Procedure for ISR
ISR data: Run IDs, run summary sheets,
chromatograms or other electronic
instrument data files•

Not applicable•

ISR data table (original andreanalysis values and run IDs,
percent difference, percent
passed)•Document ISR failure investigations, if any•

ISR failure investigations, if
any††

•
•

Reanalysis/Repeat Analysis

•
•
•

ISR

51

Description of deviations
Impact on study results
Description and supporting
data of significant
investigations

Table 1 continued: Documentation and Reporting
Items

Documentation at the Analytical Site

Validation Report*

Bioanalytical Report*

Communication•

Between involved parties (Applicant,contract research organizations, andconsultants) related to study/method•

Not applicable•

Audits and Inspections•

Evidence of audit and inspections•

Not applicable/Refer to •Section 8.1 for summary
information to include in
the eCTD

Not applicableNot applicable/Refer to
Section 8.1 for summary
information to include in theeCTD*The applicant is expected to maintain data at the analytical site to support summary data submitted in Validation and Bioanalytical Reports.
Validation and Bioanalytical Reports should be submitted in the application.
† May append or link from Validation Report.
††

Submit either in Validation Report or in Bioanalytical Report52

9. GLOSSARY
Accuracy:
The degree of closeness of the measured value to the nominal or known true value underprescribed conditions (or as measured by a particular method). In this document accuracy isexpressed as percent of the nominal value.
Accuracy (%) = (Measured Value/Nominal Value) × 100
Analysis:
A series of analytical procedures from sample processing/dilution to measurement on an
analytical instrument.
Analyte:A specific chemical moiety being measured, including an intact drug, a biomolecule or its
derivative or a metabolite in a biological matrix.
Analytical Run (also referred to as “Run”):
A complete set of analytical and study samples with appropriate number of calibration standards
and QCs for their validation. Several runs may be completed in one day or one run may takeseveral days to complete.
Anchor Calibration Standards/Anchor Points:
Spiked samples set at concentrations below the LLOQ or above the ULOQ of the calibration
curve and analysed to improve curve fitting in LBAs.
Batch (for Bioanalysis):
A batch is comprised of QCs and study samples, and possibly blanks, zero samples andcalibration standards, which are handled during a fixed period of time and by the same groupof analysts with the same reagents under homogenous conditions.
Batch (for Reference Standards and Reagents):
A specific quantity of material produced in a process or series of processes so that it is expected
to be homogeneous within specified limits. Also referred to as “Lot”.
Bias:
The tendency of a measurement process to over- or under-estimate the value of a population
parameter.
53

Bioanalytical Method:
Analytical method used in the quantitative determination of analytes in biological matrices.
Biological Drugs:
Drugs that are made by living organisms or cells (e.g., therapeutic proteins).
Biological Matrix:
A biological material including, but not limited to, blood, serum, plasma and urine.
Binding Reagent:A reagent that binds to the analyte in LBA-based bioanalytical methods.
Blank Sample:
A sample of a biological matrix to which no analyte, no IS and no additional-alternative matrix
or buffer has been added.
Calibration Curve:
The relationship between the instrument response (e.g., peak area, height or signal) and theconcentration (amount) of analyte in the calibration standards within a given range. Also
referred to as Standard Curve.
Calibration Range:
The interval between the upper and lower concentration (amounts) of analyte in the calibration
standards (including these concentrations)
Calibration Standard:
A matrix to which a known amount of analyte has been added or spiked. Calibration standards
are used to construct calibration curves.
Carry-over:
The appearance of an analyte signal in a sample from a preceding sample.
Chemical Drugs:
Chemically synthesised drugs.

54Critical Reagent:
Critical reagents for LBAs include binding reagents (e.g., antibodies, binding proteins,
peptides) and those containing enzymatic moieties that have a direct impact on the results of
the assay.
Cross Validation:
Assessment of potential bias between two bioanalytical methods or the same bioanalyticalmethod used in different laboratories in order to determine whether reported data arecomparable.
Dilution Integrity:
Assessment of the sample dilution procedure to confirm that the procedure does not impact themeasured concentration of the analyte.
Dilution Linearity:
A parameter demonstrating that the method can appropriately analyse samples at aconcentration exceeding the ULOQ of the calibration curve without influence of prozone (hook)effect and that the measured concentrations are not affected by dilution within the calibration
range in LBAs.
Dilution Factor:
The magnitude by which a sample is diluted.
Full Validation:
Establishment of all validation parameters that ensure the integrity of the method when applied
to sample analysis.
Hook Effect:
Suppression of response due to very high concentrations of a particular analyte. A hook effectmay occur in LBAs that use a liquid-phase reaction step for incubating the binding reagentswith the analyte. Also referred to as prozone effect.
Incurred Sample:
A sample obtained from study subjects or animals.
Incurred Sample Reanalysis (ISR):
Reanalysis of a portion of the incurred samples in a separate analytical run on a different day
to determine whether the original analytical results are reproducible.
55

Interfering Substance:
A substance that is present in the matrix that may affect the quantification of an analyte.
Internal Standard (IS):A structurally similar analogue or stable isotope labelled compound added to calibration
standards, QCs and study samples at a known and constant concentration to facilitate
quantification of the target analyte.
Ligand Binding Assay (LBA):
A method to analyse an analyte of interest using reagents that specifically bind to the analyte.
The analyte is detected using reagents labelled with e.g., an enzyme, radioisotope, fluorophoreor chromophore. Reactions are carried out in microtitre plates, test tubes, disks, etc.
Lower Limit of Quantification (LLOQ):
The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined using amethod with predefined precision and accuracy.
Matrix Effect:
The direct or indirect alteration or interference in response due to the presence of unintended
analytes or other interfering substances in the sample.
Minimum Required Dilution (MRD):
The initial dilution factor by which biological samples are diluted with buffer solution for the
analysis by LBAs. The MRD may not necessarily be the ultimate dilution but should be
identical for all samples including calibration standards and QCs. However, samples may
require further dilution.
Nominal Concentration:
Theoretical or expected concentration.
Parallelism:
Parallelism demonstrates that the serially diluted incurred sample response curve is parallel tothe calibration curve. Parallelism is a performance characteristic that can detect potential matrix
effects.
Partial Validation:
Validation based on evaluation of selected validation parameters. Applicable to methods thatwere changed after full validation.
56

Precision:
The closeness of agreement (i.e., degree of scatter) among a series of measurements. Precision
is expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV) or the relative standard deviation (RSD)
expressed as a percentage.
%CV = (Standard Deviation/Mean) x 100
Processed Sample:
The final sample that has been subjected to various manipulations (e.g., extraction, dilution,
concentration).
Quality Control Sample (QC):
A biological matrix spiked with a known quantity of analyte that is used to monitor the
performance of a bioanalytical method and assess the integrity and validity of the results of theunknown samples analysed in an individual batch or run.
Reanalysis:
An additional evaluation of a previously assayed sample. Also referred to as Repeat Analysis.
Recovery:
The extraction efficiency of an analytical process, reported as a percentage of the known amountof an analyte carried through the sample extraction and processing steps of the method.
Reference Standard:
A well-characterised substance of known purity and identity used to prepare calibration andquality control samples.
Reintegration:
Change of the original integration of a chromatographic peak
Replicate:
One of several determinations or measurements of a sample, calibration standards or QC.
Reproducibility:
The extent to which consistent results are obtained when an experiment is repeated.
Response Function:
A mathematical expression which adequately describes the relationship between instrument
response (e.g., peak area or height ratio or signal) and the concentration (amount) of analyte in57

the calibration standards. Response function is defined within a given range. See also
Calibration Curve.
Run Summary Table:
Tabular output of all data from individual samples, QCs and calibration standards within theanalytical run (e.g., for chromatography retention times, analyte and IS responses,
concentrations, and dilution factors if any; for ligand binding assays analyte responses
concentrations, dilution factors).
Selectivity:
Ability of an analytical method to differentiate and measure the analyte in the presence ofinterfering substances in the biological matrix (non-specific interference).
Sensitivity:
The lowest analyte concentration that can be measured with acceptable accuracy and precision(i.e., LLOQ).
Specificity:
Ability of an analytical method to detect and differentiate the analyte from other substances,including its related substances (e.g., substances that are structurally similar to the analyte,
metabolites, isomers, impurities or concomitant medications).
Stability:
Measure of the intactness of an analyte (lack of degradation) in a given matrix under specificstorage and use conditions relative to the starting material for given time intervals.
Standard Curve:
The relationship between the instrument response (e.g., peak area, height or signal) and theconcentration (amount) of analyte in the calibration standards within a given range. Also
referred to as calibration Curve.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):
Detailed written instructions to achieve uniformity of the performance of a specific function
and/or process(es).
Stock Solution:
An analyte in a solvent or mixture of solvents at a known concentration, which is used to prepare
calibration standards or QCs.
58

Study samples:
Samples from animals or subjects enrolled in nonclinical or clinical studies.
Surrogate Matrix:
An alternative to a study matrix of limited availability (e.g., tissue, cerebrospinal fluid, bile) or
where the study matrix contains an interfering endogenous counterpart.
System Suitability:
Determination of instrument performance (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, peak shape, retentiontime) by analysis of a prepared, spiked sample conducted prior to the analytical run and is nota part of the sample analysis.
Total Error:
The sum of the absolute value of the errors in accuracy (%) and precision (%). Total error isreported as percent (%) error.
Upper Limit of Quantification (ULOQ):
The highest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with predefined precision and accuracy.
Validation:
Demonstration that a bioanalytical method is suitable for its intended purpose.
Working Solution:
A non-matrix solution prepared by diluting the stock solution in an appropriate solvent. It ismainly added to matrix to prepare calibration standards and QCs.
Zero Sample:
A blank sample spiked with an IS.

59