Non-regulated LC–MS/MS bioanalysis in support of early drug development: a Novartis perspective

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Aubry A-F, Shen JX. Bioanalysis and where does it fit into the drug development process? In: Bioanalysis for Service Users. Future Science Limited, London, UK, 6–16 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 2. Bhosale A. Importance of bioanalysis in drug discovery and development: a review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Research 5(1), 55–58 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 3. Thakur A, Tan Z, Kameyama T et al. Bioanalytical strategies in drug discovery and development. Drug Metab. Rev. 53(3), 434–458 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. Pandey S, Pandey P, Tiwari G, Tiwari R. Bioanalysis in drug discovery and development. Pharm. Methods 1(1), 14–24 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Unger S, Li W, Flarakos J, Tse FLS. Roles of LC–MS bioanalysis in drug discovery, development, and therapeutic drug monitoring. In: Handbook of LC‐MS Bioanalysis. Li WZhang JTse FLS (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ, USA, 1–13 (2013). • A comprehensive perspectives on the application of LC–MS in bioanalysis in support of drug discovery and development, including early development.
  Google Scholar
• 6. Yuan L, Aubry AF, Ji QC. A simple, effective approach for rapid development of high-throughput and reliable LC–MS/MS bioanalytical assays. Bioanalysis 8(17), 1809–1822 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. EMA. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation (2011). www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 8. US FDA. Guidance for industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation (2018). http://academy.gmp-compliance.org/guidemgr/files/UCM368107.PDF
  Google Scholar
• 9. Liu G, Snapp HM, Ji QC, Arnold ME. Strategy of accelerated method development for high-throughput bioanalytical assays using ultra high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 81(22), 9225–9232 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Xue Y-J, Melo B, Vallejo M et al. An integrated bioanalytical method development and validation approach: case studies. Biomed. Chromatogr. 26(10), 1215–1227 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Jemal M, Ouyang Z, Xia YQ. Systematic LC–MS/MS bioanalytical method development that incorporates plasma phospholipids risk avoidance, usage of incurred sample and well thought-out chromatography. Biomed. Chromatogr. 24(1), 2–19 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Shou WZ. Discovery bioanalysis. Bioanalysis 4(9), 983–984 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Kemper CJ, Koetzner L, Koleto M. A primer for best practices in tissue preparation for bioanalysis. Bioanalysis 4(21), 2621–2636 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Xue YJ, Gao H, Ji QC et al. Bioanalysis of drug in tissue: current status and challenges. Bioanalysis 4(21), 2637–2653 (2012). •• A comprehensive overview on the best practice on tissue sample handling and bioanalysis.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Fu Y, Li W, Flarakos J. Recommendations and best practices for calibration curves in quantitative LC–MS bioanalysis. Bioanalysis 11(15), 1375–1377 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Gu H, Liu G, Wang J et al. Selecting the correct weighting factors for linear and quadratic calibration curves with least-squares regression algorithm in bioanalytical LC–MS/MS assays and impacts of using incorrect weighting factors on curve stability, data quality, and assay performance. Anal. Chem. 86(18), 8959–8966 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Li W, Jian W, Fu Y. Basic sample preparation techniques in LC–MS bioanalysis. In: Sample Preparation in LC‐MS Bioanalysis. Li WJian WFu Y (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ, USA, 1–30 (2019). •• A comprehensive overview on the three key sample preparation methods for LC–MS bioanalysis
  Google Scholar
• 18. Jemal M, Xia YQ. LC–MS Development strategies for quantitative bioanalysis. Curr Drug Metab 7(5), 491–502 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Fu Y, Barkley D, Li W et al. Evaluation, identification and impact assessment of abnormal internal standard response variability in regulated LC–MS bioanalysis. Bioanalysis 12(8), 545–559 (2020). •• A comprehensive overview of internal standard response monitoring and associated trouble-shooting.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Li W, Li Y, Francisco DT, Naidong W. Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatographic tandem mass spectrometric determination of atenolol in human plasma. Biomed. Chromatogr. 19(5), 385–393 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Li W, Luo S, Li S et al. Simultaneous determination of ribavirin and ribavirin base in monkey plasma by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 846(1-2), 57–68 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. García MC. The effect of the mobile phase additives on sensitivity in the analysis of peptides and proteins by high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 825(2), 111–123 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Chen Y, Mehok AR, Mant CT, Hodges RS. Optimum concentration of trifluoroacetic acid for reversed-phase liquid chromatography of peptides revisited. J Chromatogr A 1043(1), 9–18 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Bock MJ, Neilson KL, Dudley A. Use of trifluoroacetic acid to quantify small, polar compounds in rat plasma during discovery-phase pharmacokinetic evaluation. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 856(1-2), 165–170 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Back HM, Lee JH, Chae JW et al. A novel HPLC–MS/MS method for the simultaneous determination of astemizole and its major metabolite in dog or monkey plasma and application to pharmacokinetics. J Pharm Biomed Anal 114, 121–126 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Heudi O, Barteau S, Picard F, Kretz O. A sensitive LC–MS/MS method for quantification of a nucleoside analog in plasma: Application to in vivo rat pharmacokinetic studies. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 877, 1887–1893 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Shou WZ, Naidong W. Simple means to alleviate sensitivity loss by trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) mobile phases in the hydrophilic interaction chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometric (HILIC-ESI/MS/MS) bioanalysis of basic compounds. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 825(2), 186–192 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Li W, Luo S, Rebello S et al. A semi-automated LC–MS/MS method for the determination of LCI699, a steroid 11β-hydroxylase inhibitor, in human plasma. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 960, 182–193 (2014). • A good demonstration of addition of acetic acid (with higher boiling temperature than trifluoroacetic acid [TFA]) to alleviate sensitivity loss due to the use of TFA in mobile phase in electrospray ionization LC–MS bioanalysis.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Yamamoto E, Ishihama Y, Asakawa N. Application of partially fluorinated carboxylic acids as ion-pairing reagents in LC/ESI-MS. Talanta 127, 219–224 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Fu Y, Li W, Flarakos J, Tse FLS. Quantitative analysis of pasireotide (SOM230), a cyclic peptide, in monkey plasma using liquid chromatography in combination with tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 1008, 242–249 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Smith KA, Merrigan SD, Johnson-Davis KL. Selecting a structural analog as an internal standard for the quantification of 6-methylmercaptopurine by LC–MS/MS. J. Appl. Lab. Med. 3(3), 384–396 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Hill HM, Smith GT. Evaluation and elimination of carryover and/or contamination in LC–MS bioanalysis. In: Handbook of LC‐MS Bioanalysis. Li WZhang JTse FLS (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ, USA, 259–273 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 33. Williams JS, Donahue SH, Gao H, Brummel CL. Universal LC–MS method for minimized carryover in a discovery bioanalytical setting. Bioanalysis 4(9), 1025–1037 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Briscoe CJ, Hage DS. Factors affecting the stability of drugs and drug metabolites in biological matrices. Bioanalysis 1(1), 205–220 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Yuan L, Sophia xu X, Ji QC. Challenges and recommendations in developing LC–MS/MS bioanalytical assays of labile glucuronides and parent compounds in the presence of glucuronide metabolites. Bioanalysis 12(9), 615–624 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Li W, Zhang J, Tse FLS. Strategies in quantitative LC–MS/MS analysis of unstable small molecules in biological matrices. Biomed. Chromatogr. 25(1-2), 258–277 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37. Hilhorst M, Van Amsterdam P, Heinig K et al. Stabilization of clinical samples collected for quantitative bioanalysis – a reflection from the European Bioanalysis Forum. Bioanalysis 7(3), 333–343 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Yuan L, Fu Y, Zhang D et al. Use of a carboxylesterase inhibitor of phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride to stabilize epothilone D in rat plasma for a validated UHPLC–MS/MS assay. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 969, 60–68 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Fung EN, Zheng N, Arnold ME, Zeng J. Effective screening approach to select esterase inhibitors used for stabilizing ester-containing prodrugs analyzed by LC–MS/MS. Bioanalysis 2(4), 733–743 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Ji AJ, Jiang Z, Livson Y et al. Challenges in urine bioanalytical assays: overcoming nonspecific binding. Bioanalysis 2(9), 1573–1586 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Li W, Luo S, Smith HT, Tse FL. Quantitative determination of BAF312, a S1P-R modulator, in human urine by LC–MS/MS: prevention and recovery of lost analyte due to container surface adsorption. J. Chromatogr B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 878(5-6), 583–589 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Fu Y, Li W, Smith HT, Tse FL. An investigation of incurred human urine sample reanalysis failure. Bioanalysis 3(9), 967–972 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Li F, Ewles M, Pelzer M et al. Case studies: the impact of nonanalyte components on LC–MS/MS-based bioanalysis: strategies for identifying and overcoming matrix effects. Bioanalysis 5(19), 2409–2441 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Schuhmacher J, Zimmer D, Tesche F, Pickard V. Matrix effects during analysis of plasma samples by electrospray and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry: practical approaches to their elimination. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17(17), 1950–1957 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Shou WZ, Naidong W. Post-column infusion study of the ‘dosing vehicle effect’ in the liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric analysis of discovery pharmacokinetic samples. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17(6), 589–597 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Tong XS, Wang J, Zheng S et al. Effect of signal interference from dosing excipients on pharmacokinetic screening of drug candidates by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 74(24), 6305–6313 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Bruenner B, James C. Evaluation and elimination of matrix effects in LC–MS bioanalysis. 249–258 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 48. Liang X, Ubhayakar S, Liederer BM et al. Evaluation of homogenization techniques for the preparation of mouse tissue samples to support drug discovery. Bioanalysis 3(17), 1923–1933 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Gao H, Williams J. Tissue sample preparation in LC‐MS bioanalysis. 201–216 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 50. Chen S, Wu JT, Huang R. Evaluation of surrogate matrices for standard curve preparation in tissue bioanalysis. Bioanalysis 4(21), 2579–2587 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar