P64 Quality assessment for the continuous bioanalysis of aldosterone: application in an European paediatric study

Background A validation is crucial to ensure the quality of an analytical method and its results. However, the validation is only a first step, further quality assessment has to be utilised to ensure high quality research. Specifications for the validation process, but also for the assessment of data, acquired in a study setting, are given by the EMA and FDA to ensure highest quality of the data.1 2 Methods A multi-level analytical quality system was established. Data of the calibration standards (CSs), quality control samples (QCs), and incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) were evaluated according to the specifications given by the EMA and FDA guidelines.[1,2] For a run to be considered valid ≥6 levels or 75% of the CSs and 67% of the QCs (≥50% per level) had to vary ≤±20% (LLOQ ≤±25%) from their nominal concentration.[1,2] For the ISR analysis at least 67% of the ISR samples have to lay in ±30% to the nominal concentration of the mean of the original and reanalysed value.[1] Results Seventy analytical runs were conducted, applying the quality measures, 79% runs were classified as valid and were used to determine unknown samples in a paediatric study. The high quality of the acquired data is reflected in the high conformity of the CSs and QCs to the EMA and FDA guidelines, 99% of the CSs and 95% of the QCs were accepted. Further underlining the high quality of the acquired data, 85% of the IRS have also been accepted. The assay was successfully used over a time period of 29 months. Conclusion The results of the quality assessment confirmed the robustness of the aldosterone assay throughout the whole study duration. Thus, the samples measured by this assay are reliable and facilitate the high quality research in the paediatric population. References Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. European Medicines Agency, London, UK (2011). Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation. US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA Rockville, MD, USA (2018). Disclosure(s) Nina Makowski, Ilja Burdman, Mohsin Ali, Bartel A, Bjoern B. Burckhardt declare that there is no conflict of interest. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement n°602295 (LENA).