Conclusions
ECLA had a larger dynamic range and sensitivity, allowing accurate assessment of PK parameters. Although this method was more expensive than the ELISA, it was the most appropriate for the early stage PEGylated insulin program. While this case study is specific to PEGylated human insulin, it highlights the importance of evaluating and selecting the most appropriate platform for bioanalysis during drug development.
Purpose
The quality of bioanalytical data is dependent upon selective, sensitive, and reproducible analytical
Results
All platforms, except Gyrolab, were taken through validation. However, a typical Gyrolab method was included for the cost analysis. Ranges for the ELISA, ECLA, and LC-MS/MS were 8.52-75, 2.09-125, and 100-1000 ng/mL, respectively, and accuracy and precision fell within a priori criteria. PK samples were analyzed in the 3 validated methods. PK profiles and parameters are similar for all methods, except LC-MS/MS, which differed at t=24h and with AUC0-24. Further investigation into this difference is warranted. The cost analysis identified the Gyrolab platform as the most expensive and ELISA as the least expensive, with method specific consumables attributing significantly to costs. Conclusions: ECLA had a larger dynamic range and sensitivity, allowing accurate assessment of PK parameters. Although this method was more expensive than the ELISA, it was the most appropriate for the early stage PEGylated insulin program. While this case study is specific to PEGylated human insulin, it highlights the importance of evaluating and selecting the most appropriate platform for bioanalysis during drug development.