4.3 Article

Quantification of abemaciclib and metabolites: evolution of bioanalytical methods supporting a novel oncolytic agent

Journal

BIOANALYSIS
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 711-724

Publisher

Newlands Press Ltd
DOI: 10.4155/bio-2021-0039

Keywords

bioanalysis; clinical sample analysis; combination drugs; fit-for-purpose; incurred sample reanalysis; metabolites; oncology; selectivity

Funding

  1. Eli Lilly and Company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bioanalytical methods undergo frequent revisions and modifications throughout drug development to meet study objectives. A validated LC-MS/MS method for quantifying drugs and metabolites is described, with emphasis on flexibility and consistency over time. The article highlights the importance of adapting methods to evolving study objectives in drug development.
Aim: Bioanalytical methods undergo many revisions and modifications throughout drug development to meet the objectives of the study and development program. Results: Validated LC-MS/MS methodology used to quantify abemaciclib and four metabolites in human plasma is described. The method, initially validated to support the first-in-human study, was successfully modified to include additional metabolites as in vitro and in vivo information about the activity and abundance of human metabolites became available. Consistent performance of the method over time was demonstrated by an incurred sample reanalysis passing rate exceeding 95%, across clinical studies. An overview of the numerous methods involved during the development of abemaciclib, including the quantification of drugs evaluated as combination regimens and used as substrates during drug-drug interaction studies, is presented. Conclusion: Robust bioanalytical methods need to be designed with the flexibility required to support the evolving study objectives associated with registration and post-registration trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available