Overview of Matrix Effects in Bioanalysis

Transcription

1 Overview of Matrix Effects in Bioanalysis Patrick Bennett & Jing Tu PPD Laboratories 31March2017

2 Outline 1. Definitions 2. Overview of Matrix Effects 3. Regulatory guidance on matrix effect(s): FDA and EMA 4. Mass Spectrometry based Matrix Effects 5. LBA based Matrix Effects 6. Discussion & Conclusion

3 Overview: Matrix Effects

4

5 PubMed Search 180 Matrix effects & LC MS Citations 5

6 What is a Matrix Effect? According to: 2001 FDA Guidance 2011 EMA Guideline 2013 (Draft) FDA Guidance The direct or indirect alteration or interference in response due to the presence of unintended analytes (for analysis) or other interfering substances in the sample.

7 Types of Matrix Effects it s not one thing Ionization related Suppression Enhancement Heterogeneous adducts (e.g., H +, Na +, NH 4+, ) Non ionization related Extraction efficiency or recovery (adsorption, protein binding, inhomogeneous samples, solubility and stabilizer induced interference) Direct isobaric interference 7

8 How to Test for Matrix Effects? Post column infusion method Direct monitoring during analysis method Post extraction spike method 8

9 How to Test for Matrix Effects? Post column infusion method A qualitative approach Important in method development Useful for troubleshooting 9

10 Post Column Infusion the Famous Setup King R. et al., J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2000, 11(11),

11 Post Column Infusion Comparison: APCI vs ESI King R. et al., J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2000, 11(11),

12 Matrix Effect Diagnostics Post Column Infusion Positive ESI The MS response of of one analyte with with injection of a of plasma a plasma extract extract (blue (blue trace) trace) and a and matrix a matrix free pure free pure solution solution injected injected (red trace) (red from trace) positive from positive ESI mode. ESI mode. Fumin Li F Li et et. al., al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013) (19), (2013). 12

13 Matrix Effect Diagnostics Post Column Infusion Negative ESI The MS response of one analyte with injection of a plasma extract (blue trace) and a matrix free pure solution injected (red trace) from negative ESI mode. Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 13

14 Matrix Effect Diagnostics Post Column Infusion Positive APCI The MS response of one analyte with injection of a plasma extract (blue trace) and a matrix free pure solution injected (red trace) from positive APCI mode. Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 14

15 How to Test for Matrix Effects? Direct monitoring during analysis method A qualitative approach Detect common sources (e.g. phospholipid families) Useful for monitoring & troubleshooting 15

16 Ion suppressing compounds Phospholipids - proven to cause ion suppression. Widely present, high concentrations, strongly retained, variable. O O R R O O O R O HO Polar head group O P O O - O + N O P O O - O + N Phosphatidylcholine Lysophosphatidylcholine R, R = C 12 C 18

17 Glycerophosphocholines (GPCho s) and In Source Multiple Reaction Monitoring (IS MRM) Little JL, Wempe MF, Buchanan CM, J. Chromatogr B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2006, 833,

18 Phospholipids Elution Experiment (1 st inj 65-75% B) (2 nd inj 65-75% B) (3 rd inj 65-75% B) XICof +MRM(16pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample1(Test-1_Newcolumn-65-75_inject-1) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (TurboSpray) Max. 3.2e6cps. XICof +MRM(16pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample2(Test-1_Newcolumn-65-75_inject-2) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (TurboSpray) Max. 3.4e6cps. XICof +MRM(16pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample3(Test-1_Newcolumn-65-75_inject-3) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (TurboSpray) Max. 3.1e6cps. 5.5e6 5.0e6 5.8e6 5.5e6 6.5e6 6.0e6 4.5e6 5.0e6 5.5e6 4.0e6 4.5e6 5.0e6 4.0e6 4.5e6 3.5e e e6 3.0e6 3.0e6 3.5e6 2.5e6 2.5e6 3.0e e6 2.0e6 2.5e6 1.5e6 1.5e6 2.0e6 1.5e6 1.0e6 1.0e6 1.0e6 5.0e5 5.0e5 5.0e Time, min Time, min Time, min BEH C18, 1.7 µ, 2x50 mm, Mobile phase A: 0.2% NH4OH in 5 mm AmBicarb in water. Mobile phase B: 0.2% NH4OH in MeOH

19 Phospholipids Elution Experiment (1 st inj % B) (2 nd inj % B) (3 rd inj % B) XICof +MRM(16pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample4(Test-1_Newcolumn _inject-1) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (TurboSpray) Max. 3.0e6cps. XICof +MRM(16 pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample 5 (Test-1_Newcolumn-65-75_100_inject-2) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (Turbo Spray) Max. 2.9e6cps. XICof +MRM(16 pairs): 535.1/352.2amufromSample 6 (Test-1_Newcolumn-65-75_100_inject-3) of 29Dec14-MM.wiff (TurboSpray) Max. 2.9e6cps. 6.5e6 6.5e6 6.4e6 6.0e6 6.0e6 6.0e6 5.5e6 5.5e6 5.5e6 5.0e6 5.0e6 5.0e6 4.5e6 4.5e6 4.5e6 4.0e6 4.0e6 4.0e6 3.5e6 3.5e6 3.5e6 3.0e e e e6 2.5e6 2.5e6 2.0e6 2.0e6 2.0e6 1.5e6 1.5e6 1.5e6 1.0e6 1.0e6 1.0e6 5.0e5 5.0e5 5.0e Time, min Time, min Time, min BEH C18, 1.7 µ, 2x50 mm, Mobile phase A: 0.2% NH4OH in 5 mm AmBicarb in water. Mobile phase B: 0.2% NH4OH in MeOH

20 Post column Infusion and IS MRM of GPCho s Little JL, Wempe MF, Buchanan CM, J. Chromatogr B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2006, 833,

21 Comparison of solvent composition for the elution of GPCho s from RP HPLC column 100:0 ACN:MeOH Time Little JL, Wempe MF, Buchanan CM, J. Chromatogr B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2006, 833,

22 Impact of Phospholipids (ESI) m/z 184>184 m/z 104>104 Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 22

23 How to Test for Matrix Effects? Post extraction spike method Matrix Factor a quantitative approach Important in method validation (regulatory expectation) Useful, but may miss issues 23

24 Matrix Factor vs. Matrix Effect

25 What is Matrix Factor? According to: 2011 EMA Guideline Matrix factor (MF) is the calculated ratio of the peak area in the presence of matrix (measured by analyzing blank matrix spiked after extraction with analyte), to the peak area in absence of matrix (pure solution of the analyte). Matrix Peak response in presence of matrix ions Factor Peak response in absence of matrix ions

26 FDA Guidance for Bioanalytical Method Validation 2001 It may be important to consider the variability of the matrix due to the physiological nature of the sample. In the case of LC-MS-MS-based procedures, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure the lack of matrix effects throughout the application of the method, especially if the nature of the matrix changes from the matrix used during method validation The specificity of the assay methodology should be established using a minimum of six independent sources of the same matrix. For hyphenated mass spectrometrybased methods, however, testing six independent matrices for interference may not be important. In the case of LC-MS and LC-MS-MS-based procedures, matrix effects should be investigated to ensure that precision, selectivity, and sensitivity will not be compromised. Method selectivity should be evaluated during method development and throughout method validation and can continue throughout application of the method to actual study samples 26

27 FDA Guidance for Bioanalytical Method Validation 2013 (draft) Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure the lack of matrix effects throughout the application of the method, especially if the matrix used for production batches is different from the matrix used during method validation. Matrix effects on ion suppression or enhancement or on extraction efficiency should be addressed. A bioanalytical method should be validated for the intended use or application. All experiments used to make claims or draw conclusions about the validity of the method should be presented in a report (method validation report), including a description of validation runs that failed. 27

28 EMA Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation Matrix effect Matrix effects should be investigated when using mass spectrometric methods, using at least 6 lots of blank matrix from individual donors. Pooled matrix should not be used. For each analyte and the IS, the matrix factor (MF) should be calculated for each lot of matrix, by calculating the ratio of the peak area in the presence of matrix (measured by analysing blank matrix spiked after extraction with analyte), to the peak area in absence of matrix (pure solution of the analyte). The IS normalised MF should also be calculated by dividing the MF of the analyte by the MF of the IS. The CV of the IS normalised MF calculated from the 6 lots of matrix should not be greater than 15 %. This determination should be done at a low and at a high level of concentration (maximum of 3 times the LLOQ and close to the ULOQ). If this approach cannot be used, for instance in the case of on line sample preparation, the variability of the response from lot to lot should be assessed by analysing at least 6 lots of matrix, spiked at a low and at a high level of concentration (maximum of 3 times the LLOQ and close to the ULOQ). The validation report should include the peak areas of the analyte and of the IS and the calculated concentration for each individual sample. The overall CV calculated for the concentration should not be greater than 15 %. 28

29 EMA Guidance on Bioanalytical Method Validation Matrix effect (cont.) If a formulation for injection to be administered to the subjects or animals contains excipients known to be responsible for matrix effects, for instance polyethylene glycol or polysorbate, matrix effects should be studied with matrix containing these excipients, in addition to blank matrix. The matrix used for this evaluation should be obtained from subjects or animals administered the excipient, unless it has been demonstrated that the excipient is not metabolised or transformed in vivo. The effect of the excipients can be studied by the determination of the MF or by a dilution study of a study sample with a high concentration with blank matrix not containing the excipient. In addition to the normal matrix it is recommended to investigate matrix effects on other samples e.g. haemolysed and hyperlipidaemic plasma samples. If samples from special populations (such as renally or hepatically impaired populations) are to be analysed it is also recommended to study matrix effects using matrix from such populations. 29

30 Which MF results are important? Remember: MF = 1.0 indicates no difference in relative ionization effects between matrix and nonmatrix control, not that ionization effects are absent. Analyte (absolute) MF Useful indicator, but value not that critical unless sensitivity impacted (i.e., S/N > 5:1 still desired for LLOQ) IS normalized MF Most critical; need to demonstrate that lot to lot variation in matrix effects is controlled by the IS (i.e., CV 15%) 30

31 How to Avoid or Mitigate Matrix Effects? Extraction SPE (mixed mode cation exchange) > SLE > LLE >> PPT ACN is better choice for PPT Phospholipid removal plate (e.g., Phree, Ostro, ) Chambers E. et al, J. Chromatogr. B 852(1 2), (2007). 31

32 Phospholipid Removal Plate Same sample processed through Phospholipid removal plate Same sample processed through Phospholipid removal plate Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 32

33 How to Avoid or Mitigate Matrix Effects? LC/MS Method Reversed phase LC > Normal phase LC Longer retention time > Shorter retention time Mobile Phase ph Column switching or 2D techniques Chambers E. et al, J. Chromatogr. B 852(1 2), (2007). 33

34 Case Study: Salmeterol Strange Internal Standard Responses for Unknown Study Samples HILIC HPLC separation using a silica column Generally consistent (but drifting) IS responses observed for known calibrator and QC samples Inconsistent IS responses observed for unknown samples during study runs 34

35 IS Responses Using Original Method What s going on? 35

36 IS Responses Using Modified Method Issue corrected by changing from HILIC to RPLC chromatography mode 36

37 Octreotide in Human Plasma WCX μelution SPE and back-flushed guard No valve switch Valve switched at 2.0 min Phospholipids Octreotide Octreotide Precolumn: Waters VanGuard BEH C18, 2.1 x 5 mm, 1.7 μm Analytical: Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18, 2.1 x 100 mm, 1.7 μm 37

38 Column switching or 2D HPLC Approaches Elute filter method Fast and efficient back flush of precolumn, may remove particles from inlet frit Forward flow transfer more selective, may gain additional precolumn separation Easy and versatile to avoid strongly retained matrix components No solvent front divert to waste 38

39 Column switching or 2D HPLC Approaches Trap & elute method (forward forward) Divert to waste during loading, good for desalting Forward flow transfer more selective, may gain additional precolumn separation Versatile to avoid and weakly and strongly retained matrix components No cleaning of precolumn inlet frit Longer time to fore flush precolumn 39

40 Column switching or 2D HPLC Approaches Trap & elute method (forward backward) Divert to waste during loading, good for desalting Backward flow transfer gives sharper focused peaks Fast peak transfer Useful, but need to be careful Backward flow transfer not selective Likely to transfer unwanted matrix components or particles Longer time to fore flush precolumn 40

41 C8 column 1 separation profile (1D) Phospholipids Octreotide Desmopressin Lyso- GPChos Vasopressi n GPChos 41

42 2D separation and online clean up concept C 8 column 1 flush Load and separate peptides on C 8 column 1 (0.25 min) Transfer 2 peptides to phenyl column 2 Octreotide Desmopressin 42

43 2D RP RP separation using C8 and Phenyl columns Octreotide Desmopressin No Phospholipids 43

44 Dosing Vehicle Issues common in preclinical Excipients PEG200 and PEG400 Tween 80 Hydroxypropyl β cyclodextran, N,N dimethylacetamide and methyl cellulose What to do? Check the study protocol and test incurred samples Modify sample prep if possible (e.g., SPE rather than PPT) Adjust chromatography if possible Use a SIL IS 44

45 Impact of Dosing Vehicle PEG400 Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 45

46 Impact of Dosing Vehicle PEG400 Accuracy assured using SIL IS Li F et al., Bioanalysis 5(19), (2013). 46

47 LBA Based Matrix Effects

48 LBA Matrix Effects Schwichart M, Vainshtein I, Lee R et al. Interference in immunoassays to support therapeutic antibody development in preclinical and clinical studies. Bioanalysis. 6(14), (2014). 48

49 LBA Specific and non Specific interference Non Specific interference Hemolysis, lipemia, anticoagulant Other organic and inorganic substances Specific interference Exogenous assays (e.g., PK assays): catabolic species of the drug analogs of the endogenous proteins heterophilic antibodies human anti animal antibodies rheumatoid factors soluble ligands antidrug antibodies high dose hook effects Others Endogenous assays (e.g., Biomarker assays) homologous family members, isoforms and precursor proteins ligands and the analogs of the ligands 49

50 How to Assess Matrix Effects Specificity and Selectivity Parallelism 50

51 Conclusions

52 Conclusions Matrix effects are still alive! Matrix effects (using MF) are still an important parameter to evaluate in bioanalysis, for scientific AND regulatory reasons Endogenous phospholipids and dosing vehicles continue to be significant sources of matrix effects Post column infusion and post extraction spiking are two effective matrix effect diagnostics tools Matrix effects can be effectively controlled using good 52

53 Discussion/Q&A What have I missed? Preference for ESI vs. APCI (or APPI)? Anybody have problems with adducts? ME variation across instruments/vendors? Other ways to deal with PEG excipients? How many are doing high throughput (RT<1 min)? 53