2022 White Paper on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis: FDA Draft Guidance on Immunogenicity Information in Prescription Drug Labeling, LNP & Viral Vectors Therapeutics/Vaccines Immunogenicity, Prolongation Effect, ADA Affinity, Risk-based Approaches, NGS, qPCR, ddPCR Assays (Part 3 - Recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell Therapy, Vaccines Immunogenicity & Technologies; Immunogenicity & Risk Assessment of Biotherapeutics and Novel Modalities; NAb Assays Integrated Approach).

The 2022 16th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (WRIB) took place in Atlanta, GA, USA on September 26-30, 2022. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 16th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on ICH M10 BMV final guideline (focused on this guideline training, interpretation, adoption and transition); mass spectrometry innovation (focused on novel technologies, novel modalities, and novel challenges); and flow cytometry bioanalysis (rising of the 3rd most common/important technology in bioanalytical labs) were the special features of the 16th edition. As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues. This 2022 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2022 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity. Part 1 (Mass Spectrometry and ICH M10) and Part 2 (LBA, Biomarkers/CDx and Cytometry) are published in volume 15 of Bioanalysis, issues 16 and 15 (2023), respectively.

Evaluating compliance of dental radiography for paediatric patient assessment in specialised tertiary care units: a United Kingdom multi-centre survey.

Aim The aim of this survey was to determine compliance towards dental radiography selection criteria for paediatric patients undergoing new patient examinations in specialised tertiary care centres in the United Kingdom.Methods Five university-associated dental hospitals were included in this study. Retrospective data was collected reviewing all paediatric patients on the new patient assessment clinics, where dental imaging was requested or the patient had relevant previous imaging. Data was collected from 28 June 2018, continuing retrospectively for a maximum of six months or until 150 patients were reached. Patients referred solely for orthodontic assessment were excluded.Results Seven hundred and fifty patients were included with an average age of eight years - 95.5% of patients had a radiographic justification provided. All patients were grouped into 56 disease categories and a total range of one cross-sectional and nine planar radiographs were prescribed in this cohort. Each radiograph was assessed for compliance to the Faculty of General Dental Practice, European Association of Paediatric Dentistry and national Italian guidelines for dental diagnostic imaging. Additionally, selection criteria for CBCT scans were taken from SEDENTEXCT guidelines. Full panoramic radiographs were the most commonly prescribed at 34.8% (n = 261). However, this demonstrated the lowest compliance rate as per selection criteria at 75.9%. This was due to referrers requesting radiographs primarily for assessing dental development (18.8%; n = 49) and caries assessment (2.7%; n = 7). Other radiograph formats demonstrated varying levels of guideline compliance ranging from 93.5-100%.Conclusion This study identifies common radiograph request errors and can inform paediatric clinicians to improve compliance to guidelines and reduce radiation exposure to young patients.

Managing scientific, technical and regulatory innovation in regulated bioanalysis: a discussion paper from the European Bioanalysis Forum.

On 12-13 June 2012, the European Bioanalysis Forum hosted its third Focus Meeting in Brussels (Belgium). At the meeting, a panel discussion was held on the hurdles that the bioanalytical community encounters when adopting new technologies or managing regulated bioanalysis expectations around emerging technologies. Over the last few years, the industry has seen many new technologies maturing. As they became available, the bioanalytical scientist has observed that implementing these technologies in the regulated environment has become increasingly challenging. For one, scientific developments and regulatory expectations may not go hand in hand. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry has become increasingly risk averse in their response to these real or perceived higher expectations in regulated bioanalysis. As a downstream consequence, the potential result of overinterpretation of guidance or occasional widespread and premature implementation of responses to health authority inspections, industry may be contributing significantly to raising the bar on some processes related to day-to-day practices in the bioanalytical laboratory. Last but not least, with the community being satisfied with the performance of the current tools, potential complacency can be observed in the regulated bioanalytical community because existing technologies, such as LC-MS/MS and ligand-binding assays, have served and still are serving them extremely well. Hence, the question 'what's next after LC-MS/MS or ELISA?' is not resonating with many scientists as pertinently compared with 'What's next after RIA, GC or LC-UV?', which was the key question in the 1990s, certainly in the context of an increasing effort needed to validate these new tools. With this article, the European Bioanalysis Forum aims to stimulate an open dialogue between all stakeholders in regulated bioanalysis to positively influence how we balance science, process and regulations in day-to-day work. This discussion should facilitate the evaluation and the subsequent implementation of innovative techniques for the benefit of the patient, while stimulating our community to raise the bar on added-value science, but at the same time removing the bar on processes with limited or no added value.