Arab Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology (ASWGFT): Guidelines for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology

Abdulsallam A. Bakdash, Jihad Al-Qudsi, Huda M. Hassan

Abstract


Reliable results and valid analytical data are an essential requirement for proper interpretation of forensic toxicology cases, especially when evaluating scientific studies and daily routine work, and when presenting any toxicological findings as criminal evidence. In contrast, the results of unreliable analyses can be disputed in court and can also lead to unfair legal judgments against the defendant, or can result in wrong treatment in cases of rehabilitation of patients. In order to establish strong evidence and make a correct decision, the lab is asked to give high-quality data that are based on reliable analytical methods. For that reason, all new analytical methods used in forensic toxicology, including the clinical diagnosis of causes of death, require careful care during the development of the analytical method and during its application. This is also an urgent need in the context of quality management and accreditation, especially as those issues have become increasingly important in the science of poisons and drug analysis in recent years. The Arab Scientific Working Group of Forensic Toxicology (ASWGFT) of the Arab Society for forensic sciences and forensic medicine (ASFSFM) aims to publish the first version of Guidelines for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology. These guidelines version are written in Arabic to facilitate the understanding of analytical methods validation in the field of forensic toxicology for Arab specialists. The Arab Scientific Working Group of Forensic Toxicology has chosen the first issue to be a manual of guidelines for method validation in forensic toxicology, similar to international organizations who are actively publishing in this field. The guidelines contain a systematic scientific message that can be published and circulated among Arab laboratories.


Full Text:

PDF

References


United Nations Office on Drugs, Crime. Laboratory, Scientific Section. Guidance for the Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration of Equipment Used for Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized Materials and Biological Specimens: A Commitment to Quality and Continuous Improvement. United Nations Publications; 2009.

European Medicines Agency. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP); 2011.

Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J. Clarke's analysis of drugs and poisons. London: Pharmaceutical press; 2011.

Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology, SWGTOX., Standard practices for method validation in forensic toxicology; 2013.

Cooper GA, Paterson S, Osselton MD. The United Kingdom and Ireland association of forensic toxicologists: forensic toxicology laboratory guidelines (2010). Sci Justice. 2010;50(4):166-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2010.09.005, PMid:21075293.

Drummer OH. Requirements for bioanalytical procedures in postmortem toxicology. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;388(7):1495-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1238-7, PMid:17377776

Araujo P. Key aspects of analytical method validation and linearity evaluation. J Chromatogr B. 2009;877(23):2224-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.09.030, PMid:18929516

Andri B, Lebrun P, Dispas A, Klinkenberg R, Streel B, Ziemons E, Marini RD, Hubert P. Optimization and validation of a fast supercritical fluid chromatography method for the quantitative determination of vitamin D3 and its related impurities. J Chromatogr A. 2017;1491:171-81.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2017.01.090, PMid:28242051

Peters FT, Drummer OH, Musshoff F. Validation of new methods. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165(2-3):216-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.021, PMid:16781833

Peters FT, Maurer HH. Bioanalytical method validation and its implications for forensic and clinical toxicology—a review. InValidation in chemical measurement 2002 (pp. 1-9). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

De Bièvre P. Validation in chemical measurement. Günzler H, editor. Berlin: Springer; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/b138530, PMid:15756102

Penders J, Verstraete A. Laboratory guidelines and standards in clinical and forensic toxicology. Accred Qual Assur. 2006;11(6):284-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-006-0131-y

US Food and Drug Administration. Analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics. Guid Ind. 2015:1-5.

Remane D, Meyer MR, Wissenbach DK, Maurer HH. Ion suppression and enhancement effects of co-eluting analytes in multi-analyte approaches: systematic investigation using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry with atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization or electrospray ionization. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2010;24(21):3103-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.4736, PMid:20941756

Chesher D. Evaluating assay precision. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29(Suppl 1):S23. PMid:18852851 PMCid:PMC2556577

Patriarca M, Magnusson B, Örnemark U, Eurachem guidance on validating analytical methods. Euroreference 1 - June 2016.

Thon N, Weinmann W, Yegles M, Preuss U, Wurst FM. Direct metabolites of ethanol as biological markers of alcohol use: basic aspects and applications. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie. 2013;81(9):493-502. PMid:23856980

Guideline ICH. Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology Q2 (R1). InInternational Conference on Harmonization, Geneva, Switzerland 2005 Nov (pp. 11-12).

Kruve A, Rebane R, Kipper K, Oldekop ML, Evard H, Herodes K, Ravio P, Leito I. Tutorial review on validation of liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry methods: Part I. Analytica chimica acta. 2015;870:29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.017, PMid:25819785

Keller BO, Sui J, Young AB, Whittal RM. Interferences and contaminants encountered in modern mass spectrometry. Analytica chimica acta. 2008;627(1):71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2008.04.043, PMid:18790129

Van Eeckhaut A, Lanckmans K, Sarre S, Smolders I, Michotte Y. Validation of bioanalytical LC–MS/MS assays: evaluation of matrix effects. J Chromatogr B. 2009;877(23):2198-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2009.01.003, PMid:19179125

Kruve A, Rebane R, Kipper K, Oldekop ML, Evard H, Herodes K, Ravio P, Leito I. Tutorial review on validation of liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry methods: Part II. Analytica chimica acta. 2015;870:8-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.016, PMid:25819784

Kintz P, Salomone A, Vincenti M. Hair analysis in clinical and forensic toxicology. Academic Press; 2015

Hensley D, Cody JT. Simultaneous determination of amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) enantiomers by GC-MS. J Anal Toxicol. 1999;23(6):518-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/23.6.518, PMid:10517560

Kukk S. Kinetic aspects of interaction between dopamine transporter and N-substituted nortropane derivatives (Doctoral dissertation; 2017. https://hdl.handle.net/10062/57121




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26735/16586794.2017.013

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine (AJFSFM)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.