Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2009
Body
European and International regulatory bodies and their guidelines on different aspects of QA
Full name Guidance on
Focus for Analytical Chemistry in Europe Cooperation of International Traceability in Analytical Chemistry European Cooperation for Accreditation European Committee for Normalization International Union of Pure & Applied Chem. International Standardization Organisation Association of Official Analytical Chemists International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperat. US Food and Drug Administration Method validation Proficiency testing Quality Assurance Accreditation Standardization Method validation Standardisation
USP
ICH
Method Validation
Validation of analytical procedures is the process of determining the suitability of a given methodology for providing useful analytical data. J. Guerra, Pharm. Tech. March 1986 Validation is the formal and systematic proof that a method compiles with the requirements for testing a product when observing a defined procedures.
G. Maldener, Chromatographia, July 1989
2009
Method validation is the process of demonstrating that analytical procedures are suitable for their intended use and that they support the identity, strength, quality, purity and potency of the drug substances and drug products
Method validation is primarily concerned with: identification of the sources of potential errors
2009
2009
Suitability of Materials
Status of Reference Standards, Reagents, Placebo Lots
Suitability of Analyst
Status of Training and Qualification Records
Suitability of Documentation
Written analytical procedure and proper approved protocol
with pre-established acceptance criteria
2009
Validation Step
Define the application, purpose and scope of the method. Analytes? Concentration? Sample matrices? Develop a analytical method. Develop a validation protocol. Qualification of instrument. Qualify/train operator
Qualification of material.
Perform pre-validation experiments. Adjust method parameters and/or acceptance criteria if necessary. Perform full validation experiments.
2009
2009
System Suitability
Test to verify the proper functioning of the operating system,
i.e., the electronics, the equipment, the specimens and the
analytical operations.
Minimum Resolution of 3.0 between the analyte peak and internal standard peaks
Relative Standard Deviation of replicate standard injections of not more than 2.0%
2009
10
System Suitability
Validation Calibration
Pump Detector Injector Data System
Analyst
Sample
2009
Method
11
Development
Optimization
2009
12
Compendial methods-Verification
2009
13
section 501(b) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as the regulatory
analytical procedures for the compendial items. The suitability of these procedures must be verified under actual conditions of use. When using USP
14
1995 ICH Validation Definitions: Q2A, Text on Validation of Analytical procedures 1997 ICH Validation Methodology: Q2B, Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology
15
16
The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of test methods employed by the firm
21 CFR PART 211 - CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR FINISHED PHARMACEUTICALS Subpart I-Laboratory Controls 211.165 Testing and release for distribution (e)
2009
17
ICH Guideline for Industry Q2A, Text on Validation of Analytical Procedures March 1995
2009
18
In practice, it is usually possible to design the experimental work such that the appropriate validation characteristics can be considered simultaneously to provide a sound, overall knowledge of the capabilities of the analytical procedure, for instance: Specificity, Linearity, Range, Accuracy, and Precision.
2009
19
ICH/USP
GMPs (legal)
FDA
2009
20
ICH
Specificity
Linearity Range Accuracy
Specificity Linearity and Range Accuracy Precision Limit of Detection Limit of Quantitation
Precision
Ruggedness
Robustness
2009
Precision
Specificity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
*
LOD
LOQ Linearity Range Ruggedness
2009
No
No Yes Yes Yes
No
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
No No * Yes
*
* * * Yes
22
USP Categories
Category 1: Quantitation of major components or active ingredients Category 2: Determination of impurities or degradation products Category 3: Determination of performance
characteristics
2009
23
Impurity testing Identification No No No Yes No No No No Quantitative Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Limit Tests No No No Yes Yes No No No Assay Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
24
Specificity/Selectivity
Ability of an analytical method to measure the analyte free from interference due to other components. Selectivity describes the ability of an analytical method to differentiate various substances in a sample
Original term used in USP Also Preferred by IUPAC and AOAC
the sample containing added impurities, degradation products, related chemical compounds, placebo ingredients
25
Demonstrate Resolution
Impurities/Degradants Available
Stress Samples For assay, Stressed and Unstressed Samples should be compared. For impurity test, impurity profiles should be compared.
2009
26
Oxidation (3-30%)
Light (UV/Vis/Fl)
27
Linearity
Ability of an assay to
elicit a direct and proportional response to changes in analyte concentration.
2009
28
concentration
By Appropriate statistical methods
29
Range
Acceptable range having linearity, accuracy, precision. For Drug Substance & Drug product Assay
Assays
30
Accuracy
Closeness of the test results obtained by the method to the true value.
31
Accuracy
Should be established across specified range of
analytical procedure. Should be assessed using a minimum of 3 concentration
Percent recovery of known amount added or The difference between the mean assay result and the accepted value
2009
32
0.0 50.2
79.6 99.9 120.2 150.4
0.0 50.4
80.1 100.7 119.8 149.7
--100.5
100.6 100.8 99.7 99.5
2009
33
Precision
The closeness of agreement (degree of
scatter) between a series of measurements obtained from multiple samplings of the same homogeneous sample.
34
2009
35
Repeatability
Express the precision
under the same operating conditions
Should be assessed
using minimum of 9 determinations
(3 concentrations/ 3
replicates) or Minimum of 6
determinations at the
100% level.
36
2009
Intermediate Precision
Express within-laboratory
variations. Expressed in terms of standard deviation, relative standard deviation (coefficient of variation) and confidence interval.
Depends on the
circumstances under which the procedure is intended
to be used.
Studies should include varying days, analysts, equipment, etc.
2009
37
Day 2
99.5 99.9
100.1
100.3 100.5 100.4 Mean = 100.5 RSD = 0.24%
98.9
99.2 99.7 99.6 Mean = 99.5 RSD = 0.36%
38
Reproducibility
Definition: Ability reproduce data within the predefined precision Determination: SD, RSD and confidence interval
Lab 1
Day 1 Man 1 3 Prep Day 2 Man 2 3 Prep
Lab 2
Day 1 Man 1 3 Prep Day 2 Man 2
Lab 3
Day 1 Man 1 3 Prep Day 2 Man 2 3 Prep
3 Prep
39
LOQ
Lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantified with suitable
quantitated.
Estimated by Signal to Noise Ratio of 3:1.
2009
41
3.3s DL = S
QL =
10s S
42
Y=bX+a
Statistical estimate of LOD & LOQ
2009
43
Robustness
Definition: Capacity to remain unaffected by small but deliberate variations in method parameters Determination: Comparison results under differing conditions with precision under normal conditions Examples of typical variations in LC
Influence of variations of pH in a mobile phase Influence of variations in mobile phase composition Different columns (different lots and/or suppliers)
Temperature
Flow rate
2009
44
Ruggedness
Degree of reproducibility of test results under a variety of conditions
Different Laboratories
Different Analysts Different Instruments Different Reagents Different Days Etc.
Expressed as %RSD
2009
45
Determination: repeatability, tailing factor (T), capacity factor (k), resolution (R), and theoretical Plates (N)
2009
46
USP 23 <621>
Parameters
K R T
Recommendations
In general k 2.0 R > 2, between the peak of interest and the closest potential interferent (degradant, internal STD, impurity, excipient, etc..) T2
N
Repeatability
2009
Re-validation
When
Method parameters have been changed The scope of the method has been changed Synthetic methods have been changed Impurity profile has been changed
What
48
2009
49
483 Observations
There was inadequate method validation specificity data to demonstrate that each method was capable of distinguishing the active ingredient from its impurities and degradation products.
Specificity studies did not include the minimum stress conditions of acid and base hydrolysis, oxidation, thermal degradation and photolysis, degradation schematic for the active ingredient that identifies the major degradation products
was not included for each product.
2009
50
51
52
ICH Update:
2009
53
A Unique Approach
International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) was created in 1990 Agreement between the EU, Japan and the USA to harmonize different regional requirements for registration of pharmaceutical drug products Unique because joint effort by regulators and associated pharmaceutical industry trade associations
2009
54
ICH Objectives
Identification and elimination of the need to duplicate studies to meet different regulatory requirements More efficient use of resources in the R&D process, as a consequence Quicker access for patients to safe and effective new medicines
2009
55
Working Groups
SAFETY EFFICACY
QUALITY
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
STEERING COMMITTEE
Endorses topics, guidelines and monitors progress
2009
56
Related Site
www.fda.gov www.fda.gov/cder/ www.waters.com www.usp.org
www.ich.org
www.aoac.org www.pharmweb.net
2009
57