Analytical method validation characteristics

ANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION CHARACTERISTICS Method development... 

Analytical method validation, which must be performed by every regulated laboratory, deals with the testing of significant method characteristics to ensure that under... 

A collaborative study between various analytical methods chemists who developed the analytical method and the analytical chemists in the quality control laboratory who must routinely run the method will help to ensure the validity and ruggedness of the analytical method. If characteristics of the analytical method are found to be less than optimum or if deficiencies arise during testing, the method should be returned to the originating chemist for re-evaluation. 

In 1996 and 1997 the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) published guidelines for analytical method validation [8]. These documents present a discussion of the characteristics for consideration during the validation of the analytical procedures included as part of registration applications submitted within the European Union, Japan, and the United States. 

Analytical method validation has developed within the pharmaceutical industry over the years in order to produce an assurance of the capabilities of an analytical method. A recent text on validation of analytical techniques has been published by the international Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) [19]. This discusses the four most common analytical procedures (1) identification test, (2) quantitative measurements for content of impurities, (3) limit test for the control of impurities and (4) quantitative measurement of the active moiety in samples of drug substance or drug product or other selected components of the drug product. As in any analytical method, the characteristics of the assay are determined and used to provide quantitative data which demonstrate the analytical validation. The reported validation data for CE are identical to those produced by an LC or GC method [11] and are derived from the same parameters, i.e. peak time and response. Those validation parameters featured by the ICH (Table 1) are derived from the peak data generated by the method. Table 1 also indicates those aspects of a CE method (instrumentation and chemistry), peculiar to the technique, which can affect the peak data and highlights factors which can assist the user in demonstrating the validation parameters. 

The following gives definitions of method validation characteristics following the references (2,4) ICH Q2A Text on Validation of Analytical Procedures and ICH Q2B Validation of Analytical Procedures Methodology. ICH Q2A identifies the validation characteristics that should be evaluated for a variety of analytical methods. ICH Q2B presents guidelines for carrying out the validation of these characteristics. 

ANALYTICAL METHODS VALIDATION The process by which it is established, by laboratory studies, that the performance characteristics of the method meet the requirements for the intended analytical applications. 

In 1996 and 1997 the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) published guidelines for analytical method validation [18]. These documents present a discussion of the characteristics for consideration during the validation of the analytical procedures included as part of registration applications submitted within the European Union, Japan, and the United States. Regulatory agencies have emitted documents, largely inspired by ICH documents. It is the case of the FDA [19, 20], the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [21,24], and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [25], to name just a few. 

The guideline states that the objective of validation is to demonstrate that an analytical method is fit for its purpose and summarizes the characteristics required of tests for identification, control of impurities and assay procedures (Table 13-2). As such, it applies to chiral drug substances as to any other active ingredients. Requirements for other analytical procedures may be added in due course. 

Even if most examples and procedures presented apply to in-house validation, the procedure does not distinguish between validations conducted in a single laboratory and those carried out within inter-laboratory method performance studies. A preference for inter-laboratory studies can be concluded from the statement that laboratories should always give priority to methods which have been tested in method performance studies. Within the procedure a profound overview of different categories of analytical methods according to the available documentation and previous external validation is given. For example, if a method is externally validated in a method performance study, it should be tested for trueness and precision only. On the other hand, a full validation is recommended for those methods which are published in the scientific literature without complete presentation of essential performance characteristics (Table 9). 

If analytical methods are validated in inter-laboratory validation studies, documentation should follow the requirements of the harmonized protocol of lUPAC. " However, multi-matrix/multi-residue methods are applicable to hundreds of pesticides in dozens of commodities and have to be validated at several concentration levels. Any complete documentation of validation results is impossible in that case. Some performance characteristics, e.g., the specificity of analyte detection, an appropriate calibration range and sufficient detection sensitivity, are prerequisites for the determination of acceptable trueness and precision and their publication is less important. The LOD and LOQ depend on special instmmentation, analysts involved, time, batches of chemicals, etc., and cannot easily be reproduced. Therefore, these characteristics are less important. A practical, frequently applied alternative is the publication only of trueness (most often in terms of recovery) and precision for each analyte at each level. No consensus seems to exist as to whether these analyte-parameter sets should be documented, e.g., separately for each commodity or accumulated for all experiments done with the same analyte. In the latter case, the applicability of methods with regard to commodities can be documented in separate tables without performance characteristics. 

In a widely accepted definition, an analytical method can be defined as the series of procedures from receipt of a sample to the production of the final result. Often, not all procedures can be validated in an adequate way. However, even in such cases, where all procedures of a method are validated, the performance characteristics obtained do not reflect all sources of error. In a recent paper,the complete ladder of errors is described in the following way ... 

Analytical methods, particularly those used by accredited laboratories, have to be validated according to official rules and regulations to characterize objectively their reliability in any special field of application (Wegscheider [1996] EURACHEM/WELAC [1993]). Validation has to control the performance characteristics of analytical procedures (see Chap. 7) such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity, selectivity, specificity, robustness, ruggedness, and limit values (e.g., limit of detection, limit of quantitation). 

According to USP 28 [1], validation of an analytical method is the process by which it is established, through the conduct of laboratory studies, that the performance characteristics of the method meet the requirements for the intended analytical applications. Therefore, validation is an important step in determining the reliability and reproducibility of the method because it is able to confirm that the intended method is suitable to be conducted on a particular system. 

System suitability test characteristics and limits are recommended as a component of any analytical method. This ensures that both methodology and instrumentation are performing within expectations prior to the analysis of test samples. The test characteristics are inferred from robustness studies and evaluated during the validation experiments. 

Changes in the analytical method or manufacturing processes may necessitate re-validation to ensure that the analytical method maintains its performance characteristics. The degree of re-validation depends on the nature of the change and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

Analytical data generated in a testing laboratory are generally used for development, release, stability, or pharmacokinetic studies. Regardless of what the data are required for, the analytical method must be able to provide reliable data. Method validation (Chapter 7) is the demonstration that an analytical procedure is suitable for its intended use. During the validation, data are collected to show that the method meets requirements for accuracy, precision, specificity, detection limit, quantitation limit, linearity, range, and robustness. These characteristics are those recommended by the ICH and will be discussed first. 

Validation is the process of proving that a method is acceptable for its intended purpose. It is important to note that it is the method, not the results, that are validated (Chapter 10). The most important aspect of any analytical method is the quality of the data it ultimately produces. The development and validation of a new analytical method may therefore be an iterative process. Results of validation studies may indicate that a change in the procedure is necessary, which may then require revalidation. Before a method is routinely used, it must be validated. There are a number of criteria for validating an analytical method, as different performance characteristics will require different validation criteria. 

Considering the variety of analytical methods, it becomes obvious that different test methods require different validation schemes. ICH distinguishes mainly four different cases shown in Table 3. It is the responsibility of the applicants to choose the validation procedure and protocol most suitable for their method because different performance characteristics will require different validation criteria. 

The USP requirements for assay validation are very close to the ICH proposal. Here, three categories are distinguished. Category I corresponds to ICH assay, category II corresponds to ICH determinations of impurities. The additional category III includes analytical methods for the determination of performance characteristics (e.g., dissolution, drug release). For this category, the ICH assay characteristics are always sufficient. The objective of the analytical procedure... 

Method Validation is the process of estabhshing the performance characteristics and limitations of a method and of verifying that a method is fit for purpose, i.e. for use for solving a particular analytical problem. 

The quality plan defines the inputs and outputs of any laboratory process. For example, the quality plans refer to the analytical methods, the irrstnrments and laboratory equipment that are used for the analysis, the characteristics of the analysis results etc. All laboratory processes (e g. analytical methods) and laboratory products (e g. analytical resrrlts) should be subject to verification and validation to ensme that they are fit for the ptrrpose. The acceptance criteria should be defined and records should always be kept as evidence of meeting the requirements. 

What we have seen up to here is the basic calibration that delivers method characteristics for the pure physical measurement in the validation and re-validation procedure. Many analytical methods however require a frequent, sometimes daily calibration. Of course there is no need to have a 10 point calibration for everyday calibration. 

Several overall conclusions can be drawn based on the statistical evaluation of the data submitted by the participants of the DR CALUX intra-and interlaboratory validation study. First, differences in expertise between the laboratories are apparent based on the results for the calibration curves (both for the curves as provided by the coordinator and for the curves that were prepared by the participants) and on the differences in individual measurement variability. Second, the average results, over all participants, are very close to the true concentration, expressed in DR CALUX 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs for the analytical samples. Furthermore, the interlaboratory variation for the different sample types can be regarded as estimates for the method variability. The analytical method variability is estimated to be 10.5% for analytical samples and 22.0% for sediment extracts. Finally, responses appear dependent on the dilution of the final solution to be measured. This is hypothesized to be due to differences in dose-effect curves for different dioxin responsive element-active substances. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, this effect is not observed. Overall, based on bioassay characteristics presented here and harmonized quality criteria published elsewhere (Behnisch et al., 2001a), the DR CALUX bioassay is regarded as an accurate and reliable tool for intensive monitoring of coastal sediments. 

Before any method validation is started, the scope of validation must be fixed, comprising both the analytical system and the analytical requirement. A description of the analytical system includes the purpose and type of method, the type and concentration range of analyte(s) being measured, the types of material or matrices for which the method is applied, and a method protocol. On the basis of a good analysis lies a clear specification of the analytical requirement. The latter reflects the minimum fitness-for-purpose criteria or the different performance criteria the method must meet in order to solve the particular problem. For example, a minimum precision (RSD, see below) of 5% may be required or a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.1% (w/w) [2,4,15,58]. The established criteria for performance characteristics form the basis of the final acceptability of analytical data and of the validated method [58]. 

---