Analytical method validation parameters

Analytical procedures used as part of a registration dossier in Europe, Japan, or the United States of America should be validated according ICH guideline Q2(R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures Text and Methodology. The objective of analytical method validation is to demonstrate that the analytical procedure is suitable for its intended purpose. Depending on the type of analytical procedure, evaluation of different validation parameters is required. The four most common types of analytical procedures described in this ICH guideline are... 

Traceability and MU both form parts of the purpose of an analytical method. Validation plays an important role here, in the sense that it confirms the fitness-for-purpose of a particular analytical method [4]. The ISO definition of validation is confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements of a specified intended use are fulfilled [7]. Validation is the tool used to demonstrate that a specific analytical method actually measures what it is intended to measure and thus is suitable for its intended purpose [2,11]. In Section 8.2.3, the classical method validation approach is described based on the evaluation of a number of method performance parameters. Summarized, the cri-teria-based validation process consists of precision and bias studies, a check for... 

In practice, data from method validation and collaborative studies form the basis for but are only a part of MU estimation. MU is thus more than just a method performance parameter, as described extensively in Section 8.2.2. Over the years, the concept of MU has won attention in all analytical areas and this has led to two different approaches currently accepted and used for analytical method validation. 

Method validation is a term used for the suite of procedures to which an analytical method is subjected to provide objective evidence that the method, if used in the manner specified, will produce results that conform to the statement of the method validation parameters. Like many aspects quality assurance, method validation is of a relative nature. As with the concept of fitness for purpose, a method is validated for a particular use under particular circumstances. If those circumstances vary, then the method would need to be re-validated at least for the differences. Common sense should be used, and the analysts should use his or her skill and experience to decide what aspects of a method require validation and to what extent. The goal of satisfying client requirements is prominent in most published definitions of method validation, some of which are listed below ... 

Not all methods require each parameter detailed in table 8.2 to be established. For example, a method that only measures the active ingredient in a 100-mg cold cure as part of a quality control protocol is not concerned with limit of detection, the matrix is fixed, and the calibration range might only need to be established between 80 and 120 mg. An analysis that determines the presence or absence of the target analyte needs only to establish its selectivity, limit of detection, and ruggedness. Table 8.3 details some common analytical systems with their critical method validation parameters. 

Analytical system Critical method validation parameters Other validation parameters3... 

During the 1990 Washington Conference on Analytical Methods Validation Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies [1], parameters that should be used for method validation were defined. The final report of this conference is considered the most comprehensive document on the validation of bioanalytical methods. Many multinational pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations contributed to its final draft. This scientific meeting was sponsored by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The conference report has been used as a reference by bioanalytical laboratories and regulatory agencies worldwide. 

Analytical methods validation Critical operating parameters... 

Analytical methods validation—As mentioned earlier, a good CVMP should allow the analytical method to develop concurrently with the product formulation, thus in the early stages of development, an analytical method may not be fully validated but may still be used for cleaning tests as the best available method. At the time of the PAI, however, and definitely by the time the formal cleaning validation occurs, a fully validated analytical method should be developed. This methods validation package should include all the standard parameters, with special attention to the sensitivity of the analytical method as expressed by the limit of detection (LOD) and... 

Phase 2. Analytical method validation prior to routine use and after changing method parameters. 

An attempt for harmonization was made at the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) in 1995 and 1996 by representatives from the industry and regulatory agencies from the United States, Europe, and Japan, who defined parameters, requirements, and, to some extent, also methodology, for analytical methods validation. 

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 process of method validation (i.e., evaluation of the assay) affects the quality of the quantitative data directly [9 A Guide to Analytical Method Validation, Waters Corporation]. Through method validation, it is assured that the method developed is acceptable. Issues involved in the validation of a mass spectrometry method for quantitative analysis are similar to those in any other analytical technique. The validation involves undertaking a series of studies to demonstrate the limit of detection G OD) limit of quantitation (LOQ) linear range specificity within-day precision and accuracy and day-to-day precision and accuracy, specificity, and robustness of the method. All of these parameters must be determined with those commonly accepted good laboratory practices criteria that are applicable in the vafidation of analytical methods. 

Table 2 Important method validation parameters for particular analytical requirements...

Principles and Characteristics Whereas parameters most relevant to method development are considered to be accuracy, system precision, linearity, range, LOD, LOQ, sensitivity and robustness, method validation parameters are mainly bias, specificity, recovery (and stability of the analyte), repeatability, intermediate precision, reproducibility and ruggedness. However, method development and validation are highly related. Also, validation characteristics are not independent they influence each other. Acceptance criteria for validation parameters should be based on the specification limits of the test procedure. Quantitation and detection limits need a statement of the precision at their concentration levels. Procedures used for validation of qualitative methods are generally less involved than those for quantitative analytical methods. According to Riley [82], who has discussed the various parameters for validation of quantitative analytical methods, the primary statistical parameters that validate an analytical method are accuracy and precision. 

Numerical simulations are designed to solve, for the material body in question, the system of equations expressing the fundamental laws of physics to which the dynamic response of the body must conform. The detail provided by such first-principles solutions can often be used to develop simplified methods for predicting the outcome of physical processes. These simplified analytic techniques have the virtue of calculational efficiency and are, therefore, preferable to numerical simulations for parameter sensitivity studies. Typically, rather restrictive assumptions are made on the bounds of material response in order to simplify the problem and make it tractable to analytic methods of solution. Thus, analytic methods lack the generality of numerical simulations and care must be taken to apply them only to problems where the assumptions on which they are based will be valid. 

The specification development process is a data-driven activity that requires a validated analytical method. The levels of data needed include assay precision, replicate process results (process precision), and real-time stability profiles. A statistical analysis of these data is critical in setting a realistic specification. Most often, aggregation and fragmentation degradation mechanisms are common to protein and peptide therapeutics. Therefore, the SE-HPLC method provides a critical quality parameter that would need to be controlled by a specification limit. 

Other features of an analytical method that should be borne in mind are its linear range, which should be as large as possible to allow samples containing a wide range of analyte concentrations to be analysed without further manipulation, and its precision and accuracy. Method development and validation require all of these parameters to be studied and assessed quantitatively. 

Identification of sources of analytical bias in method development and method validation is another very important application of reference materials in geochemical laboratories. USGS applied simplex optimization in establishing the best measurement conditions when the ICP-AES method was introduced as a substitute for AAS in the rapid rock procedure for major oxide determinations (Leary et al. 1982). The optimized measurement parameters were then validated by analyzing a number of USGS rock reference samples for which reference values had been established first by classical analyses. Similar optimization of an ICP-AES procedure for a number of trace elements was validated by the analysis of U S G S manganese nodule P-i (Montaser et al. 1984). 

Analytical methods submitted by applicants are evaluated using harmonized criteria (see Section 2.5). The following presentation provides a brief overview of the validation parameters used in the registration of plant protection products and their a.i. These parameters are as follows ... 

Table 4 Validation parameters and criteria appUed for the assessment of enforcement analytical methods...

To demonstrate the validity of an analytical method, data regarding working range/ calibration, recovery, repeatability, specificity and LOQ have to be provided for each relevant sample matrix. Most often these data have to be collected from several studies, e.g., from several validation reports of the developer of the method, the independent laboratory validation or the confirmatory method trials. If the intended use of a pesticide is not restricted to one matrix type and if residues are transferred via feedstuffs to animals and finally to foodstuffs of animal origin, up to 30 sets of the quality parameters described above are necessary for each analyte of the residue definition. Table 2 can be used as a checklist to monitor the completeness of required data. 

Komit6 for Levnedsmidler (NMKL)]. The standard presents a universal validation approach for chemical analytical methods in the food sector. This includes methods for the main constituents and also for trace components. Therefore, the NMKL procedure focuses on primary validation parameters, such as specificity, calibration, trueness, precision, LOD or LOQ and does not refer to special requirements of pesticide residue analysis. 

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. 

Once the determinative or confirmatory method has been developed to take full advantage of the chemical properties of the analyte molecule, a study is necessary to prove that the method is valid. Criteria for method validation are outlined in guidelines from the US FDA, US EPA, and EU. A summary of the differences in regulatory requirements for method validation is provided in Table 3. The parameters addressed by all of the regulatory guidelines include accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and practicability. 

---