Method validation development process

FIGURE 6.1 Conceptual diagram of fit for purpose biomarkers method validation. The method validation processes include four activity circles prevalidation (preanalytical consid eration and method development), exploratory method validation, in study method validation and advanced method validation. The processes are continuous and iterative, dictated by the purpose of the biomarker application. The solid arrows depict the normal flow of biomarker development (prevalidation), method validation (exploratory or advanced), and application (in study method validation). The process could include moving the chosen biomarkers from exploratory mechanistic pilot studies to advanced validation and confirmatory studies, or from exploratory validation to advanced validation after changes in critical business decision. The broken arrows represent scenarios where validation data do not satisfy study requirements, necessitating assay refinement or modification. 

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. 

The non-NADA method trial process mirrors the NADA process. Methods are developed, reviewed for scientific and technical soundness, and validated in multiple laboratories, and the data generated are analyzed to determine if the method is suitable for its intended use. 

In this article, an analytical method is defined as series of procedures from receipt of a sample to final determination of the residue. Validation is the process of verifying that a method is fit for purpose. Typically, validation follows completion of the development of a method. Validated analytical data are essential for monitoring of pesticide residues and control of legal residue limits. Analysts must provide information to demonstrate that a method intended for these purposes is capable of providing adequate specificity, accuracy and precision, at relevant analyte concentrations and in all matrices analyzed. 

Lastly, a laboratory not involved in the development process must validate the method. The independent laboratory validation study, or ruggedness trial, ensures that analysts unfamiliar with the method can successfully perform the method. The method developer should, therefore, strive to make all procedures as straightforward as possible to aid reproducibility of the method. 

Practical aspects of TLC method development comprise (i) searching for a suitable developing solvent (ii) optimising the visualisation and evaluation process and (iii) method validation. Table 4.34 lists the main features of HPTLC. 

In most pharmaceutical situations, however, there is often insufficient latitude in the formula or process to allow the necessary experimentation. The pharmaceutical industry is subject to regulatory constraints that make EVOP impossible to employ in validated production processes and, therefore, impractical and expensive to use. Moreover, EVOP is not a substitute for good laboratory-scale investigation and, because of the necessarily small changes utilized, is not particularly suitable to the laboratory. In pharmaceutical development, more efficient methods are desired. 

If for some reason the method validation process is not a GLP study, or a component thereof, the laboratory should adhere to the same data recording and retention principles as described for method development. 

The method development process with the multisorbent plate consists of three steps. In step 1, the sorbent chemistry and the pH for loading, washing, and elution are optimized. In step 2, optimization of the percentage organic for wash and elution and the pH of the buffer needed is carried out. Step 3 is validation the method developed from the results of the previous two steps is tested for linearity, limits of detection, quantitation of recovery, and matrix effects using a stable isotope-labeled analyte as an IS. 

Part II Part II is the report concerning chemical, pharmaceutical, and biological documentation. The report details the composition, method of development of formulation, manufacturing processes under GMP, analytical test procedures, bioavailability, and bioequivalence. It should be noted that all analytical test procedures need to be validated, and the validation studies must be provided. 

There are four different drug products under Part II chemical active substance(s), radiopharmaceutical products, biological medicinal products, and vegetable medicinal products. For example, the GMP production report for biological medicinal products includes description of the genes used, strain of cell line, cell bank system, fermentation and harvesting, purification, characterization, analytical method development, process validation, impurities, and batch analysis (GMP production of biopharmaceuticals is described in Chapter 10). A DMF (Exhibit 8.8) is submitted. 

In the process we have outlined, method validation is not considered to be the most time-consuming activity in the method development process (only 15% of the development time). 

In addition to online resources, other texts and references have discussed the process of validation for methods used in the pharmaceutical industry in relation to the regulatory guidance documents. These guides include discussions on method development in relation to method validation, the validation of non-chromatographic methods and stability indicating methods. 

Method validation is only a minor, but important part in the overall method development process. The purpose is to demonstrate by experimentation that the method is suitable for the intended purpose. Method validation in CE is extensively discussed in various chapters of this book. 

It is important to include the receiving lab early in the development process of analytical methods. In this way, the receiving lab can provide critical input that may be primordial for a successful application in QC. In return, the receiving lab will be familiarized with the resulting method description and can receive proper training of analysts to perform the method, prior to final validation of the method. As a result method transfer activities are bound to be successful. This concept is essential for new technologies such as CE to be introduced in the QC environment. 

HPLC methods can usually be transferred without many modifications, since most commercially available HPLC instruments behave similarly. This is certainly true when the columns applied have a similar selectivity. One adaptation, sometimes needed, concerns the gradient profiles, because of different instrumental or pump dead-volumes. However, larger differences exist between CE instruments, e.g., in hydrodynamic injection procedures, in minimum capillary lengths, in capillary distances to the detector, in cooling mechanisms, and in the injected sample volumes. This makes CE method transfers more difficult. Since robustness tests are performed to avoid transfer problems, these tests seem even more important for CE method validation, than for HPLC method validation. However, in the literature, a robustness test only rarely is included in the validation process of a CE method, and usually only linearity, precision, accuracy, specificity, range, and/or limits of detection and quantification are evaluated. Robustness tests are described in references 20 and 59-92. Given the instrumental transfer problems for CE methods, a robustness test guaranteeing to some extent a successful transfer should include besides the instrument on which the method was developed at least one alternative instrument. 

Finally, process analytics methods can be used in commercial manufacturing, either as temporary methods for gaining process information or troubleshooting, or as permanent installations for process monitoring and control. The scope of these applications is often more narrowly defined than those in development scenarios. It will be most relevant for manufacturing operations to maintain process robustness and/or reduce variability. Whereas the scientific scope is typically much more limited in permanent installations in production, the practical implementation aspects are typically much more complex than in an R D environment. The elements of safety, convenience, reliability, validation and maintenance are of equal importance for the success of the application in a permanent installation. Some typical attributes of process analytics applications and how they are applied differently in R D and manufacturing are listed in Table 2.1. 

Step 5 Off-line method or analyzer development and validation This step is simply standard analytical chemistry method development. For an analyzer that is to be used off-line, the method development work is generally done in an R D or analytical lab and then the analyzer is moved to where it will be used (QA/ QC lab, at-line manufacturing lab, etc.). For an analyzer that is to be used on-line, it may be possible to calibrate the analyzer off-line in a lab, or in situ in a lab reactor or a semiworks unit, and then move the analyzer to its on-line process location. Often, however, the on-line analyzer will need to be calibrated (or recalibrated) once it is in place (see Step 7). Off-line method development and validation generally includes method development and optimization, identification of appropriate check samples, method validation, and written documentation. Again, the form of the documentation (often called the method or the procedure ) is company-specific, but it typically includes principles behind the method, equipment needed, safety precautions, procedure steps, and validation results (method accuracy, precision, etc.). It is also useful to document here which approaches did not work, for the benefit of future workers. 

For the practical implementation of this task, it is necessary to evaluate the intervention (in this case substance release) per se and in its own context (contextu-alisation). It is necessary to develop process types to evaluate the two conditions knowledge and lack of knowledge (proceduralisation). A time limit for validation must be set in each case (temporalisation). The questions, methods and processes must be examined regularly (reflexive method). 

A fully automated on-line SPE-HPLC-MS-MS method was developed and validated for the direct analysis of 14 antidepressants and their metabolites in plasma by de Castro et al. [75]. After direct injection of 50pL of plasma without prior sample pre-treatment, gradient RP separation was completed in 14 min, with a sample throughput of 3h. LOQs were estimated to be at 10 ng/ mL. Analytes proved to be stable during sample process with the exception of clomipramine and norclomipramine. 

---