Method validation establishment

Select a method. During method validation establish a valid equation for calculating the result, establish the value of any constants and establish the measurement conditions. 

During the method validation phase, the calibration, using the CS solutions, is repeated each day over at least one week to establish both the within-day and the day-to-day components of the variability. To this end, at least 6 CS, evenly spread over the concentration range, must be repeatedly run (m = 8-10 is usual), to yield n 50 measurements per day. If there are no problems with linearity and heteroscedacity, and if the precision is high (say, CV < 2-5%, depending on the context), the number of repeats m per concentration may be reduced from the second day onwards (m = 2 - 3 is reasonable). The reasoning behind... 

As laboratory accreditation becomes more established, the requirements to demonstrate traceability and to determine uncertainty will inevitably feature as part of method validation (Christensen 1996). The fundamental role which reference materials play in these steps has already been alluded to in the Introduction. 

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). 

Established in 1894, AOAC International is an independent association of scientists and organizations in the public and private sectors devoted to promoting methods validation and quality measurements in the analytical sciences. AOAC has a mission to ensure the development, testing, validation, and publication of reliable chemical and biological methods of analysis for foods, drugs, feed-stuffs, fertilizers, pesticides, water, forensic materials and other substances affecting public health and safety and the environment. 

Today, when a pesticide with no detectable residues is registered for use, a Tolerance or maximum residue limit (MRL) is established at the lowest concentration level at which the method was validated. However, for risk assessment purposes it would be wrong to use this number in calculating the risk posed to humans by exposure to the pesticide from the consumption of the food product. This would be assuming that the amount of the pesticide present in all food products treated with the pesticide and for which no detectable residues were found is just less than the lowest level of method validation (LLMV). The assumption is wrong, but there is no better way of performing a risk assessment calculation unless the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the method were clearly defined in a uniformly acceptable manner. 

Verification Confirmation that the method performance parameters established during method validation can be met. 

XRPD as a stability-indicating assay method When the phase identity, or degree of crystallinity (or lack thereof), of a drug substance is important to its performance in a drug product, XRPD can serve as a vital stability-indicating assay method. There is no doubt that XRPD can be validated to the status of any other stability-indicating assay, and that one can use the usual criteria of method validation to establish the performance parameters of the method. This aspect would... 

QC tests are carried out according to validated analytical methods or established methods from pharmacopoeias US Pharmacopoeia and British Pharmacopoeia. Exhibit 10.2 lists some of the QC analytical methods performed on drug intermediates and products. 

There are several reasons for careful placement of the ruggedness test in a program of method validation tests. Firstly the ruggedness test itself can be a complex and time consuming task and thus should be carried out as late in the method validation as possible, (i.e. when most other performance characteristics have been established and are acceptable). This reduces the chance of a failed ruggedness test and for this reason it is recommended that the precision study be one of the last experiments in a validation study. 

The basic criterion for successful validation was that a method should come within 25% of the "true value" at the 95% confidence level. To meet this criterion, the protocol for experimental testing and method validation was established with a firm statistical basis. A statistical protocol provided methods of data analysis that allowed the accuracy criterion to be evaluated with statistical parameters estimated from the laboratory test data. It also gave a means to evaluate precision and bias, independently and in combination, to determine the accuracy of sampling and analytical methods. The substances studied in the second phase of the study are summarized in Table I. 

The roles of method validation in the achievement of reliable results are (1) to include all possible effects or factors of influence on the final result, (2) to make them traceable to stated references [reference methods, reference materials, or International System of Units (SI)], and (3) to know the uncertainties associated with each of these effects and with the references. Validation is thus a tool to establish traceability to these references [2,4]. In this context, it is important to see the difference between traceability and accuracy. A method which is accurate, in terms of true (i.e., approximating the true value), is always traceable to what is considered to be the true value. The opposite however is not correct. A method that is traceable to a stated reference is not necessarely true (accurate). Errors can still occur in this method, depending on the reference [12]. 

This update on analytical quahty issues a common understanding on the topics of method validation, traceabihty, and MU of measurements. The interrelationships between method validation and traceability and MU of results have been elucidated. Throughout the landscape of guidelines and standards, the most relevant information was selected, compiled, and summarized. Different approaches are discussed for establishing traceability and assessing MU of analytical methods in general. The importance of both concepts and the link with method validation and analytical quality assurance are highlighted. 

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]. 

The test material is chosen to fulfill the aims of the study. In a proficiency testing scheme or a method validation study, the test material is usually as near as possible to typical field samples. There is no advantage in competently analyzing an artificial sample if the same laboratory has difficulty with real samples. The organizing laboratory must know the composition of the test material, and must be sure that the analyte for which a quantity is to be measured is present in about the desired amount. For pure materials this is not a problem, but for natural test materials or complex matrix materials, the organizing laboratory may have to do some analyses before the samples can be sent out to the participants. If the value of the measurand is to be established by an independent laboratory before the study, then the identity requirement is also fulfilled when the measurand is stated. 

If a method must be developed from scratch, or if an established method is changed radically from its original published form, then before the method is validated, the main task is simply to get the method to work. This means that the analyst is sure that the method can be used to yield results with acceptable trueness and measurement uncertainty (accuracy). When the analyst is satisfied that the method does work, then the essentials of method validation will also have been done, and now just need to be documented. If there is an aspect of the method that does not meet requirements, then further development will needed. Discovering and documenting that the method now does satisfy all requirements is the culmination of method validation. 

The foregoing discussion is encapsulated in figure 8.1, which shows that method validation can be seen as checking and signing off on a method development cycle, with the important caveat that initial development is often done in a single laboratory and so will not usually establish interlaboratory... 

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. 

How analytical methods deal with interferences is one of the more ad hoc aspects of method validation. There is a variety of approaches to studying interference, from adding arbitrary amounts of a single interferent in the absence of the analyte to establish the response of the instrument to that species, to multivariate methods in which several interferents are added in a statistical protocol to reveal both main and interaction effects. The first question that needs to be answered is to what extent interferences are expected and how likely they are to affect the measurement. In testing blood for glucose by an enzyme electrode, other electroactive species that may be present are ascorbic acid (vitamin C), uric acid, and paracetamol (if this drug has been taken). However, electroactive metals (e.g., copper and silver) are unlikely to be present in blood in great quantities. Potentiometric membrane electrode sensors (ion selective electrodes), of which the pH electrode is the... 

Full validation establishment of all validation parameters to apply to sample analysis for the bioanalytical method for each analyte. 

It may be important to consider the variability of the matrix due to the physiological nature of the sample. In the case of LC-M/MS-based procedures, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure the lack of matrix effects throughout application of the method, especially if the nature of the matrix changes from the matrix used during method validation. For Microbiological and immunoassay, if separation is used prior to assay for study samples but not for standards, it is important to establish recovery and use it in determining results. In this case, possible approaches to assess efficiency and reproducibility of recovery are ... 

---