The method trial

The FDA requires [FDC Act, Section 512 (b)(1)(G)] that methods used for the detection and confirmation of drug residues in animal products be practicable. Overseeing the reliability of these methods is the responsibility of the FDA CVM. The methods are corroborated using an interlaboratory evaluation of the method known as a method trial. The method trial is used to demonstrate that the method is suitable for use to detect and confirm drug residues and can be performed by a trained analytical chemist. 

The NADA method approval process consists of three phases (1) method development by the sponsor and generation of information to establish that the method satisfies acceptability criteria (2) FDA review of the sponsor s data to determine suitability of the method and (3) the method trial , an inter-laboratory study, which determine whether the method meets performance criteria when used in multiple laboratories. The inter-laboratory method trial procedure provides an indication of a method s ability to be used as a practicable and reliable regulatory tool. Sponsors are urged to develop methods that are mgged and exceed rather than meet the minimal standards of acceptability. Those methods that appear marginally acceptable after review often do not pass the inter-laboratory method trial. 

The method trial process for NADA methods is different to the process for non-NADA methods. However, the validation protocol followed by the participating laboratories and the requirements for acceptance of the method are the same. The trial process also differs for determinative procedures and confirmatory procedures. Determinative procedures are evaluated using the multiple laboratory process, whereas the confirmatory method needs to be evaluated only in a single government laboratory. 

The evaluation of all NADA analytical methods was previously conducted exclusively by the CVM. Since 1995, the CVM has offered sponsors of NADA residue methods the option of conducting the method trial through a Sponsor Monitored Method Trial (SMMT) process. The SMMT is conducted according to CVM specifications with CVM oversight. The resultant performance data must be reviewed and judged acceptable by CVM before the method is approved. 

In the SMMT process, draft protocols are reviewed, and guidance provided to the sponsor to help ensure that the format and specifications are adequate. The protocol should be approved by CVM prior to the initiation of the method trial. Once the protocol and method description are acceptable to CVM, the methods are sent to the participating laboratories for review, and a method demonstration is scheduled. The method demonstration, attended by all participating laboratory analysts, involves review of the study protocol and method SOP and a laboratory demonstration of the method. Ideally, all revisions are completed by the end of the demonstration and the study protocol is signed. 

At a minimum, the method will be tested in one FDA laboratory and two contract laboratories selected by the sponsor. If the method is for a new animal drug in tissue regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of the meat inspection program, a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)/USDA laboratory will be included if sufficient resources are available. The method trial will be conducted using control and incurred target tissues that are supplied by the sponsor. The sponsor may, on request, supply new or unusual reagents or standards. 

Following the completion of the trial, each participating contract laboratory provides a report of their results to the method trial Study Director. The government laboratory(ies) provide their results to the CVM method trial coordinator. The sponsor compiles the final results from participating laboratories into a summary report. A final version of the SOP is also provided that includes any revisions made because of observations made during the trial. The summary report, electronic and hard copies of all laboratory results, work sheets, and reports from each of the participating laboratories are sent to CVM for final review and acceptance. This should include electronic copies of all information necessary to verify all of the results. 

The FDA coordinates the method trial process for non-NADA methods. The sample requirements are the same as for the NADA trials. Non-Federal laboratories such as contract laboratories and State laboratories can participate in the process. For a single-residue method, the minimum numbers of samples and laboratories are the same as for NADA method trials. 

Non-NADA methods may be designed to detect multiple residues and they may be designed for use in multiple species. In order to validate these multi-residue methods, modifications to the validation protocol relative to single analyte methods are made. Additional laboratories will participate in the method trial, but the number of samples... 

The optimum value of the relaxation factor k can be obtained from the largest eigenvalue of s. This eigenvalue may, in turn, be obtained approximately from the relative magnitude of vectors oik) and oik+1). Improvements discussed in the next section, and amplified in the next chapter, significantly alter the method. Trial-and-error choice of k is therefore preferable and probably necessary. 

The idea may be illustrated by considering first a method for increasing the acceptance rate of moves (but at the expense of trying, and discarding, several other possible moves). Having picked an atom to move, calculate the new trial interaction energy for a range of trial positions t = 1.. . k. Pick the actual attempted move from this set, with a probability proportional to the Boltzmann factor. This biases the move selection. 

The main difference between the force-bias and the smart Monte Carlo methods is that the latter does not impose any limit on the displacement that m atom may undergo. The displacement in the force-bias method is limited to a cube of the appropriate size centred on the atom. However, in practice the two methods are very similar and there is often little to choose between them. In suitable cases they can be much more efficient at covering phase space and are better able to avoid bottlenecks in phase space than the conventional Metropolis Monte Carlo algorithm. The methods significantly enhance the acceptance rate of trial moves, thereby enabling Icirger moves to be made as well as simultaneous moves of more than one particle. However, the need to calculate the forces makes the methods much more elaborate, and comparable in complexity to molecular dynamics. 

The described method can generate a first-order backward or a first-order forward difference scheme depending whether 0 = 0 or 0 = 1 is used. For 9 = 0.5, the method yields a second order accurate central difference scheme, however, other considerations such as the stability of numerical calculations should be taken into account. Stability analysis for this class of time stepping methods can only be carried out for simple cases where the coefficient matrix in Equation (2.106) is symmetric and positive-definite (i.e. self-adjoint problems Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 1994). Obviously, this will not be the case in most types of engineering flow problems. In practice, therefore, selection of appropriate values of 6 and time increment At is usually based on trial and error. Factors such as the nature of non-linearity of physical parameters and the type of elements used in the spatial discretization usually influence the selection of the values of 0 and At in a problem. 

In many cases an optimized method may produce excellent results in the laboratory developing the method, but poor results in other laboratories. This is not surprising since a method is often optimized by a single analyst under an ideal set of conditions, in which the sources of reagents, equipment, and instrumentation remain the same for each trial. The procedure might also be influenced by environmental factors, such as the temperature or relative humidity in the laboratory, whose levels are not specified in the procedure and which may differ between laboratories. Finally, when optimizing a method the analyst usually takes particular care to perform the analysis in exactly the same way during every trial. 

A newly proposed method is to be tested for its singleoperator characteristics. To be competitive with the standard method, the new method must have a relative standard deviation of less than 10%, with a bias of less than 10%. To test the method, an analyst performs ten replicate analyses on a standard sample known to contain 1.30 ppm of the analyte. The results for the ten trials are... 

The nonlinear constant in these equations cannot be evaluated dkecdy by the methods previously described. Even forms such as these can be handled, however. For example, subtracting a trial value of a fromjy and taking logarithms transforms equation 97 into the linear form ... 

Integration is by successive approximation, using essentially Eulers method. For the first trial. 

There are several valuable references to developing and applying a multicomponent distillation program, including Holland [26, 27,169], Prausnitz [52, 53], Wang and Henke [76], Thurston [167], Boston and Sullivan [6], Maddox and Erbar [115], and the pseudo-K method of Maddox and Fling [116]. Convergence of the iterative trials to reach a criterion requires careful evaluation [114]. There are sever-... 

The graphical methods of Bras provide helpful short-cuts to avoid the tedious trial-and-error solutions required of the rigorous methods. Reference 9 is the most recent and perhaps the easier to use. The results agree in general within about 10%. 

This compares to assumed value of 0.001 + 0.001 = 0.002 The Kern method is usually easier to handle for pressure systems than for vacuum systems. The recirculation ratio is higher and, therefore, requires more trials to narrow-in on a reasonable value for the low pressure systems. The omission of two-phase flow in pressure drop analysis may be a serious problem in the low pressure system, because a ratio on the high side may result, causing a high hj value. In general, however, for systems from atmospheric pressure and above, the method usually gives conservative results when used within Kern s limitations. 

---