Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures: a SFSTP proposal part IV. Examples of application.

A harmonized approach for the validation of analytical methods based on accuracy profile was introduced by a SFSTP commission on the validation of analytical procedure. This fourth and last document aims at illustrating this methodology and the statistics used. Therefore the validation of real case methods are proposed such as methods for the quality control of drugs, for the quantitation of impurities in drug substances, for bioanalysis or for the determination of nutriments. Furthermore, different types of analytical methods are used in order to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach to a wide range of methods such as liquid chromatography (LC-UV, LC-MS), spectrophotometry or ELISA.

Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal--part III.

In the first two documents [Ph. Hubert, J.J. Nguyen-Huu, B. Boulanger, E. Chapuzet, P. Chiap, N. Cohen, P.A. Compagnon, W. Dewé, M. Feinberg, M. Lallier, M. Laurentie, N. Mercier, G. Muzard, C. Nivet, L. Valat, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 36 (2004) 579-586; Ph. Hubert, J.J. Nguyen-Huu, B. Boulanger, E. Chapuzet, P. Chiap, N. Cohen, P.A. Compagnon, W. Dewé, M. Feinberg, M. Lallier, M. Laurentie, N. Mercier, G. Muzard, C. Nivet, L. Valat, E. Rozet, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., in press], a recent SFSTP Commission on the validation of analytical procedure has introduced a harmonized approach for the validation of analytical procedures. In order to complete this guide, the statistical methodology allowing to correctly conclude about the validity of a procedure is proposed in this third part of the guide. Indeed all the steps to obtain the decision tool namely the accuracy profile are described and illustrated step by step by a numerical example. This tool, based on the concept of total error (bias+standard deviation) build with a beta-expectation tolerance interval, allows to easily take the right decision and simultaneously minimizing the risk of the future use of the analytical procedure.

Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal--part II.

As reported in a previous paper, the main objective of the new commission of the Société Française des Sciences et Techniques Pharmaceutiques (SFSTP) was the harmonisation of approaches for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. In a series of meetings, members of this Commission have first tried to review the objectives of analytical methods and the objectives of validation methods and to recommend the use of two-sided beta-expectation tolerance intervals for total error of validation samples (accuracy profile) in the acceptance/rejection of analytical method in validation phase. In the context of the harmonization, the other objectives were: (i) to propose a consensus on the norms usually recognized, while widely incorporating the ISO terminology; (ii) to recommend to validate the analytical procedure accordingly to the way it will be used in routine; (iii) to elaborate a rational, practical and statistically reliable strategy to assure the quality of the analytical results generated. This strategy has been formalised in a guide and the three latter objectives made by the Commission are summarised in the present paper which is the second part of summary report of the SFSTP commission. The SFSTP guide has been produced to help analysts to validate their analytical methods. It is the result of a consensus between professionals having expertise in analytical and/or statistical fields. The suggestions presented in this paper should therefore help the analyst to design and perform the minimum number validation experiments needed to obtain all the required information to establish and demonstrate the reliability of its analytical procedure.

Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal--Part I.

This paper is the first part of a summary report of a new commission of the Société Française des Sciences et Techniques Pharmaceutiques (SFSTP). The main objective of this commission was the harmonization of approaches for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. Indeed, the principle of the validation of theses procedures is today widely spread in all the domains of activities where measurements are made. Nevertheless, this simple question of acceptability or not of an analytical procedure for a given application, remains incompletely determined in several cases despite the various regulations relating to the good practices (GLP, GMP, ...) and other documents of normative character (ISO, ICH, FDA, ...). There are many official documents describing the criteria of validation to be tested, but they do not propose any experimental protocol and limit themselves most often to the general concepts. For those reasons, two previous SFSTP commissions elaborated validation guides to concretely help the industrial scientists in charge of drug development to apply those regulatory recommendations. If these two first guides widely contributed to the use and progress of analytical validations, they present, nevertheless, weaknesses regarding the conclusions of the performed statistical tests and the decisions to be made with respect to the acceptance limits defined by the use of an analytical procedure. The present paper proposes to review even the bases of the analytical validation for developing harmonized approach, by distinguishing notably the diagnosis rules and the decision rules. This latter rule is based on the use of the accuracy profile, uses the notion of total error and allows to simplify the approach of the validation of an analytical procedure while checking the associated risk to its usage. Thanks to this novel validation approach, it is possible to unambiguously demonstrate the fitness for purpose of a new method as stated in all regulatory documents.

[Verification/validation of the performances of analytical method]. / Vérification/validation des performances d'une méthode d'analyse.

The verification and validation of methods consist in evaluating the precision, the analytical range, the accuracy, the trueness and the detection limit, if appropriate. These measurements must follow a standardized protocol and the obtained results must be compared to defined quality criteria. Each chapter includes, the purpose, the material used, the operating procedures, the collection of results, the calculation and is illustrated by an example. This document aims at simplifying, standardizing and optimizing the evaluation in order to allow a comparison between laboratories and to facilitate method assessment.

Critical analysis of several analytical method validation strategies in the framework of the fit for purpose concept.

Analytical method validation is a mandatory step at the end of the development in all analytical laboratories. It is a highly regulated step of the life cycle of a quantitative analytical method. However, even if some documents have been published there is a lack of clear guidance for the methodology to follow to adequately decide when a method can be considered as valid. This situation has led to the availability of several methodological approaches and it is therefore the responsibility of the analyst to choose the best one. The classical decision processes encountered during method validation evaluation are compared, namely the descriptive, difference and equivalence approaches. Furthermore a validation approach using accuracy profile computed by means of beta-expectation tolerance interval and total measurement error is also available. In the present paper all of these different validation approaches were applied to the validation of two analytical methods. The evaluation of the producer and consumer risks by Monte Carlo simulations were also made in order to compare the appropriateness of these various approaches. The classical methodologies give rise to inadequate and contradictory conclusions which do not allow them to answer adequately the objective of method validation, i.e. to give enough guarantees that each of the future results that will be generated by the method during routine use will be close enough to the true value. It is found that the validation methodology which gives the most guarantees with regards to the reliability or adequacy of the decision to consider a method as valid is the one based on the use of the accuracy profile.