Analytical method validation by manoj ingale(best ppts)

Analytical Method Validation

Presented By -MR.MANOJ INGALE.

(Quality Assurance Techniques)

REGULATORY GUIDELINES

ICH-Q2R1/Q2A “Text on Validation of AnalyticalProcedure (1994)

ICH-Q2R1/Q2B “Validation of Analytical ProceduresMethodology (1995)

CDER “Reviewer Guidance: Validation ofChromatographic Method” (1994)

8/19/2015 2Analytical Method Validation

REGULATORY GUIDELINES

CDER “Submitting Samples and Analytical Data forMethod Validations” (1987)

CDER Draft “Analytical Procedures and MethodValidation” (2000)

CDER “Bioanalytical Method Validation for HumanStudies” (1999)

USP<1225> “Validation of Compendial Methods”

8/19/2015 3Analytical Method Validation

CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO METHOD VALIDATION

Suitability of InstrumentStatus of Qualification and Calibration

Suitability of MaterialsStatus of Reference Standards, Reagents, etc

Suitability of AnalystStatus of Training and Qualification Records

Suitability of DocumentationWritten analytical procedure and proper approved protocol withpre-established acceptance criteria.

8/19/2015 4Analytical Method Validation

TYPES OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES TO BE

VALIDATED1. Identification tests.

2. Quantitative tests for impurities content.

3. Limit tests for the control of impurities .

4. Quantitative tests of the active moiety in samples of drug

substance.

5. Bioanalytical methods.

6. Stability indicating methods.

8/19/2015 5Analytical Method Validation

VALIDATION

Definition -

Validation of an analytical procedure is the process by which it

is established, by laboratory studies, that the performance

characteristics of the procedure meet the requirements for the

intended analytical applications.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 6

VALIDATIONCHARACTERISTICS

8/19/2015 7Analytical Method Validation

Accuracy Precision Range

Specificity Linearity

VALIDATIONCHARACTERISTICS

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 8

Detection Limit

Quantitation Limit Robustness

Ruggedness System suitability

DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR ASSAY VALIDATION

Category I: Analytical methods for quantitation of majorcomponents of bulk drug substances

Category II: Analytical methods for determination ofimpurities in bulk drug substances

Category III: Analytical methods for determination ofperformance characteristics

Category IV: Identification tests.8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 9

DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR ASSAY VALIDATION

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 10

ACCURACY

Definition-The accuracy of an analytical procedure is the closeness oftest results obtained by that procedure to the true value.

Determined by application of the analytical procedure to ananalyte of known purity (e.g. A Reference Standard).

Accuracy should be assessed using a minimum of ninedeterminations over a minimum of three concentrationlevels, covering the specified range.(i.e. Three concentrationsand three replicates of each concentration).

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 11

ACCURACY

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 12

Should be reported as:Percent recovery of known amount added or

the difference between the mean assay result and the acceptedvalue.

Assessment of accuracy –Evaluating the recovery of the analyte (percent recovery) acrossthe range of the assay, or evaluating the linearity of therelationship between estimated and actual concentrations.

ACCURACY DATA SET

AmountAdded (mg)

AmountFound (mg)

Percent Recovery

0.0 0.0 ---

50.2 50.4 100.5

79.6 80.1 100.6

99.9 100.7 100.8

120.2 119.8 99.7

150.4 149.7 99.5

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 13

PRECISION

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 14

Definition-It is the degree of agreement among individual test results

when the procedure is applied repeatedly to multiplesamplings of a homogeneous sample.

Precision may be a measure of either the degree ofreproducibility or of repeatability of the analytical procedureunder normal operating conditions.

PRECISION

Repeatability should be assessed using a minimum of nine

determinations covering the specified range for the procedure

(i.e., three concentrations and three replicates of each

concentration or using a minimum of six determinations at

100% of the test concentration).

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 15

(PRECISION)1.REPEATABILITY

Precision Considered at 3 Levels

1. Repeatability- Express the precision under the same

operating conditions over a short interval of time. Also

referred to as Intra-assay precision.

Should be assessed using minimum of 9 determinations

( 3 concentrations/ 3 replicates) or

Minimum of 6 determinations at the 100% level.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 16

2.INTERMEDIATE PRECISION

Express within-laboratory variations.

Expressed in terms of standard deviation, relative standard

deviation (coefficient of variation) and confidence interval.

Studies should include varying days, analysts, equipment,

etc.

Depends on the circumstances under which the procedure is

intended to be used.8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 17

3.REPRODUCIBILITY

Ability reproduce data within the predefined precision

Determination: SD, RSD and confidence interval

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 18

ACCURACY AND PRECISION

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 19

Accurate & precise

Accurate & imprecise

Inaccurate &precise

Inaccurate & imprecise

SPECIFICITY

Definition -Its the ability to assess unequivocally the analyte in thepresence of components that may be expected to bepresent, such as impurities, degradation products, andmatrix components.

IUPAC, AOAC-I have preferred the term “selectivity,”reserving “specificity” for those procedures that arecompletely selective.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 20

SPECIFICITY

Specificity has the following implications:Identification Tests: Ensure the identity of the analyte.

Purity Tests: Ensure that all the analytical procedures performed allow an accurate statement of the content of impurities of an analyte (e.g. related substances test, heavy metals limit, organic volatile impurities).

Assays: Provide an exact result, which allows an accurate statement on the content or potency of the analyte in a sample.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 21

SPECIFICITY

Determination -If impurity or degradation product standards areunavailable, compare the test results of samples containingimpurities or degradation products to a second well-characterized procedure (e.g., a Pharmacopeial or othervalidated procedure).

The ICH documents state that when chromatographicprocedures are used, representative chromatograms should bepresented to demonstrate the degree of selectivity, and peaksshould be appropriately labeled.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 22

DETECTION LIMIT

Definition -It is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can bedetected, but not necessarily quantitated, under the statedexperimental conditions.

The detection limit is a characteristic of limit tests.

Its usually expressed as the concentration of analyte (e.g.,percentage, parts per billion) in the sample.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 23

DETECTION LIMIT

Determination -For non instrumental procedures -

• Generally determined by the analysis of samples with knownconcentrations of analyte and by establishing the minimumlevel at which the analyte can be reliably detected.For instrumental procedures -

• That exhibit background noise, which is to compare measuredsignals from samples with known low concentrations ofanalyte with those of blank samples.

• [Acceptable signal-to-noise ratios are 2:1 or 3:1.]

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 24

QUANTITATION LIMIT

Definition-It is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that canbe determined with acceptable precision and accuracyunder the stated experimental conditions.

The quantitation limit is a characteristic of quantitativeassays for low levels of compounds in sample matrices, suchas impurities in bulk drug substances and degradationproducts in finished pharmaceuticals.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 25

QUANTITATION LIMIT

Determination -For non instrumental procedures -

• Determined by the analysis of samples with knownconcentrations of analyte

For instrumental procedures -• the ICH documents describe a common approach, which is to

compare measured signals from samples with known lowconcentrations of analyte with those of blank samples.

[A typically acceptable signal-to-noise ratio is 10:1.]8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 26

LINEARITY

• Definition -Its ability to elicit test results that are directly, or by awell-defined mathematical transformation, proportional tothe concentration of analyte in samples within a givenrange.

• “linearity” refers to the linearity of the relationship ofconcentration and assay measurement.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 27

LINEARITY

By Visual Inspection of plot of signals vs. analyte

concentration

By Appropriate statistical methods

Linear Regression (y = mx + b)

Correlation Coefficient, y-intercept (b), slope (m)

Acceptance criteria: Linear regression r2 > 0.95

Requires a minimum of 5 concentration levels

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 28

RANGE

Definition -Its the interval between the upper and lower levels of

analyte (including these levels) that have been

demonstrated to be determined with a suitable level of

precision, accuracy, and linearity using the procedure as

written.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 29

RANGE

• For Drug Substance & Drug product Assay– 80 to 120% of test Concentration

• For Content Uniformity Assay– 70 to 130% of test Concentration

• For Dissolution Test Method– +/- 20% over entire Specification Range

• For Impurity Assays– From Reporting Level to 120% of Impurity

Specification for Impurity Assays– From Reporting Level to 120% of Assay Specification

for Impurity/Assay Methods8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 30

ROBUSTNESS

Definition –• It’s the measure of its capacity to remain unaffected by

small but deliberate variations in procedural parameterslisted in the procedure documentation and provides anindication of its suitability during normal usage.

Examples of typical variations are:

• Stability of analytical solutions

• Extraction time.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 31

ROBUSTNESS

In the case of LC, examples of typical

variations are:• - influence of variations of pH in a mobile phase.

• - influence of variations in mobile phase composition.

• - different columns (different lots and/or suppliers)

• - temperature.

• - flow rate.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 32

RUGGEDNESS

Degree of reproducibility of test results under a variety of

conditions

Different Laboratories

Different Analysts

Different Instruments

Different Reagents

Different Days

Expressed as %RSD8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 33

SYSTEM SUITABILITYICH

ICH

Definition: evaluation of equipment, electronic,

analytical operations and samples as a whole

Determination: repeatability, tailing factor (T), capacity

factor (k’), resolution (R), and theoretical Plates (N)

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 34

SYSTEM SUITABILITYUSP

• USP 23 <621> :

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 35

Parameters Recommendations

K In general k ≥ 2.0

R

R > 2, between the peak ofinterest and the closest potentialinterferences(degradant, internalStd, impurity, excipient etc)

T T ≤ 2

N In general N > 2000

Repeatability RSD ≤ 2.0% (n ≥ 5)

RESEARCH PAPERS1

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 36

PURPOSE OF STUDY

• The stability-indicating LC assay method was developed andvalidated for quantitative determination of cefcapene pivoxilin the presence of degradation products formed during forceddegradation studies.

• The method was validated with regard to linearity, accuracy,precision, selectivity, and robustness.

• HPLC method was validated according to the InternationalConference on Harmonization Guidelines (ICH Q2B,validation of analytical procedures, methodology)

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 37

SELECTIVITY

• The selectivity was examined for non-degraded and degradedsamples.

• The HPLC method for determination of cefcapene pivoxil wasfound selective in the presence of degradation products.

• The peak purity values were more than 98.79 % for cefcapenepivoxil at 270 nm, what proves that degradants were notinterfering with the mean peak.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 38

TABLE 1: RESULTS OF FORCED DEGRADATION STUDIES.

• Peak purity values in the range of 98.5–100 indicates a homogeneous.

• peak

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 39

Stress conditions and time studies

Degradation(%) Peak purity

Acidic/0.5 mol L-1 HCl/363 K/240 min

56.4 100.00

Oxidizing/30 % H2O2/343 K/310 min

88.7 98.79

Thermal/373 K/28 days 9.4 100

Thermal/393 K/28 days 30.9 100Radiolytic/25 kGy 1.7 99.98

Radiolytic/400 kGy 10.8 99.15

LINEARITY

• Linearity was evaluated in the concentration range 20–240 mgL-1.

• The samples of each solution were injected three times andeach series comprised six experimental points.

• The calibration plots were linear in the followingconcentration range 20–240 mg L-1 (n = 6, r = 0.9992).

• Statistical analysis using Mandel’s fitting test confirmedlinearity of the calibration curves.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 40

PRECISION

• Precision of the assay was determined in relation torepeatability (intra-day) and intermediate precision(interday).

• six samples were determined during the same day for threeconcentrations of cefcapene pivoxil.

• The RSD values were 0.58 and 1.27 %, respectively,demonstrating that the method was precise.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 41

TABLE 2 :INTRA-DAY, INTER-DAY PRECISION (n = 6)

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 42

ACCURACY AS RECOVERY TEST

• The accuracy of the method was determined by recovering cefcapene pivoxil from the placebo.

• The recovery test was performed at three levels 80, 100, and 120 %.

• Three samples were prepared for each recovery level.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 43

LOD AND LOQ :

• The LOD and LOQ parameters were determined from the

regression equation of cefcapene pivoxil.

• LOD = 3.3 Sy/a , LOQ = 10 Sy/a.

• where Sy is a standard error and a is the slope of the

corresponding calibration curve.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 44

ROBUSTNESS

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 45

RESEARCH PAPERS2

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 46

VALIDATION CHARACTERISTICS

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 47

• Recovery studies and validation of the method(As per ICH Q2A Guidelines) :

• Recovery studies were carried out by adding 1, 2 and 3 mg ofpure drug to different samples of tablet powder containing theequivalent of 10 mg of drug.

• Percentage recovery was calculated from the amountobtained by recovery studies.

• Precision of the method was studied by carrying out intraday,interday analysis and expressed as % Relative Standard.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 48

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

• In this proposed method, the determining conditions were established by varying one parameter at a time and keeping the other fixed by observing the effect produced on the absorbance of a complex.

• The parameters involves the maximum complex development viz. concentration of reagent, temperature and time required to yield complex of maximum sensitivity were optimized.

• The proposed method was found to be accurate, simple and rapid for routine analysis of cephalexin.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 49

RESEARCH PAPERS3

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 50

• This method was based on the reaction of NBS with aromaticamines in an acidic medium to form a brominating coloredproduct.

• Cephalexin is let to react with a known excess of NBS inacidic media.

• This caused a proportional decrease in the concentration andabsorbance of formed color in the mixture by an increase inconcentration of cephalexin.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 51

STUDY OF INTERFERENCES BY COMMON EXCIPIENTS

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 52

NameMAC*,μ

g/mLCephalexin,μg/mL Recovery

%TCR**

Added Found**

Glucose 50 15 15.20 101.33 3.33

Fructose 50 15 15.12 100.80 3.33

Sucrose 50 15 14.90 99.26 3.33

Starch 50 15 14.80 99.16 3.33

Ca2+ 100 15 15.10 100.66 6.67

CO32- 100 15 14.99 99.66 6.67

*Maximum allowable concentrations, **Mean of three replicate analyses, TCR: TolerableConcentration Ratio with no interferences (Interferent (μg/mL) / Cephalexin (μg/mL))

VALIDATION CHARACTERISTICS

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 53

RESEARCH PAPERS4

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 54

PURPOSE OF STUDY

An LC–MS/MS method was developed to measure SIM andits acid form (SIMA) in plasma and peripheral bloodmononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from patients.

Chromatographic analyte separation was carried out on areverse-phase column using 75:25 (% v/v)acetonitrile:ammonium acetate (0.1M, pH 5.0) mobile phase.

The assay was validated for specificity and sensitivity,linearity, precision and accuracy, extraction recovery, matrixeffect, and stability

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 55

SPECIFICITY AND SENSITIVITY

• Assay specificity and sensitivity were conducted in eightdifferent lots of blank plasma that was either left blank orspiked with both analyte and IS.

• The lowest limit of quantitation (LLOQ) was assessed in thesame plasma lots used for specificity.

• The determination of LLOQ was based on the criteria that thedeviation of the measured concentrations should NMT 20%from the nominal concentration and that the signal to noiseratio be ≥5.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 56

LINEARITY

• Linearity was evaluated using plasma samples spiked withboth SIM and SIMA at concentration ranges 2.5–500 ng/mLand 5–500 ng/mL, respectively.

• The internal standard LOV, concentration was 50 ng/mL in allcalibration standards.

• Three calibration curves were prepared and analyzed byplotting area ratios of analyte to internal standard against theconcentration of each calibration standard.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 57

PRECISION AND ACCURACY

• The intra-day precision and accuracy was evaluated atthree different QC levels (low, medium and high) in eight replicates on the same day and in five replicates on three different days for inter-day precision and accuracy determination.

Acceptable deviation –Within 15% of the nominal concentration for accuracy .Within 15% relative standard deviation for precision

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 58

PRECISION AND ACCURACY

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 59

The results from intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy indicate that the method reproducibility is acceptable within the same day and on different days .

STABILITY

• The short term and long term stability of SIM and SIMA in plasma and cell lysate samples -

• Short term stability of SIM and SIMA was evaluated in plasma and cell lysate samples at 40C (ice-bath) for 6h.

• Long term stability of SIM and SIMA was evaluated by storing samples for a month at -800C.

• Interconversion can be reduced either at low temperature or when pH is adjusted between pH 4 and pH 5.tested the stability of both SIM and SIMA in working solution kept at -800C and they were found to be stable for at least one year .

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 60

OUTSOURCING AGENCIES

Worldwide –Oxford labs.(USA , Europe)Applus laboratories.(china, Germany, France, Chile)India –India mart(Hyderabad ,Bangluru, Pune ,Ahmadabad) Pune-Operon strategies, Synapse labs,Bioanalytical tech.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 61

REFERENCES

Tamer A.Ahmeda, Jamie Horna, John Hayslipb, Markos Leggas, Validated LC–MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of SIM and its acid form in human plasma and cell lysate: Pharmacokinetic application, Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis, 2(2012),403-411.

Przemysław Zalewski, Judyta Cielecka-Piontek et al., Stability-Indicating HPLC Method for the Determination of Cefcapene Pivoxil, Chromatographia (2013) 76:387–391.

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 62

REFERENCES

A. Vyas, S.S. Shukla, R. Patel, R. Pandey,V. Jain, D. Singh and B.P. Nagori, Development and Validation of Spectrophotometric Method for Estimation of Cephalexin in Bulk and Tablet Dosage Forms, Oriental Journal of Chemistry,2011, Vol. 27, No. (1): Pg. 359-362.

Rebwar O. Hassan, Indirect Spectrophotometric Determination of Cephalexin in Pharmaceutical Formulations, Chemical Science Tran.sactions, 2013, 2(4), 1110-1117

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 63

REFERENCES

www.fda.gov (Accessed on 11/412015)

www.ich.org (Accessed on 11/412015)

http://www.labcompliance.com/methods/meth_val.

htm#introduction. (Accessed on 11/412015)

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 64

8/19/2015 Analytical Method Validation 65

Thank You For Your Attention