Microbiological Method Validation: How Do We Prove …ifstl.jifsan.umd.edu/files/2013/07/5-Thomas-Hammack.pdf · Microbiological Method Validation: How Do ... • 1972—FDA published

Microbiological Method Validation: How Do We Prove that a Method is Fit for Purpose?

Thomas Hammack

Chief Microbial Methods Development Branch

Division of Microbiology Office of Regulatory Science

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition U.S. Food and Drug Administration

College Park, MD 20740

Equivalence?

24 h, 35ºC

24 h, 35ºC and 42ºC

Does or =

• Why validate methods? Benefits public health and world trade False negative results are unacceptable ISO 17025 lab accreditation demands the use of validated methods

Validation Programs • AOAC Microbiological Guidelines

• ISO 16140:2003

• FDA’s Guidelines for the Validation of Analytical

Methods for the Detection of Microbial Pathogens in Foods http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM273418.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM273418.pdf

AOAC International

• 1884—Association of Official and Analytical Chemists – Methods Validation for Fertilizers – Membership Restricted to Regulatory Chemists

• Supported by USDA

– Dr. Harvey Wiley -“Father of FDA” is also considered the “Father of AOAC” • 1892—Secretary of AOAC • 1898—Established AOAC’s Committee on Food Safety

– Housed within FDA

• 1939—Microbiological Sampling of Eggs and Egg products Official Method 939.14 still in use today

• Many AOAC methods Official Methods were developed and validated in FDA Labs

• 1972—FDA published acceptance of AOAC Official Methods in the Federal Register – Allows FDA to use proprietary rapid methods for the analysis of regulatory samples

• 1979—became an independent non-profit organization no longer tied to FDA, but many

FDA employees serve as volunteers

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

• International non-governmental organization – Based in Geneva, Switzerland – Comprised of 163 national standards institutes including ANSI in the US

• Started in 1926 as the International Federation of National Standardizing Associations (ISA)

– Focused on mechanical engineering – Disbanded in 1942 – Reorganized as ISO in 1946 – Mission statement is to provide “International Standards for Business, Government and Society”

• 1991 ISO and European Committee for Standardization (CEN) signed the Vienna Agreement

– CEN is comprised of the 31 Member States of the European Union – Vienna agreement stipulates that CEN and ISO Standards be identical to enable free trade within the

EU

• ISO Technical Committee 34 (TC 34) Subcommittee 9 (SC 9) – ISO exercises its role in the standardization of food microbiological testing methods through TC

34/SC 9 – TC 34/SC 9 started standardizing “horizontal” reference methods for bacteria in foods in the 1970s

18

FDA’s Methods Validation Guidelines The Science and Research Steering Committee (SRSC), of the Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine (OFVM), approved guidance to be used for validation of microbiological and chemical methods.

Guidelines for the Validation of Analytical Methods for the

Detection of Microbial Pathogens in Foods http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM273418.pdf

Guidelines for the Validation of Chemical Methods for the FDA Foods Program

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM298730.pdf

Scope

“These criteria apply to all FDA laboratories that develop and participate in the validation of analytical food methods for Agency-wide implementation in a regulatory capacity. This includes all research laboratories, and field labs where analytical methods may be developed or expanded for potential

regulatory use. These documents will supersede all other intra-agency documents pertaining to food-related method validation criteria for microbial and chemical analytes. the SRSC will authorize the

formation of a Methods Validation Subcommittee (MVS) to serve as the governing body for all method validation concerns.”

FDA and Methods Validation Method validation is a process by which a laboratory confirms by examination, and provides objective evidence, that the particular requirements for specific uses of a method are fulfilled. It serves to demonstrate that the method can detect and identify an analyte or analytes: • In one or more matrices to be analyzed • In one or more instruments or platforms • With a demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, trueness, reproducibility, ruggedness

and precision to ensure that results are meaningful and appropriate to make a decision.

• Reliably for its intended purpose. Intended purpose categories include, but may not be limited to emergency/contingency operations; rapid screening and high throughput testing; and, confirmatory analyses.

• After the method developer has conducted experiments to determine or verify a number of specific performance characteristics that serve to define and/or quantify method performance.

9

RESEARCH

VALIDATION

Micro Method

Validation Sub-group

The Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine & the SRSC “Roadmap for Microbiological Method Development and Validation”

IMPLEMENTATION

Organizational Partnerships

•BAM Council •FERN MCC •IFSH •ORA “Micronauts”

VERIFICATION

10

ESTABLISHES validation needs and priorities in consultation with the SRSC-Micro Super-group, FDA Bacteriological Analytical Manual Council (BAM Council), FERN Method Coordinating Committee, ORA “micronauts” inter-center working groups and others as appropriate ADOPTS procedures to govern all administrative processes needed for emergency and non-emergency method validation proposals and studies. PROVIDES planning, guidance, oversight, and resources to participating laboratories during the method development and validation process; will be the responsible authority for recommendations, evaluations and final approval of all validation studies from planning through field implementation. CONSULTS with other governmental, and independent (commercial, and international) validation bodies to harmonize validation standards where possible and practices

The Method Validation Sub-Group (Microbiology)

11

BROAD REPRESENTATION from CFSAN, ORA, CVM, and NCTR with additional expertise from biostatisticians and QA/QC managers CURRENT MICRO MVS COMPOSITION: ORA Palmer Orlandi (co-Chair), Cathy Burns CFSAN Thomas Hammack (co-Chair), William Burkhardt, Darcy Hanes CVM Beilei Ge NCTR Steven Foley FERN Don Burr NCFST (CFSAN Moffett) Ravinder Reddy

The Method Validation Sub-Group (Microbiology)

Qualitative assays

Analyte

Bacteriological, e.g. Salmonella spp. Pathogenic Escherichia coli Listeria monocytogenes Shigella spp Vibrio spp Campylobacter spp

Microbial toxins

Viral pathogens, e.g. Hepatitis A virus Norovirus Enterovirus

Parasitic protozoan pathogens, e.g. Cryptosporidium Cyclospora cayetanensis

Bioengineered analytes, e.g.

Genetically-modified foods (GMOs)

Applications

Pre- and selective enrichment

Microbial analyte recovery and concentration

Screening, high-throughput, confirmation

Procedures

Phenotypic, e.g. Biochemical characterization Antibiotic resistance traits Antigenic characterization

Genetic, e.g. Nucleic acid isolation/concentration Polymerase Chain Reaction

Conventional, Real-time Reverse transcription

Sequencing, e.g. Whole genome Selective sequencing Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis

Strain-typing applications

METHOD VALIDATION SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY Pathogens, Genetic Material, Toxins and Antigens

1. Submission of a new or original method, OR,

2. Any significant modification of a method that may alter its performance specifications or changes to the fundamental science of an existing method. Categories include: • Substitutions of reagents/apparatus

• Expansion of the scope of an existing method to include additional analytes.

• Changes in intended use i.e. screening or confirmatory.

• Platform extensions or significant parameter changes e.g. adaptation to another real-time PCR thermal cycler.

• Matrix extensions.

• Changes to time/temperature incubation periods, or enrichment media.

• In cases where the sample preparation and/or the extraction procedure/analytical method is modified from the existing test

procedure and protocol, i.e the new method should demonstrate that the modifications do not adversely affect the precision and accuracy or bias of the data obtained.

• Modification of a method’s performance range e.g. specificity, sensitivity beyond previously validated levels.

Method Validation is Required for…

Levels of Validation

Four levels of performance are defined. The hierarchy of scrutiny will provide general characteristics on the method’s utility and insights for its intended use, the assessed risk, and the food-borne illness potential for an analyte-matrix pairing.

Not all methods will or should be validated to meet the requirements of a Level 4: full collaborative study.

Method Validation Criteria Level One The lowest level of validation, with all the work done by one lab. Inclusivity and exclusivity testing has been tested, but by a limited number of strains. The analyte was tested at a level based on the intended use of the method, with just normal background flora. There is no aging of the artificially-inoculated samples and no comparison to an existing reference culture method. The expectation would be for the originating lab to continue to conduct further testing to eventually elevate the method to a higher level of validation. Intended Use: Emergency needs. A method developed for the detection of an analyte, or a matrix not previously recognized or identified as a threat to food safety or public health. As the first level in the development of any method designed for regulatory use; performance of the method at this level of scrutiny will determine, in part, whether further validation is useful or warranted. NOTE: Under emergency situations where the rapid development and deployment of a method is needed to immediately address an outbreak event, Level 1 criteria should be followed as closely as the situation will allow. Representatives of the MVC and Agency subject matter experts (SMEs) should be in close consultation with the originating laboratory. Once the crisis has past and it has been determined that there is a need for further validation, procedures outline in this document will be followed.

Method Validation Criteria

Level Two This is a more robust study, with the possibility of regulatory strength depending on the circumstances. The originating lab has done a more comprehensive initial study, with inclusivity/exclusivity levels at the AOAC Collaborative Study level. If possible, a comparison has been done to an existing reference culture method. One other independent laboratory has participated in the collaborative study. Some of the criteria of the study are at a lower level than the full AOAC study, but still appropriate for the developing method at this stage.

Intended Use: Emergency needs. Slightly higher false-positive rates are acceptable as all samples analyzed with methods validated to this level will require confirmatory testing.

Level Three This is a validation level that should have full regulatory strength. Most of the criteria followed by the originating lab are at the AOAC level, including inclusivity/exclusivity, analyte levels, competitor strains, aging, and comparison to existing method when available. The additional collaborating labs follow many of the criteria of an AOAC collaborative study. Intended Use: All methods validated to this level of scrutiny are acceptable for use in any and all circumstances e.g. confirmatory analyses; regulatory sampling, and compliance support. Level Four This validation level has criteria equivalent to the AOAC Collaborative Study. Any method reaching this level of validation should be able to be submitted for adoption by the AOAC as a fully collaborated method.

Method Validation Criteria

Originating Laboratory Criteria

Level One: Urgent usage

Level Two: Independent lab validation

Level Three: Multiple lab collaborative

Level Four: Full collaborative study

†AOAC Collaborative Study

# of target organism (inclusivity)

10 (20 for Salmonella)

50 (unless 50 aren't available)a,b



50a,b

# of non-target organism (exclusivity) 10 strains 30 strainsc 30 strainsc 30 strainsc 30 strainsc

# of foods 1 or mored 1 or mored 1 or mored 1 or mored Up to 20 foodse

# of analyte levels/food matrixf set level based on intended use and negative control

One inoculated levelf and uninoculated level

One inoculated levelf

and uninoculated level One inoculated levelf

and uninoculated level

One inoculated levelf


Replicates per food at each level tested 20 20 20 20 20

Aging of inoculated samples prior to testing No Yes Yesg Yesg Yesg

Addition of competitor strainh Normal background

flora In 1 food at +1 log>analyte at

fractional positivef analyte level

In 1 food at +1 log>analyte at

fractional positivef

analyte level



analyte level



analyte level

Comparison to recognized method No Yes, if available Yes, if available Yes, if available Yes, if available

Table 1. ORIGINATING Laboratory Requirements

I. General Qualitative Guidelines for Microbial Analytes

Microbiology Validation Category Examples

Collaborating Laboratory Criteria Level Two: Independent lab validation

Level Three: Multiple lab collaborative

Level Four: Full collaborative study AOAC Collaborative Study

# of laboratories providing usable data 2 5 10 10

# of foods 1 or morea 1 or morea 1 or morea 1 to 6 foodsb

# of strains of organism 1 per food 1 per food 1 per food 1 per food

# of analyte levels/food matrixc 2 levels: One inoculated levelc


3 levels: One inoculated levelc one at 1 log higher and

uninoculated level

3 levels: One inoculated levelc, one at 1 log higher and

uninoculated level

3 levels: One inoculated levelc one at 1 log higher and

uninoculated level

# of replicate samples/food 8 per analyte level 8 per analyte level 8 per analyte level 6 per analyte level †

Aging of inoculated samples prior to testing Noe Yesd Yesd Yesd

Comparison to Recognized Method Yes, if available Yes, if available Yes, if available Yes, if available

Microbiology Validation Category Examples, continued Table 2 - General Qualitative Guidelines for Microbial Analytes-Collaborating Laboratory Requirements

Originating Laboratory Criteria

Category One: Urgent

usage

Category Two:

Independent lab

validation

Category Three:

Multiple lab collaborativ

e

Category Four: Full

collaborative study

Replicates per strain 3 3 8 8 Comparison to

recognized methoda No Yes, if available

Yes, if available

Yes, if available

Collaborating Laboratory Criteria

Level One: Urgent usage

Level Two: Independent lab

validation

Level Three: Multiple lab

collaborative

Level Four: Full collaborative study

# of laboratories providing usable datab n/a 2 5 10

Replicates per strain n/a 3 8 6 Comparison to

Recognized Methoda n/a Yes, if available Yes, if available Yes, if available

II. General Qualitative Guidelines for Food-borne Microbial Pathogens That Present Unique Isolation and/or Enrichment Challenges†

Microbiology Validation Category Examples, continued

Table 1. ORIGINATING Laboratory Requirements

Table 2. COLLABORATING Laboratory Requirements

III. CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR THE VALIDATION OF FDA- DEVELOPED MOLECULAR-BASED ASSAYS

•Inclusivity and exclusivity •Target gene(s) and controls (positive and negative). •Comparison to the Reference Method

IV. FOOD MATRIX EXTENSION FOR VALIDATED MICROBIOLOGY METHODS

The validation of a method for a food matrix not previously included in a validation study is necessary to assure that the new matrix will produce neither high false positive (matrix is free from cross reactive substances) no high false negative rates (matrix is free of inhibitory substances)

•Guidance to Support Field Laboratory Expedience •Guidance for the Formal Expansion of Validated Food Matrices


V. PLATFORM EXTENSION

VI. CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR THE VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF COMMERCIALLY- AVAILABLE MICROBIOLOGICAL DIAGNOSTIC KITS AND PLATFORMS

1. For commercially-available microbiological diagnostic kits whose performance parameters have been fully validated in a collaborative study monitored and evaluated by an independent accrediting body e.g. AOAC-OMA, AFNOR, etc.

2. For commercially-available microbiological diagnostic kits whose performance parameters are supported by data obtained through an abbreviated validation protocol and evaluated by an independent accrediting body e.g. AOAC-RI.

Validation of an Alternative method: Demonstration that adequate confidence is provided when the results obtained by the alternative method i.e. the commercially-available kit, are comparable to or exceed those obtained using the reference method using the statistical criteria contained in the approved validation protocol. Verification: The confirmation by examination and the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. Criteria For Kits Fully Validated in a Collaborative Study Monitored by an Independent Accrediting Body


23

Current Micro MVS Priorities I. Hepatitis A Virus a. Real-time RT-qPCR assay to detect Hepatitis A virus b. In a food matrix (green onions) Status: Final report nearing completion

2. †Non-O157:H7 STEC Screening method to detect non-O157:H7 STECs using the BioPlex Status: Multi-lab collaborative study has been completed.. 3. ‡Salmonella Enteritidis Isolation and Detection of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from Whole Shell Eggs-Cultural and Molecular Applications 4. Norovirus

a. Real-time RT-qPCR assay to detect Noroviruses b. In a food matrix (molluscan shellfish)

Status: planning phase underway in collaboration with the ORA-CFSAN virology working group

24

Method Authors Andrew Lin Teresa Lee

Laurie Clotilde Julie A. Kase Insook Son

J. Mark Carter Carol R Lauzon

Validation of an Identification Method for Shiga-toxigenic E. coli Somatic (O) Groups using the

BioPlex Suspension Array System

25

• STECs are a significant public health concern

– Non-O157 STECs are responsible for over 60% of STEC infections or an estimated 112,000 illnesses in the U.S. each year

– Over 74.2% of STEC infections in the U.S. are caused by serogroups O26 (23.9%), O45 (7.8%), O91 (2.3%), O103 (16.7%), O111 (12.6%), O121 (7.5%), and O145 (3.4%)

– O26, O103, O111, O121, and O145 are known to cause HC and HUS, and O45 is associated with HC

– Other serogroups that may cause HC and HUS, but are less commonly isolated, are O91, O113, and O128

Validation of a STEC Molecular Serotyping Method

26

BioPlex Assay Overview • Must be performed on Pure Cultures • Bead-based assay that can be multiplexed

– Conventional and real-time PCR assays for STEC O serogroup - limited by resolution of band sizes

on a gel, or the # of fluorescent channels • 96-well plates • Targets = nucleic acid, proteins – Ab, antigens, cytokines • Each bead = a separate assay • 100 different color-coded beads (magnetic or polystyrene)

– Unique color comes from different ratios of two distinct flourophores • Two lasers, fluidics, optics, detectors • Automated, High-Throughput, Fast, Expandable


27

Method Status • In-House Validation Study Completed

– Paper – LIB

• 5 Lab Collaborative Study Successfully Completed

• Approved by the BAM Council


28

In-house Validation Results Inclusivity Panel


40

Exclusivity Panel

Validation of a STEC Molecular Serotyping method

BioPlex Results

• Fluorescence signals are quantified for each micro bead

• Signal to background ratios are calculated, where background is measured using all no template reactions

• Samples were considered to be positive when signal to background ratio was greater than 5.0

30

31

BioPlex Results

Validation of a STEC Molecular Serotyping method

32

Development and Validation of a Method for the Detection and Isolation of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE)

from Whole Shell Eggs

Guodong Zhang Eve Thau

Eric W. Brown Thomas Hammack

Validation of a Method for Salmonella in Whole Shell Eggs

33

Background • SE is the second most commonly isolated Salmonella serotype

in the United States – 14.18% (1968-1998)

• SE is most commonly associated with whole shell eggs and egg products

• FDA’s egg rule (74 FR 33030) recommends various preventive control measures including sampling and sample analysis

• FDA’s BAM reference culture method for the detection of SE in whole shell eggs takes 9 days to complete

• There are no AOAC Official Methods of Analysis methods for the detection of SE in whole shell eggs


34

Clean surface Surface disinfection

20 eggs to a container Hand homogenize sample

Hold at room Temp (20-24oC) for 96 h

25 ml eggs to 225 ml TSB + ferrous sulfate; 24 h at 35oC

1 ml to 10 ml TT 24 h at 35oC

Streak on XLD, BS, HE 24 h at 35oC

TSI, LIA 24 h at 35oC

Serological Test

0.1 ml to 10 ml RV 24 h at 42oC



Serological Test

CURRENT BAM METHOD

Clean surface Surface disinfection

20 eggs + 2L TSB 24 h at 35oC

1 ml to 10 ml TT 24 h at 35oC



Serological Test

0.1 ml to 10 ml RV 24 h at 42oC



Serological Test

PROPOSED BAM METHOD


35


36


37

Method Status

• In-House Validation Study of Culture Method Complete – Manuscript in preparation – Report to BAM Council in preparation

• In-House Validation Study of qPCR Methods in Progress – ABI SE qPCR Method Promising – Evaluation of an internal qPCR method in progress


38

Collaborative Studies

Tentative Schedule

•Culture Method Alone Fall 2012

•Culture Method Plus qPCR Method Spring 2013


Documents

Microbiological Method Validation: How Do We Prove …ifstl.jifsan.umd.edu/files/2013/07/5-Thomas-Hammack.pdf · Microbiological Method Validation: How Do ... • 1972—FDA published