Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1157–1164 | Cite as

A Total Error Approach for the Validation of Quantitative Analytical Methods

Research Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Typical acceptance criteria for analytical methods are not chosen with regard to the concept of method suitability and are commonly based on ad-hoc rules. Such approaches yield unknown and uncontrolled risks of accepting unsuitable analytical methods and rejecting suitable analytical methods. This paper proposes a formal statistical framework for the validation of analytical methods, which incorporates the use of total error and controls the risks of incorrect decision-making.

Materials and Methods

A total error approach for method validation based on the use of two-sided β-content tolerance intervals is proposed. The performance of the proposed approach is compared to the performance of current ad-hoc approaches via simulation techniques.

Results

The current ad-hoc approaches for method validation fail to control the risk of incorrectly accepting unsuitable analytical methods. The proposed total error approach controls the risk of incorrectly accepting unsuitable analytical methods and provides adequate power to accept truly suitable methods.

Conclusion

Current ad-hoc approaches to method validation are inconsistent with ensuring method suitability. A total error approach based on the use of two-sided β-content tolerance intervals was developed. The total error approach offers a formal statistical framework for assessing analytical method performance. The approach is consistent with the concept of method suitability and controls the risk of incorrectly accepting unsuitable analytical methods.

Key words

analysis of variance bioanalytical assay method validation tolerance interval total error 

References

  1. 1.
    Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. Food and Drug Administration. May 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guidance for industry: analytical procedures and methods validation (Draft Guidance). Food and Drug Administration. August 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. O. Kringle and R.C. Khan-Malek. A statistical assessment of the recommendations from a conference on analytical methods validation in bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, 510–514 (1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. W. A. Findlay, W. C. Smith, J. W. Lee, et al. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 21:1249–1273 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Miller, R. Bowsher, A. Celniker, et al. Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report. Pharm. Res. 18:1373–1383 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. DeSilva, W. Smith, R. Weiner, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm. Res. 20:1885–1900 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Boulanger, P. Chiap, W. Dewe, et al. An analysis of the SFSTP guide on validation of chromatographic bioanalytical methods: progresses and limitations. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 32:753–765 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Hubert, J. J. Nguyen-Huu, B. Boulanger, et al. Validation of quantitative analytical procedures, harmonization of approaches. STP Pharma Pratiques 13:101–138 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Hubert, J. J. Nguyen-Huu, B. Boulanger, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures: a SFSTP proposal––part 1. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 36:579–586 (2004).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Smolec, B. DeSilva, W. Smith, et al. Bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules in support of pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm. Res. 22:1425–1431 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Hubert, J. J. Nguyen-Huu, B. Boulanger, et al. Quantitative analytical procedures: harmonization of the approaches part II––statistics. STP Pharma Pratiques 16:28–58 (2006).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Burdick and F. Graybill. Confidence Intervals on Variance Components, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Kringle. An assessment of the 4-6-20 rule for acceptance of analytical runs in bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm. Res. 11:556–560 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Wald and J. Wolfowitz. Tolerance limits for a normal distribution. Ann. Math. Stat. 17:208–215 (1946).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Hauck and R. Shaikh. Sample sizes for batch acceptance from single- and multistage designs using two-sided normal tolerance intervals with specified content. J. Biopharm. Stat. 11:335–346 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Hauck and R. Shaikh. Modified two-sided normal tolerance intervals for batch acceptance of dose uniformity. Pharm. Stat. 3:89–97 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Hoffman and R. Kringle. Two-sided tolerance intervals for balanced and unbalanced random effects models. J. Biopharm. Stat. 15:283–293 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Preclinical and Research Biostatistics, sanofi-aventisBridgewaterUSA
  2. 2.BridgewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations