Analytical Method Maintenance - Several steps can be taken to maintain test method suitability after the formal completion of the analytical method validation studies - BioPharm International


Analytical Method Maintenance
Several steps can be taken to maintain test method suitability after the formal completion of the analytical method validation studies

BioPharm International

Improving the Situation

It is usually more cumbersome to implement variance (precision) improvements versus matching (accuracy) improvements. Precision improvements usually mean more samples, more testing, and more tightly controlled processes, and are therefore costly changes. Accuracy or bias in testing is usually easier to affect by simply switching to another instrument, reference standard, etc. However, the pushing of results into only one direction can backfire and make the situation much worse later when small changes can add up and are not visible by themselves (because of poor precision). Decreasing the overall measurement errors or uncertainty in test results by increasing precision has a better long-term affect because any bias in results (from production, sampling or method changes) will be more visible and will appear sharper. Following the potency bioassay example, the sampling and testing scheme is briefly illustrated below.

Potency In-Process Sampling and Testing Scheme

To decrease the relatively high variance in the observed potency results (SPC), a variance analysis is needed. The sampling and assay set up for the downstream in-process potency test would then look like this (n = number of samples):
  • collect n = 1 in-process sample
  • split sample into two aliquots
  • run two independent assay runs, each generating n = 3 results (total of n = 6 results).6

In the example, reproducibility could be significantly improved by collecting n = 3 independent samples, each run in three independent assays with each having three replicates (total of n = 9 results). Because of the current assay set-up and sampling process, increasing the number of samples from n = 1 to n = 3 should significantly improve precision by a factor of 1.73 (square-root of 3, see Equation 2).6

To a lesser extent, an increase in assay runs from two to three runs should further improve the situation. Another more easily implemented improvement would be to run the assay control at only plus or minus 2 s.d. (instead of 3 s.d.). This test system suitability change should also improve the overall SPC variance (Figure 1). This improvement will lead to an expected 4% higher rate for invalid assay runs. This will be a relatively small price to pay when considered the predicted return.


1. Krause SO. Validation of analytical methods for biopharmaceuticals—A guide to risk-based validation and implementation strategies. PDA/DHI Publishing. Bethesda, MD; 2007 Apr.

2. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry (CDER/CVM/ORA, US FDA). PAT—A framework for innovative pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and quality assurance. Rockville, MD; 2004 Sep.

3. International Conference on Harmonisation. Q8, Pharmaceutical development. Geneva,Switzerland; 2005 Nov.

4. International Conference on Harmonisation. Q9, Quality risk management. Geneva,Switzerland; 2005 Nov.

5. International Conference on Harmonisation. Q10, Pharmaceutical quality system, draft consensus guideline. Geneva,Switzerland; May 2007.

6. Brown F, Mire-Sluis A, editors: The design and analysis of potency assays for biotechnology products. Dev Biol. Karger: 2002;107(1):117–127.

blog comments powered by Disqus



GPhA Supports Restricted Access Bill
September 18, 2014
Baxter Initiates Voluntary Recall of Potassium Chloride Injection
September 17, 2014
European Commission Approves RoACTEMRA for Treatment of RA
September 9, 2014
PDA Announces Technical Report on Drug Shortages
September 9, 2014
Infinity and AbbVie Collaborate to Develop Oncology Drug
September 5, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here