Palavras-chave
validação
bioensaio
erro total
ELISA
Como Citar
Resumo
O uso do conceito do Erro Total em validação de métodos analíticos é abordagem que incorpora a expressão da soma da veracidade e da precisão. Esse método utiliza ainda os Perfis de Exatidão baseados em intervalos de tolerância (ou intervalos de predição) para decidir se um modelo de calibração dará resultados de qualidade e prevê o controle do risco de aceitar uma metodologia imprópria. Com a finalidade de avaliar o uso dessas ferramentas para efetuar a validação de bioensaios, foram aplicados o Conceito do Erro Total, os perfis de Exatidão e os Índices de Exatidão no pré-estudo de validação de ELISA para determinar o teor de ovoalbumina em vacinas, abrangendo-se o intervalo de 33-167% da concentração alvo (5,0μg/mL) e um intervalo controle abaixo dessa faixa (0,33-2,5%). O pré-estudo de validação demonstrou que o ensaio apresenta exatidão, precisão, linearidade e veracidade em conformidade no intervalo de concentrações 1,25-10μg/mL, e mostrou ser ensaio confiável para avaliar o teor de ovalbumina. A abordagem do conceito do Erro Total é ferramenta para efetuar validações que apresentam desempenho superior à abordagem clássica, que avalia os componentes de veracidade e precisão isoladamente, e é capaz de identificar deficiências na Exatidão de um bioensaio.Referências
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. US Food and Drug Administration − FDA. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research − CBER. Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. Rockville; 2001.
2. Gibelin N, Dupont D, Imbert S, Rozet E. Use of Total Error concept in the validation of viral activity in cell cultures. J Chromatogr B. 2009;877:2407-11.
3. ABNT. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2005: Requisitos gerais para competência técnica de laboratórios de ensaio e calibração. Rio de Janeiro; 2005.
4. Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução RE nº 899, de 29 de maio de 2003. Guia para validação de métodos analíticos e bioanalíticos. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília (DF); 2 jun 2003.
5. Boulanger B, Dewé W, Gilbert A, Govaerts B, Maumy M. Risk management for analytical methods based on the total error concept: Conciliating the objectives of the pre-study and in-study validation phases. Chem Intell Lab Sys. 2007;86:198-207.
6. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Topic Q2 (R1): Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology. Genebra; 2005.
7. ISO. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 3534-2. Statistics − Vocabulary and symbols − Part 2: Applied statistics. 2. ed. Genebra: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
8. ISO. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725. Application of the Statistics − Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of the Results and Methods of Measurement − Part 1: General principles and definitions. Genebra: International Organization for Standardization; 1994.
9. Chapuzet E, Mercier N, Bervoas-Martin S, Boulanger B, Chevalier P, Chiap P, et al. Méthodes chromatographiques de dosage dans les milieux biologiques: Stratégie de validation Rapport d’une commission SFSTP. STP Pharma Pratiques. 1997;7:169-94.
10. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal − Part I. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2004;36:579-86.
11. Mee RW. β-Expectation and β-Content Tolerance Limits for Balanced One-Way ANOVA Random Model. Technometrics. 1984;26(3):251-4.
12. Feinberg M, Boulanger B, Dewe W, Hubert Ph. New advances in method validation and measurement uncertainty aimed at improving the quality of chemical data. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2004;380:502-14.
13. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al.Validation des procédures analytiques quantitatives. Harmonisation des démarches. STP Pharm Prat. 2003;13(3):101.
14. Hartmann C, Massart DL, McDowall RD. An analysis of the Washington Conference Report on bioanalytical method validation. Pharm Biomed Anal. 1994;12:1337.
15. Hartmann C, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL, McDowall RD. Validation of bioanalytical chromatographic methods. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1998;17:193.
16. Rozet E, Ceccato A, Hubert C, Ziemons E, Oprean R, Rudaz S, et al. Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation. J Chromatogr A. 2007;1158:111-25.
17. Rozet E, Wascotte V, Lecouturier N, Préat V, Dewé W, Boulanger B, et al. Improvement of the decision efficiency of the accuracy profile by means of a desirability function for analytical methods validation. Application to a diacetyl-monoxime colorimetric assay used for the determination of urea in transdermal iontophoretic extracts. Anal Chim Acta. 2007;591:239-47.
18. Hoffman D, Kringle R. A Total Error Approach for the Validation of Quantitative Analytical Methods. Pharm Res. 2007;24(6):1157-63.
19. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of
quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal − Part II. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2007;45:70-8.
20. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal − Part III. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2007;45:82-96.
21. Rozet E, Ceccato A, Hubert C, Ziemons E, Oprean E, Rudaz S, et al. Using tolerance intervals in pre-study validation of analytical methods to predict in-study results: The fit-for-future-purpose concept. J Chromatogr A. 2007;1158:126-37.
22. USA – US Department of Health and Human Services. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Process Analytical Technology (PAT) Initiative. Rockville; 2004.
23. USA – US Department of Health and Human Services. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). International Conference on Harmonization (ICH): Quality Risk Management (Q9). Fed. Regist. 2006;71:32105-6.
24. Findlay JWA, Smith WC, Lee JW, Nordblom GD, Das I, DeSilva BS, et al. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. J Pharm Biom Anal. 2000;21:1249-73.
25. Dos Santos JE, Nascimento MC, Dos Santos PA, Nogueira ACA, Moura WC. Aplicação do Conceito do Erro Total na validação do ensaio de potência da Vacina Oral contra a Poliomielite. Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz. 2011;70(4):613-21.
26. Gaudin V, Laurentie M. Application of total error approach to assess the performance of a biological method (ELISA) to detect nicarbazin residues in eggs. J Chromatogr B. 2009;877:2358-62.
27. Derringer GC, Suich R. Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables. J Qual Tech. 1980;12(4):214-9.
28. Derringer GC. A balancing act: optimizing a product’s properties. Qual Progr. 1994;51-8.
29. EURACHEM. Citac Guide CG4: Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement. English edition. 3. ed. Praga; 2012.
30. Brasil. Farmacopeia Brasileira. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Brasília (DF): Anvisa; 2010. v. 2. p. 1363-4.
31. Miller KJ, Bowsher RR, Celniker A, Gibbons J, Gupta S, Lee JL, et al. Workshop on Bioanalytical Methods Validation for Macromolecules: Summary Report. Pharm Res. 2001;18(9):1373-83.
32. Li-Chan ECY, Powrie WD, Nakai S. The chemistry of eggs and egg products. In: Stadelman, WJ, Cotterill OJ, editors. Egg Science and Technology. 4. ed. Haworth Press: New York; 1995. p.105-75.
33. Alpha Diagnostic International. Mouse Anti-Ovalbumin Ig. ELISA Kit Cat. Nº 600-100-OGG. For Semi-Quantitative Determination of Anti-Ovalbumin Total Ig (IgG+IgA+IgM) in Biological Fluids. Instruction Manual Nº M-600-100-OGG.
34. EDQM – Council of Europe. CombiStats v.4.0.
35. USA − United States Phamacopoeia. 1033: Biological Assay Validation. In: USP 35 NF30. Rockville (EUA); 2012;1 Suppl:5174-85.
36. Grubbs F. Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations. Ann Math Stat. 1969;27-58.
37. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures: A SFSTP proposal − Part IV. Examples of application. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008;48:760-1.
38. WHO. World Health Organization. WHO guide to good manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements. Part 2: Validation. Chp. 15, Validation of analytical assays. Genebra: WHO; 1997. p. 65-73.
39. De Silva B, Smith W, Weiner R, Kelley M, Smolec J, Lee B, et al. Recommendations for the Bioanalytical Method Validation of Ligand-binding Assays to Support Pharmacokinetic Assessments of Macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20(11):1885-900.
40. Health Protection Agency. Uncertaint of Measure in testing. National Standard Method QSOP 4 issue 5. País de Gales (UK); 2005.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2012 Jorge Luiz dos Santos Possas, Jarbas Emílio dos Santos, Michele Cardoso do Nascimento, Patrícia Alves dos Santos, Deivid Wanderson Couto dos Anjos, Wlamir Corrêa de Moura