Keywords
validation
bioassay
total error
ELISA
How to Cite
Abstract
The use of the Total Error approach for validating the analytical methods incorporates the expression of the sum of trueness and precision. This analysis also uses the Accuracy Profiles based on tolerance intervals (or prediction intervals) to determine whether a calibration model will provide quality results and to predict the control of risk in accepting an inadequate methodology. In order to evaluate the use of the Total Error, the Accuracy Profiles and the Accuracy Index approaches for validating bioassays, these tools were used in the pre-study of validation of an ELISA for determining the ovalbumin contents in vaccines. And it covered the range of 33-167% of target concentration (5.0 ug/mL) and the control interval below this range (0.33-2.5%). The pre-study validation showed that this assay demonstrates complying accuracy, precision, linearity and accuracy in the concentration range of 1.25-10μg/mL; and it is a reliable methodology to assess the ovalbumin contents. The Total Error approach is a validation tool that shows superior performance, when compared to the classical analysis, which assesses the trueness and precision components separately, and it is qualified to identify the deficiencies in the accuracy of a bioassay.References
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2012 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal