Palabras clave
validação
bioensaio
erro total
ELISA
Cómo citar
Resumen
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.Citas
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.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2012 Revista del Instituto Adolfo Lutz