Advertisement

A Probability Based Equivalence Test of NIR Versus HPLC Analytical Methods in a Continuous Manufacturing Process Validation Study

  • Areti ManolaEmail author
  • Steven Novick
  • Jyh-Ming Shoung
  • Stan Altan
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 218)

Abstract

Continuous manufacturing processes rely on Process Analytical Technology (PAT) and chemometric Near Infrared (NIR) technologies to carry out real time release testing (RTRt). A critical requirement for this purpose is to establish the equivalence between the NIR analytical method with the gold standard analytical method, say an HPLC method. We propose a variance components model that acknowledges the inherent blocking across individual dosage units through a paired comparison. Variance terms corresponding to dosage unit, location effects due to a stratified sampling plan and heterogeneous residual terms provide estimates of the total measurement uncertainty in both methods free of dosage unit effects. Bayesian posterior parameter estimates and the posterior predictive distribution are used to assess the performance of the NIR method in relation to the HPLC gold standard method as a measure of equivalence, referred to as a Relative Performance Index (Rel_Pfm). An acceptably high probability of a Rel_Pfm of 1 (or greater) is proposed as the essential requirement for establishing equivalence (or superiority).

Keywords

Continuous manufacture Bayesian mixed model Equivalence test Comparison of analytical methods 

References

  1. 1.
    Chow, S.C.: Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 6(4), 304–312 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collins, J., et al.: A continuous improvement metric for pharmaceutical manufacturing. Pharm. Technol. 41(8), 40–42. http://www.pharmtech.com/continuous-improvement-metric-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-0 (2017). Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  3. 3.
    Gelman, A., et al.: Bayesian Data Analysis. CRC Press Bova Raton, FL (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    JAGS, GNU General Public License version 2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plummer, M.: JAGS: A program for analysis of bayesian graphical models using gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SAS 9.4 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuirmann, D.J.: A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 15(6), 657–680 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang, H., Schofield, T.: statistical considerations for design and analysis of bridging studies. J. Valid. Technol. 20 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Areti Manola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven Novick
    • 2
  • Jyh-Ming Shoung
    • 1
  • Stan Altan
    • 1
  1. 1.Janssen Pharmaceutical R&DRaritanUSA
  2. 2.MedimmuneGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations