Risk-Based Intermediate Precision Studies for Analytical Procedure Validation
Validation of analytical procedures require assessment of the impact of variations within laboratories; however, guidance to study intermediate precision has been lacking. Science and risk-based principles should be used in the design of intermediate precision studies.
Validation of analytical procedures requires study of intermediate precision for within-laboratories variations; however, there is no global guidance on how to develop such designs. By applying science- and risk-based principles-aligned with quality by design (QbD)-to analytical procedures, studies can be designed to ensure the factors selected present the highest risk of impacting the performance of the analytical procedure. In addition, the number of independent analytical runs to include in these designs should be linked to the overall risk/complexity associated with the analytical procedure.
Useful pre-QbD guidance (provided by the Japanese National Institute of Health Sciences) proposed the use of a generic design which utilizes six independent analytical runs. Examples are provided which instead link the design structure and the number of independent analytical runs to the risk.
Read this article in Pharmaceutical Technology’s September 2019 Regulatory Sourcebook.
Article Details
Pharmaceutical Technology
eBook: Regulatory Sourcebook, September 2019
September 2019
Pages: 12–22
Citation
When referring to this article, please cite it as P.J. Borman, et al., “Risk-Based Intermediate Precision Studies for Analytical Procedure Validation," Pharmaceutical Technology Regulatory Sourcebook eBook (September 2019).
Drug Shortages and Complying with FDA’s 21 CFR 211.110 Guidance
April 2nd 2025Susan J. Schniepp, distinguished fellow at Regulatory Compliance Associates, and Rona LeBlanc-Rivera, PhD, principal consultant, Regulatory Affairs at Regulatory Compliance Associates, answer some questions about FDA’s January 2025 21 CFR 211.110 guidance document.
