[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Pharmaceuticals based on proteins (biologicals), such as monoclonal antibodies (mAb), attain more and more relevance since they were established as potent drugs in anticancer therapy or for the treatment of autoimmune based diseases. Due to their high efficiency it is essential to have accurate and precise methods for protein quantitation and the detection of protein aggregates, which in some cases may lead to adverse effects after application. Selectivity and precision of traditional protein quantification methods such as the Bradford assay or SDS-PAGE are insufficient for quality control (QC) purposes. In this work several HPLC separation modes, which can significantly improve these important parameters, were compared for their application in this field. High performance size exclusion (HP-SEC), strong anion exchange (SAX), weak cation exchange (WCX) as well as reversed phase chromatography are all already successfully applied in protein analysis. Good precision (SEC: <1.9%, SAX: <5%, RP: <2% and WCX: <3.5% - RSD% for peak areas day-to-day), high selectivity and low quantitation limits (<15μg/ml) for the model proteins ovalbumin, myoglobin and bovine serum albumin (BSA), respectively cytochrome c and lysozyme in the cation exchange mode, could be achieved. Consecutively, the four separation modes were compared to each other and to electrophoretic techniques in terms of precision, selectivity, analysis time, effort of sample and mobile phase preparation as well as separating capacity. Moreover, the analysis of an IgG1-type antibody was included in this study.
Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis 08/2012; 71:127-38. · 2.45 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A method development process is commonly finalized by a method transfer from the developing to the routine laboratory. Statistical tests are performed in order to survey if a transfer succeeded or failed. However, using the classic two-sample t-test can lead to misjudgments and unsatisfying transfer results due to its test characteristics. Therefore the International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) employed a fixed method transfer design using equivalence tests in their Guide for Technology Transfer. Although it was well received by analytical laboratories worldwide this fixed design can easily bring about high beta-errors (rejection of successful transfers) or high workload (many analysts employed during transfer) if sigma(AN) (error due to different analysts) exceeds 0.6%. Hence this work introduces an extended concept which will help to circumvent this disadvantage by providing guidance to select a personalized and more appropriate experimental design. First of all it demonstrates that former t-test related acceptance criteria can be scaled by a factor of 1.15, which allows for a broader tolerance without a loss of decision certainty. Furthermore a decision guidance to choose the proper number of analysts or series at given percentage acceptance limits (%AL) is presented.
Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis 12/2010; 53(5):1124-9. · 2.45 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Analytical instrument qualification (AIQ) is a prerequisite for any analytical method validation and thus must be considered as a vital basis of analytical data integrity and quality in pharmaceutical analysis. There is a well-established system of qualification phases-Design Qualification, Installation Qualification (IQ), Operational Qualification (OQ) and Performance Qualification (PQ). As HPLC systems are "off the shelf" equipment, Design Qualification may be disregarded here. IQ establishes that the instrument is received as designed and that it is properly installed. OQ is carried out modularly with the intention to ensure that the specific modules of the system and the whole system are operating according to the defined specifications. PQ as the last step of the initial qualification is supposed to ensure continued satisfactory performance of an instrument under actual running conditions over the anticipated working range during daily use. However, PQ is not a one time exercise, but is currently repeated regularly independently from routine use of the analytical system using standard reference test condition. But this approach, which is time consuming and expensive only provides a snapshot of system performance. As HPLC procedures generally require a system suitability test (SST) prior and/or after test, it might be far more reasonable and robust to use these SST data for a continuous PQ. The work presented here demonstrates that, under certain circumstances, satisfactory instrument performance assessment can be derived from system suitability tests and performance data from daily use as well. A generally accepted qualification list, consisting of only twelve critical parameters, was compiled in a first step. Some parameters such as injector or thermostatting accuracy were considered redundant while others were successfully incorporated in the proposed holistic approach. System suitability test data as well as OQ/PQ data were provided from different sources and evaluated. The promising results confirmed our concept of ongoing/continuous PQ as a major improvement in AIQ. This approach will not only help to reduce time and effort in the daily laboratory routine without losing data quality, but also avoid the critical re-evaluation of numerous analytical tests once a routine PQ fails.
Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis 09/2009; 51(3):557-64. · 2.45 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Fast HPLC methods are becoming more and more important. Using monolithic HPLC columns for fast separations, a flow program can be applied for further decrease in the total run time. An interesting issue was whether the flow program affects repeatability. The investigated method was a generic assay for the oral antidiabetic drugs glibenclamide and glimepiride in the presence of two of their degradation products. A flow program ranging from 5.0 to 9.9 mL/min had been set up to decrease the run time to approximately 1.7 min. Within-day RSD% (n = 40) for both retention times and peak areas were less than 1%. At flow rates higher than 7 mL/min, repeatability was impaired to some extent. It became mainly noticeable through the day-to-day precision (n = 60) which showed RSD% up to 2%. However, further investigations indicated that this was rather related to pump inefficiency at high flow rates than to the flow program as such. Presuming the use of appropriate equipment, qualified for high flow rates, the application of a flow program for shortening the run time is absolutely reasonable and does not affect repeatability.
Journal of Separation Science 07/2008; 31(10):1745-9. · 2.59 Impact Factor