January 28, 2025 • 21 mins
This episode dives into the world of analytical validation, focusing on the ICH Q2 guidelines and their role in ensuring reliable data in drug development. We break down critical concepts like accuracy, precision, specificity, and robustness, explaining how each contributes to producing safe and effective medications. We also explore why early drug development relies on verification instead of validation and how this process evolves for biologics, tackling challenges like variability and the need for complex bioassays.
We discuss the global regulatory frameworks that govern analytical validation, such as CGMPs and ICH Q2, highlighting their importance in maintaining consistent standards worldwide. Real-world scenarios illustrate how these principles apply across preclinical studies, clinical trials, and manufacturing, ensuring quality and reliability at every stage.
Looking ahead, we examine the emerging challenges in analytical validation brought by personalized medicine and advanced therapies like cell and gene treatments. With the need for more sensitive and robust methods, the field continues to evolve, offering exciting opportunities for innovation. This episode provides a comprehensive overview of the science, regulations, and future of analytical validation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
All right, so today we're going to dive deep into analytical validation, ICHQ2,
(00:06):
and you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it.
Accuracy, precision, specificity, robustness, the whole nine yards,
and also why early drug development uses verification instead of validation,
and of course, how things change when we're talking about big complex biologics.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting because this is a highly technical area,
but it has a direct impact on the safety and efficacy of the medicines we all rely on.
(00:29):
Yeah, it's kind of like the unsung hero of drug development, right?
Making sure the tests and the measurements are actually reliable.
Exactly.
So let's get into it. ICHQ2, what is the deal?
Well, ICHQ2, basically it's a globally recognized set of guidelines
that ensures the data we're getting from analytical procedures
is top-notch reliable, consistent, and accurate.
Okay, so it's all about good data.
(00:50):
It is all about good data because those procedures are used
to assess the quality of drugs throughout their life cycle.
Makes sense. So there's a lot of moving parts to this.
It sounds like you mentioned accuracy and precision.
Can you break those down a little bit?
Sure. So accuracy, first of all, ensures that the method is hitting the bullseye.
It's measuring what it's supposed to measure with minimal error.
(01:11):
Okay.
Precision, on the other hand, is all about consistency.
It tells you how tightly grouped your results are
when you repeat a measurement multiple times.
So it's like accuracy is hitting the target,
and then precision is how tight your grouping is,
even if you're a little bit off-center.
Exactly.
Got it. What about specificity? What is that?
Specificity ensures that your method is laser-focused.
(01:33):
It only picks up the specific analyte you're interested in,
even if there are other potentially interfering substances around.
So think of it like this.
You're trying to identify a specific voice in a crowded room.
A highly specific method is like having a filter that blocks out all the other voices
so you can clearly hear the one you're looking for.
Oh, that's a great analogy, yeah.
So it's all about filtering out that noise and getting the signal that you want.
(01:55):
Exactly.
What about robustness? That always sounds like it.
Can your method handle a bumpy ride?
That's a great way to put it.
Robustness is all about how well your method holds up when things aren't perfect,
when you have slight variations in temperature pH or even the instruments you're using.
A robust method will still give you reliable results,
even when those conditions fluctuate a bit.
(02:16):
It's like having a car with good suspension.
You can hit a few potholes, and it's not going to shake everything apart.
Yeah, you're building a safety net for your method,
making sure it's not overly sensitive to all the little things that happen in a real-world lab.
Exactly.
Now, I'm curious about this distinction between validation and verification.
My notes say that verification is often used in the early stages of drug development.
(02:39):
Why is that?
That's a great question, and it comes down to efficiency in drug development.
Early on, you're exploring different drug candidates,
testing various formulations and refining your analytical methods.
And full validation at this stage would be like trying to build a skyscraper
on a foundation that's still settling.
Oh, OK.
It would be time-consuming and potentially very wasteful.
So you need to pick the right tool for the job.
(03:01):
So early on, you need something quick and flexible just to keep things moving.
Exactly.
Verification is like a quick check confirming you're on the right track.
You're essentially asking, did we do this step correctly?
It helps ensure quality, but without getting bogged down
in the extensive documentation and testing required for full validation.
(03:21):
So it's kind of like proof of concept.
You're making sure you're headed in the right direction
before you commit all those resources to building the whole structure.
Exactly.
OK.
So we've covered a lot of ground with these validation parameters.
Now let's tackle those big complex molecules, the biologics.
They always have a reputation for being a little bit more demanding.
What makes them so different when it comes to validation?
(03:44):
Biologics are fascinating because they're essentially
derived from living organisms.
So they're much more structurally complex than their small molecule
counterparts.
And this complexity introduces a whole new set of challenges
when it comes to validation.
Give us a lowdown.
What are some of those challenges?
One major challenge is inherent variability.
Unlike small molecules, which have a very defined chemical structure,
(04:08):
biologics can exhibit slight variations from batch to batch.
Think of it like identical twins.
Even identical twins have subtle differences.
So our analytical methods need to be able to accommodate
this inherent variability without compromising accuracy and precision.
So you're trying to hit a moving target with biologics.
Exactly.
(04:28):
You're not just dealing with a single molecule,
but a population of molecules.
Exactly.
That sounds like a challenge.
It is.
It is.
And then another hurdle is the need for bioassays.
With small molecules, we often rely on physicochemical methods
to assess things like purity and potency.
OK.
But with biologics, we often need to measure their biological activity,
how they interact with cells or tissues.
(04:49):
These bioassays are more complex, and they
can be quite sensitive to variations in the experimental conditions.
So you're not just measuring the molecule itself, but its function,
how it actually performs in a living system.
That adds a whole other layer of complexity.
What are some of the techniques that you use to validate these bioassays?
It really depends on the specific biologic and its intended use.
(05:12):
But some common techniques include cell-based assays,
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and even animal studies in some cases.
Wow.
Validating these bioassays requires careful consideration
of factors like cell line variability, assay reproducibility,
and the statistical analysis of the data.
So it sounds like validating biologics is
kind of like conducting an orchestra.
(05:33):
There's this complex interplay between biological systems
and analytical techniques.
And everything needs to be in perfect harmony to get reliable data.
It's definitely a lot more intricate than baking a cake.
Oh, absolutely.
It's a testament to the ingenuity and dedication of the scientists working
in this field.
And it highlights the importance of continuous learning and adaptation
as we delve deeper into this world of biologics.
(05:53):
I feel like I've already learned so much,
and we've just kind of skimmed the surface here.
Yeah, we've just scratched the surface.
So we're going to take a short pause, and then we'll
come back ready to explore the regulatory landscape surrounding
analytical validation, how this plays out in real-world drug development
scenarios, and maybe even get a glimpse into the future
of this really dynamic field.
(06:14):
Sounds good.
Stay tuned.
Welcome back.
So before the break, we were talking about a real-world example
where a specificity issue with an analytical method
almost derailed the development of a very promising cancer therapy.
Yeah, it was a good reminder that even these small little details
in analytical validation can have huge ripple effects
across the entire drug development process.
(06:35):
Absolutely.
And that's why a strong regulatory framework is so essential.
It provides a system of checks and balances,
making sure that every aspect of drug development,
from the initial research to the final product,
meets those rigorous quality standards.
OK, so let's talk regulations.
I know it's not the most exciting topic, but it is crucial here.
What are some of the key regulatory bodies and guidelines
(06:57):
that govern analytical validation, especially in the context of ICHQ2?
Well, in the United States, the FDA plays a major role
in overseeing the development and approval of new drugs,
including those biologics we were talking about.
Right, and they have pretty high standards,
which I guess is reassuring from a patient perspective.
How do they specifically make sure that the analytical methods
(07:18):
used to assess those drugs are up to snuff?
The FDA has established a set of regulations known as CGMPs,
or current good manufacturing practices,
and these guidelines cover a wide range of aspects,
from manufacturing processes and facility standards
to the validation of analytical methods.
This is like a comprehensive rule book for quality control,
making sure that every step in the process
(07:40):
is looked at very carefully and documented.
Precisely, and analytical validation
is woven into the very fabric of those CGMPs.
The FDA expects manufacturers to provide evidence
that their analytical methods are fit for purpose,
that they're accurate, precise, specific, robust,
all those parameters we discussed.
Right.
This involves documenting the validation process in detail,
including things like experimental procedures,
(08:03):
data analysis, acceptance criteria, all of that.
Sounds very thorough.
These regulations are not just limited to the US, right?
We talked about ICHQ2 being a globally recognized guideline.
Does this mean that drug manufacturers around the world
are held to the same standard?
Yeah, you're right.
While specific details might vary a little bit
from country to country, the core principles
(08:24):
of analytical validation, as outlined in ICHQ2,
are generally accepted and applied universally.
OK, that makes sense.
You don't want a drug that's considered safe and effective
in one country and then not another because
of differing standards.
Exactly.
So that global harmonization is essential for streamlining drug
development and making sure patients around the world
have access to safe and effective medicines
(08:46):
no matter where they are manufactured.
OK, so we've got this global framework in place,
but I'm curious, how do these regulations actually play out
in a real world scenario?
Can you walk us through an example,
maybe focusing on those preclinical studies
that you mentioned earlier?
Sure.
Let's imagine a research team that
is developing a new small molecule drug for a neurodegenerative
(09:06):
disease, let's say Alzheimer's disease.
In the early stages, they're conducting preclinical studies,
testing the drug in cells and animal models
to evaluate its safety and efficacy.
OK, so this is before they even start thinking
about human testing, right?
Absolutely.
They're gathering that initial data
to see if it's even worth moving forward with this drug.
And those preclinical studies generate a ton of data.
(09:28):
Analytical methods are used to analyze this data,
measuring things like the drug concentration in tissues,
the drug's effects on various biomarkers, and also
any potential toxicities.
So they're building a profile of the drug,
how it behaves in a living system.
And these analytical methods are really critical for providing
that information.
Exactly.
So let's say the researchers are using a technique called
(09:50):
high-performance liquid chromatography, or HPLC,
to measure the concentration of the drug in blood samples
from those animal models.
HPLC.
Remember that from chemistry class?
Yeah.
It's a way to separate and identify
the different components in a mixture, right?
Yes, you got it.
And in this case, they're using HPLC
to specifically measure how much drug is present in the blood.
(10:13):
To validate this method, they need to demonstrate
that it's accurate.
They might compare results from the HPLC
with a well-established reference method, maybe
something like mass spectrometry.
So it's like a double check.
It's like a double check, making sure they're
getting the right answers.
What about precision?
Yeah.
How do they demonstrate that their method is consistently
giving them reliable results?
Right.
(10:33):
Well, they would run the HPLC analysis several times
using the same blood sample and see how much variation
there is in those results.
If the results are very tightly clustered,
it suggests good precision.
They would also test different concentrations of the drug
just to make sure the method is accurate and precise
across the expected range of values.
So accuracy and precision checked.
(10:54):
What about specificity?
How do they make sure the HPLC is only
measuring that drug and nothing else in the blood?
Well, they might spike the blood samples
with known amounts of potentially interfering
substances, maybe things that are structurally
similar to the drug or commonly found in blood.
If that HPLC method can accurately measure the drug,
(11:14):
even when those interferences are present,
that's a good indicator of specificity.
So testing its ability to stay focused even
when there are distractions around.
Exactly.
That voice in a crowded room analogy
we talked about earlier.
And let's not forget robustness.
The researchers want to make sure that their HPLC method
isn't overly sensitive to small changes in things
(11:35):
like temperature pH or even the specific HPLC instrument
they're using.
Right.
So it needs to be able to handle those little real world
variations that might pop up on different days
or in different labs.
Exactly.
So what kind of experiments do they do to assess robustness?
Yeah.
What do they do?
They might deliberately vary the temperature or the pH
of what we call the mobile phase that's
(11:55):
used in the HPLC analysis and see how much the results change.
They might also run the analysis on different HPLC instruments
just to see if there are significant differences.
So they're stress testing the method.
Exactly.
They're pushing it to its limits to see
how much variation it can handle before it breaks down.
And if it can withstand those variations,
that's a good sign that it's a robust method.
Exactly.
And all of this data accuracy, precision, specificity,
(12:18):
robustness, all of that is carefully
documented and analyzed.
This documentation becomes part of the drug's regulatory
submission package, which provides evidence to the FDA
that the analytical methods used to generate
that preclinical data are reliable
and meet those standards.
Wow.
It's amazing to see how these validation principles are
woven into the very fabric of drug development.
(12:40):
It ensures that every piece of data
used to make decisions about a drug's safety and efficacy
is based on solid scientific ground.
Absolutely.
And this isn't just limited to preclinical studies.
These principles apply throughout the whole drug
development process, from clinical trials
to manufacturing and beyond.
OK, so we've seen validation in those preclinical studies.
(13:01):
What about when the drug moves into clinical trials?
Do those same principles apply?
Absolutely.
In fact, the stakes are even higher in clinical trials,
because now you're testing the drug in humans.
Analytical validation is really crucial for monitoring
the drug's safety and effectiveness in people
and for ensuring the quality and consistency
of the actual drug product.
(13:22):
Right.
So the methods you use to measure the drug
levels in patient's blood, for example,
would need to be very rigorously validated.
Exactly.
You need to make sure that data is accurate and reliable.
And let's not forget about stability testing.
As a drug moves through those clinical trials
and eventually towards approval, it's
critical to show that the drug product is stable over time,
(13:44):
that it doesn't degrade or become
less potent during storage.
Stability, that makes sense.
You don't want a drug that's effective today, but then
useless in a few months.
Exactly.
So how does analytical validation come into play
in stability testing?
Yeah, how does it?
Stability testing involves storing the drug product
under very controlled conditions,
different temperatures, humidity levels.
(14:04):
And then periodically, they analyze samples of the drug
to see if there are any changes in its quality.
So you're putting the drug through an accelerated aging
process.
Yes.
It's a good way to put it.
And the analytical methods used to analyze those samples
have to be validated to make sure
that any changes they detect are real and not just due
to variations in the analytical method.
(14:25):
OK, so it's all about eliminating
those false positives.
Exactly.
I'm starting to see the big picture here.
Analytical validation is this thread
that runs through the whole drug development process,
ensuring the quality and reliability of the data
at every single stage.
You got it.
And it doesn't stop there.
Even after a drug is approved and on the market,
(14:45):
analytical validation is still critical.
Oh, really?
I thought once the drug was approved, you were kind of done.
That's a common misconception.
But remember, any changes to a drug product or its
manufacturing process, even if they seem small,
can impact its quality, safety, and efficacy.
Right, so you can't just make changes on the fly.
No, you can't.
There needs to be a system in place
to make sure those changes don't have unintended consequences.
(15:08):
That's where analytical validation comes in again.
Whenever a change is proposed, a risk assessment
is performed to evaluate the potential impact of that change
on the drug product.
OK, so you're trying to identify those potential red flags.
Exactly.
And based on that risk assessment,
additional studies might be required
to show that the change isn't going to negatively affect
the drug.
(15:29):
And guess what?
Those studies will rely heavily on validated analytical methods
to provide the data.
I see.
So analytical validation is not just a one-time hurdle
during development.
It's an ongoing process.
Absolutely.
It's an ongoing process to make sure quality is maintained
throughout a drug's entire lifecycle.
OK, I see analytical validation is really
(15:50):
woven into the fabric of the whole pharmaceutical industry.
It is.
It provides a really important scientific foundation
for all the decision-making and ultimately
protects patient health.
Absolutely.
We've had a really great discussion today,
and this deep dive has been very interesting.
I feel like we've gone through the entire drug development
process now.
We have.
And we've seen how analytical validation
(16:11):
is so crucial at each stage.
It's been a pleasure to share this journey with you.
And I think we've covered a lot of ground,
but there's still more to explore.
There's more.
Yes.
In our final segment, we'll discuss some resources
that can help you continue your learning
about analytical validation.
We'll also talk about some of the emerging trends
and maybe some questions that will
get you thinking about the future of this dynamic field.
(16:33):
OK.
I'm excited.
Let's take a short break and then come back
for our final segment, where we'll
wrap up our exploration of analytical validation.
Sounds great.
Welcome back to our deep dive.
It's been quite a journey exploring all the ins
and outs of analytical validation,
from the nitty gritty details of accuracy and precision
(16:53):
to that big picture global regulatory landscape,
and even those real world scenarios where
validation is so crucial.
But as we've learned, this field is always moving forward,
always evolving.
Yeah.
It's fascinating as science advances
and we start developing these more complex therapies,
especially things like personalized medicine
and cell and gene therapies.
(17:14):
Those demands on analytical validation,
they just become even greater.
Yeah.
We've talked about those emerging challenges
a little bit, but I want to dive a little deeper
before we do, though.
I'm sure a listener is probably wondering
where they can go to learn more about this whole world
of validation.
Are there any resources that you recommend for someone who wants
to explore this further?
Absolutely.
The ICH website itself is a fantastic place to start.
(17:38):
They've got the full text of the Q2 guideline.
It's freely available and they have
tons of other information on drug development
and regulations.
So straight from the source, what about for some more
practical guidance?
Like if someone's actually designing and running
these validation studies, are there resources
that can give them some more hands on advice?
I always recommend the United States Pharmacopeia or USP.
(18:00):
They have several chapters that are dedicated
to analytical method validation.
And you'll find really detailed guidance
on different techniques and some practical tips
for actually carrying out those studies.
OK.
USP got it.
And they're like the gold standard
for pharmaceutical quality, right?
Yes, completely.
So we've got the ICH for that big picture overview,
and then USP for those on the ground details.
(18:22):
Now what about staying up to date?
This field just seems to be constantly evolving
with new technologies, new therapies.
Are there any journals or conferences that you would
suggest?
Definitely.
The Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis
is an excellent resource.
It covers a wide range of topics,
all related to analytical methods and drug development.
And for conferences, the AAPS, the American Association
(18:44):
of Pharmaceutical Scientists, they
hold an annual meeting that always has some fantastic
sessions focused on cutting edge advances
in analytical validation.
That's great.
So many awesome resources out there for folks to check out.
Now switching gears just a little bit,
one question that I hear a lot, especially from people
who are newer to the field, is how do you even
(19:04):
go about choosing the right analytical method
for a particular application?
There's just so many techniques out there.
That's a great question.
And there really is no one size fits all answer.
It all comes down to considering the specific situation.
What analyte are you trying to measure?
What kind of matrix is it in?
What level of sensitivity and specificity do you need?
(19:27):
What resources do you have available?
So it's not just about grabbing that newest, shiniest
technique off the shelf.
Exactly.
It's about what's most appropriate for the task at hand.
And I imagine there's some trial and error involved.
Absolutely.
Testing out different methods, comparing their performance,
and really optimizing that analytical approach
to make sure you're getting the best data possible.
Yeah, it's like being a detective piecing it all together.
(19:49):
Now before we wrap up, I want to circle back
to those future challenges that we've touched on.
Personalized medicine cell and gene therapies,
these are really exciting areas.
But they also present some unique hurdles
for analytical validation.
How do you see the field evolving to keep
pace with these advancements?
That's a question that's on the minds of everyone
in this field right now.
(20:09):
We know that the current methods and guidelines,
while they're robust, they may not
be enough to address the complexities
of these new therapies.
Right, because with personalized medicine,
you're treating each patient as their own individual case.
And with cell and gene therapy, you're
manipulating those living systems.
That just adds a whole other level of variability
and complexity.
(20:29):
Absolutely.
So we need to start thinking about how we develop even more
sensitive, specific, and robust methods, methods that
can detect tiny amounts of analytes
in these really complex matrices, methods that
can account for all that variability
we see in living systems.
So it's not just about refining the existing techniques,
but maybe even inventing entirely new approaches?
It's a tall order.
It is.
(20:50):
But it's a really exciting opportunity
for the analytical science community.
We have the chance to be on the leading edge
of the scientific revolution, shaping
the future of medicine by developing
the tools and strategies that will
help these groundbreaking therapies reach patients
safely and effectively.
Well said.
This has been an amazing deep dive
into analytical validation.
(21:11):
I feel like we've learned so much from the fundamentals
to the future challenges.
And to our listener, I hope this has given you the knowledge
and maybe even the inspiration to continue
exploring this field.
Who knows?
Maybe you'll be the one developing
those groundbreaking validation methods of tomorrow.
Absolutely.
Keep asking those questions.
Stay curious and never stop exploring
the amazing world of science.
(21:32):
Perfectly said.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive
into the world of analytical validation.
Until next time, keep learning and keep
pushing those boundaries of knowledge.
All right, so today we're going to dive deep into analytical validation, ICHQ2,
(00:06):
and you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it.
Accuracy, precision, specificity, robustness, the whole nine yards,
and also why early drug development uses verification instead of validation,
and of course, how things change when we're talking about big complex biologics.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting because this is a highly technical area,
but it has a direct impact on the safety and efficacy of the medicines we all rely on.
(00:29):
Yeah, it's kind of like the unsung hero of drug development, right?
Making sure the tests and the measurements are actually reliable.
Exactly.
So let's get into it. ICHQ2, what is the deal?
Well, ICHQ2, basically it's a globally recognized set of guidelines
that ensures the data we're getting from analytical procedures
is top-notch reliable, consistent, and accurate.
Okay, so it's all about good data.
(00:50):
It is all about good data because those procedures are used
to assess the quality of drugs throughout their life cycle.
Makes sense. So there's a lot of moving parts to this.
It sounds like you mentioned accuracy and precision.
Can you break those down a little bit?
Sure. So accuracy, first of all, ensures that the method is hitting the bullseye.
It's measuring what it's supposed to measure with minimal error.
(01:11):
Okay.
Precision, on the other hand, is all about consistency.
It tells you how tightly grouped your results are
when you repeat a measurement multiple times.
So it's like accuracy is hitting the target,
and then precision is how tight your grouping is,
even if you're a little bit off-center.
Exactly.
Got it. What about specificity? What is that?
Specificity ensures that your method is laser-focused.
(01:33):
It only picks up the specific analyte you're interested in,
even if there are other potentially interfering substances around.
So think of it like this.
You're trying to identify a specific voice in a crowded room.
A highly specific method is like having a filter that blocks out all the other voices
so you can clearly hear the one you're looking for.
Oh, that's a great analogy, yeah.
So it's all about filtering out that noise and getting the signal that you want.
(01:55):
Exactly.
What about robustness? That always sounds like it.
Can your method handle a bumpy ride?
That's a great way to put it.
Robustness is all about how well your method holds up when things aren't perfect,
when you have slight variations in temperature pH or even the instruments you're using.
A robust method will still give you reliable results,
even when those conditions fluctuate a bit.
(02:16):
It's like having a car with good suspension.
You can hit a few potholes, and it's not going to shake everything apart.
Yeah, you're building a safety net for your method,
making sure it's not overly sensitive to all the little things that happen in a real-world lab.
Exactly.
Now, I'm curious about this distinction between validation and verification.
My notes say that verification is often used in the early stages of drug development.
(02:39):
Why is that?
That's a great question, and it comes down to efficiency in drug development.
Early on, you're exploring different drug candidates,
testing various formulations and refining your analytical methods.
And full validation at this stage would be like trying to build a skyscraper
on a foundation that's still settling.
Oh, OK.
It would be time-consuming and potentially very wasteful.
So you need to pick the right tool for the job.
(03:01):
So early on, you need something quick and flexible just to keep things moving.
Exactly.
Verification is like a quick check confirming you're on the right track.
You're essentially asking, did we do this step correctly?
It helps ensure quality, but without getting bogged down
in the extensive documentation and testing required for full validation.
(03:21):
So it's kind of like proof of concept.
You're making sure you're headed in the right direction
before you commit all those resources to building the whole structure.
Exactly.
OK.
So we've covered a lot of ground with these validation parameters.
Now let's tackle those big complex molecules, the biologics.
They always have a reputation for being a little bit more demanding.
What makes them so different when it comes to validation?
(03:44):
Biologics are fascinating because they're essentially
derived from living organisms.
So they're much more structurally complex than their small molecule
counterparts.
And this complexity introduces a whole new set of challenges
when it comes to validation.
Give us a lowdown.
What are some of those challenges?
One major challenge is inherent variability.
Unlike small molecules, which have a very defined chemical structure,
(04:08):
biologics can exhibit slight variations from batch to batch.
Think of it like identical twins.
Even identical twins have subtle differences.
So our analytical methods need to be able to accommodate
this inherent variability without compromising accuracy and precision.
So you're trying to hit a moving target with biologics.
Exactly.
(04:28):
You're not just dealing with a single molecule,
but a population of molecules.
Exactly.
That sounds like a challenge.
It is.
It is.
And then another hurdle is the need for bioassays.
With small molecules, we often rely on physicochemical methods
to assess things like purity and potency.
OK.
But with biologics, we often need to measure their biological activity,
how they interact with cells or tissues.
(04:49):
These bioassays are more complex, and they
can be quite sensitive to variations in the experimental conditions.
So you're not just measuring the molecule itself, but its function,
how it actually performs in a living system.
That adds a whole other layer of complexity.
What are some of the techniques that you use to validate these bioassays?
It really depends on the specific biologic and its intended use.
(05:12):
But some common techniques include cell-based assays,
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and even animal studies in some cases.
Wow.
Validating these bioassays requires careful consideration
of factors like cell line variability, assay reproducibility,
and the statistical analysis of the data.
So it sounds like validating biologics is
kind of like conducting an orchestra.
(05:33):
There's this complex interplay between biological systems
and analytical techniques.
And everything needs to be in perfect harmony to get reliable data.
It's definitely a lot more intricate than baking a cake.
Oh, absolutely.
It's a testament to the ingenuity and dedication of the scientists working
in this field.
And it highlights the importance of continuous learning and adaptation
as we delve deeper into this world of biologics.
(05:53):
I feel like I've already learned so much,
and we've just kind of skimmed the surface here.
Yeah, we've just scratched the surface.
So we're going to take a short pause, and then we'll
come back ready to explore the regulatory landscape surrounding
analytical validation, how this plays out in real-world drug development
scenarios, and maybe even get a glimpse into the future
of this really dynamic field.
(06:14):
Sounds good.
Stay tuned.
Welcome back.
So before the break, we were talking about a real-world example
where a specificity issue with an analytical method
almost derailed the development of a very promising cancer therapy.
Yeah, it was a good reminder that even these small little details
in analytical validation can have huge ripple effects
across the entire drug development process.
(06:35):
Absolutely.
And that's why a strong regulatory framework is so essential.
It provides a system of checks and balances,
making sure that every aspect of drug development,
from the initial research to the final product,
meets those rigorous quality standards.
OK, so let's talk regulations.
I know it's not the most exciting topic, but it is crucial here.
What are some of the key regulatory bodies and guidelines
(06:57):
that govern analytical validation, especially in the context of ICHQ2?
Well, in the United States, the FDA plays a major role
in overseeing the development and approval of new drugs,
including those biologics we were talking about.
Right, and they have pretty high standards,
which I guess is reassuring from a patient perspective.
How do they specifically make sure that the analytical methods
(07:18):
used to assess those drugs are up to snuff?
The FDA has established a set of regulations known as CGMPs,
or current good manufacturing practices,
and these guidelines cover a wide range of aspects,
from manufacturing processes and facility standards
to the validation of analytical methods.
This is like a comprehensive rule book for quality control,
making sure that every step in the process
(07:40):
is looked at very carefully and documented.
Precisely, and analytical validation
is woven into the very fabric of those CGMPs.
The FDA expects manufacturers to provide evidence
that their analytical methods are fit for purpose,
that they're accurate, precise, specific, robust,
all those parameters we discussed.
Right.
This involves documenting the validation process in detail,
including things like experimental procedures,
(08:03):
data analysis, acceptance criteria, all of that.
Sounds very thorough.
These regulations are not just limited to the US, right?
We talked about ICHQ2 being a globally recognized guideline.
Does this mean that drug manufacturers around the world
are held to the same standard?
Yeah, you're right.
While specific details might vary a little bit
from country to country, the core principles
(08:24):
of analytical validation, as outlined in ICHQ2,
are generally accepted and applied universally.
OK, that makes sense.
You don't want a drug that's considered safe and effective
in one country and then not another because
of differing standards.
Exactly.
So that global harmonization is essential for streamlining drug
development and making sure patients around the world
have access to safe and effective medicines
(08:46):
no matter where they are manufactured.
OK, so we've got this global framework in place,
but I'm curious, how do these regulations actually play out
in a real world scenario?
Can you walk us through an example,
maybe focusing on those preclinical studies
that you mentioned earlier?
Sure.
Let's imagine a research team that
is developing a new small molecule drug for a neurodegenerative
(09:06):
disease, let's say Alzheimer's disease.
In the early stages, they're conducting preclinical studies,
testing the drug in cells and animal models
to evaluate its safety and efficacy.
OK, so this is before they even start thinking
about human testing, right?
Absolutely.
They're gathering that initial data
to see if it's even worth moving forward with this drug.
And those preclinical studies generate a ton of data.
(09:28):
Analytical methods are used to analyze this data,
measuring things like the drug concentration in tissues,
the drug's effects on various biomarkers, and also
any potential toxicities.
So they're building a profile of the drug,
how it behaves in a living system.
And these analytical methods are really critical for providing
that information.
Exactly.
So let's say the researchers are using a technique called
(09:50):
high-performance liquid chromatography, or HPLC,
to measure the concentration of the drug in blood samples
from those animal models.
HPLC.
Remember that from chemistry class?
Yeah.
It's a way to separate and identify
the different components in a mixture, right?
Yes, you got it.
And in this case, they're using HPLC
to specifically measure how much drug is present in the blood.
(10:13):
To validate this method, they need to demonstrate
that it's accurate.
They might compare results from the HPLC
with a well-established reference method, maybe
something like mass spectrometry.
So it's like a double check.
It's like a double check, making sure they're
getting the right answers.
What about precision?
Yeah.
How do they demonstrate that their method is consistently
giving them reliable results?
Right.
(10:33):
Well, they would run the HPLC analysis several times
using the same blood sample and see how much variation
there is in those results.
If the results are very tightly clustered,
it suggests good precision.
They would also test different concentrations of the drug
just to make sure the method is accurate and precise
across the expected range of values.
So accuracy and precision checked.
(10:54):
What about specificity?
How do they make sure the HPLC is only
measuring that drug and nothing else in the blood?
Well, they might spike the blood samples
with known amounts of potentially interfering
substances, maybe things that are structurally
similar to the drug or commonly found in blood.
If that HPLC method can accurately measure the drug,
(11:14):
even when those interferences are present,
that's a good indicator of specificity.
So testing its ability to stay focused even
when there are distractions around.
Exactly.
That voice in a crowded room analogy
we talked about earlier.
And let's not forget robustness.
The researchers want to make sure that their HPLC method
isn't overly sensitive to small changes in things
(11:35):
like temperature pH or even the specific HPLC instrument
they're using.
Right.
So it needs to be able to handle those little real world
variations that might pop up on different days
or in different labs.
Exactly.
So what kind of experiments do they do to assess robustness?
Yeah.
What do they do?
They might deliberately vary the temperature or the pH
of what we call the mobile phase that's
(11:55):
used in the HPLC analysis and see how much the results change.
They might also run the analysis on different HPLC instruments
just to see if there are significant differences.
So they're stress testing the method.
Exactly.
They're pushing it to its limits to see
how much variation it can handle before it breaks down.
And if it can withstand those variations,
that's a good sign that it's a robust method.
Exactly.
And all of this data accuracy, precision, specificity,
(12:18):
robustness, all of that is carefully
documented and analyzed.
This documentation becomes part of the drug's regulatory
submission package, which provides evidence to the FDA
that the analytical methods used to generate
that preclinical data are reliable
and meet those standards.
Wow.
It's amazing to see how these validation principles are
woven into the very fabric of drug development.
(12:40):
It ensures that every piece of data
used to make decisions about a drug's safety and efficacy
is based on solid scientific ground.
Absolutely.
And this isn't just limited to preclinical studies.
These principles apply throughout the whole drug
development process, from clinical trials
to manufacturing and beyond.
OK, so we've seen validation in those preclinical studies.
(13:01):
What about when the drug moves into clinical trials?
Do those same principles apply?
Absolutely.
In fact, the stakes are even higher in clinical trials,
because now you're testing the drug in humans.
Analytical validation is really crucial for monitoring
the drug's safety and effectiveness in people
and for ensuring the quality and consistency
of the actual drug product.
(13:22):
Right.
So the methods you use to measure the drug
levels in patient's blood, for example,
would need to be very rigorously validated.
Exactly.
You need to make sure that data is accurate and reliable.
And let's not forget about stability testing.
As a drug moves through those clinical trials
and eventually towards approval, it's
critical to show that the drug product is stable over time,
(13:44):
that it doesn't degrade or become
less potent during storage.
Stability, that makes sense.
You don't want a drug that's effective today, but then
useless in a few months.
Exactly.
So how does analytical validation come into play
in stability testing?
Yeah, how does it?
Stability testing involves storing the drug product
under very controlled conditions,
different temperatures, humidity levels.
(14:04):
And then periodically, they analyze samples of the drug
to see if there are any changes in its quality.
So you're putting the drug through an accelerated aging
process.
Yes.
It's a good way to put it.
And the analytical methods used to analyze those samples
have to be validated to make sure
that any changes they detect are real and not just due
to variations in the analytical method.
(14:25):
OK, so it's all about eliminating
those false positives.
Exactly.
I'm starting to see the big picture here.
Analytical validation is this thread
that runs through the whole drug development process,
ensuring the quality and reliability of the data
at every single stage.
You got it.
And it doesn't stop there.
Even after a drug is approved and on the market,
(14:45):
analytical validation is still critical.
Oh, really?
I thought once the drug was approved, you were kind of done.
That's a common misconception.
But remember, any changes to a drug product or its
manufacturing process, even if they seem small,
can impact its quality, safety, and efficacy.
Right, so you can't just make changes on the fly.
No, you can't.
There needs to be a system in place
to make sure those changes don't have unintended consequences.
(15:08):
That's where analytical validation comes in again.
Whenever a change is proposed, a risk assessment
is performed to evaluate the potential impact of that change
on the drug product.
OK, so you're trying to identify those potential red flags.
Exactly.
And based on that risk assessment,
additional studies might be required
to show that the change isn't going to negatively affect
the drug.
(15:29):
And guess what?
Those studies will rely heavily on validated analytical methods
to provide the data.
I see.
So analytical validation is not just a one-time hurdle
during development.
It's an ongoing process.
Absolutely.
It's an ongoing process to make sure quality is maintained
throughout a drug's entire lifecycle.
OK, I see analytical validation is really
(15:50):
woven into the fabric of the whole pharmaceutical industry.
It is.
It provides a really important scientific foundation
for all the decision-making and ultimately
protects patient health.
Absolutely.
We've had a really great discussion today,
and this deep dive has been very interesting.
I feel like we've gone through the entire drug development
process now.
We have.
And we've seen how analytical validation
(16:11):
is so crucial at each stage.
It's been a pleasure to share this journey with you.
And I think we've covered a lot of ground,
but there's still more to explore.
There's more.
Yes.
In our final segment, we'll discuss some resources
that can help you continue your learning
about analytical validation.
We'll also talk about some of the emerging trends
and maybe some questions that will
get you thinking about the future of this dynamic field.
(16:33):
OK.
I'm excited.
Let's take a short break and then come back
for our final segment, where we'll
wrap up our exploration of analytical validation.
Sounds great.
Welcome back to our deep dive.
It's been quite a journey exploring all the ins
and outs of analytical validation,
from the nitty gritty details of accuracy and precision
(16:53):
to that big picture global regulatory landscape,
and even those real world scenarios where
validation is so crucial.
But as we've learned, this field is always moving forward,
always evolving.
Yeah.
It's fascinating as science advances
and we start developing these more complex therapies,
especially things like personalized medicine
and cell and gene therapies.
(17:14):
Those demands on analytical validation,
they just become even greater.
Yeah.
We've talked about those emerging challenges
a little bit, but I want to dive a little deeper
before we do, though.
I'm sure a listener is probably wondering
where they can go to learn more about this whole world
of validation.
Are there any resources that you recommend for someone who wants
to explore this further?
Absolutely.
The ICH website itself is a fantastic place to start.
(17:38):
They've got the full text of the Q2 guideline.
It's freely available and they have
tons of other information on drug development
and regulations.
So straight from the source, what about for some more
practical guidance?
Like if someone's actually designing and running
these validation studies, are there resources
that can give them some more hands on advice?
I always recommend the United States Pharmacopeia or USP.
(18:00):
They have several chapters that are dedicated
to analytical method validation.
And you'll find really detailed guidance
on different techniques and some practical tips
for actually carrying out those studies.
OK.
USP got it.
And they're like the gold standard
for pharmaceutical quality, right?
Yes, completely.
So we've got the ICH for that big picture overview,
and then USP for those on the ground details.
(18:22):
Now what about staying up to date?
This field just seems to be constantly evolving
with new technologies, new therapies.
Are there any journals or conferences that you would
suggest?
Definitely.
The Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis
is an excellent resource.
It covers a wide range of topics,
all related to analytical methods and drug development.
And for conferences, the AAPS, the American Association
(18:44):
of Pharmaceutical Scientists, they
hold an annual meeting that always has some fantastic
sessions focused on cutting edge advances
in analytical validation.
That's great.
So many awesome resources out there for folks to check out.
Now switching gears just a little bit,
one question that I hear a lot, especially from people
who are newer to the field, is how do you even
(19:04):
go about choosing the right analytical method
for a particular application?
There's just so many techniques out there.
That's a great question.
And there really is no one size fits all answer.
It all comes down to considering the specific situation.
What analyte are you trying to measure?
What kind of matrix is it in?
What level of sensitivity and specificity do you need?
(19:27):
What resources do you have available?
So it's not just about grabbing that newest, shiniest
technique off the shelf.
Exactly.
It's about what's most appropriate for the task at hand.
And I imagine there's some trial and error involved.
Absolutely.
Testing out different methods, comparing their performance,
and really optimizing that analytical approach
to make sure you're getting the best data possible.
Yeah, it's like being a detective piecing it all together.
(19:49):
Now before we wrap up, I want to circle back
to those future challenges that we've touched on.
Personalized medicine cell and gene therapies,
these are really exciting areas.
But they also present some unique hurdles
for analytical validation.
How do you see the field evolving to keep
pace with these advancements?
That's a question that's on the minds of everyone
in this field right now.
(20:09):
We know that the current methods and guidelines,
while they're robust, they may not
be enough to address the complexities
of these new therapies.
Right, because with personalized medicine,
you're treating each patient as their own individual case.
And with cell and gene therapy, you're
manipulating those living systems.
That just adds a whole other level of variability
and complexity.
(20:29):
Absolutely.
So we need to start thinking about how we develop even more
sensitive, specific, and robust methods, methods that
can detect tiny amounts of analytes
in these really complex matrices, methods that
can account for all that variability
we see in living systems.
So it's not just about refining the existing techniques,
but maybe even inventing entirely new approaches?
It's a tall order.
It is.
(20:50):
But it's a really exciting opportunity
for the analytical science community.
We have the chance to be on the leading edge
of the scientific revolution, shaping
the future of medicine by developing
the tools and strategies that will
help these groundbreaking therapies reach patients
safely and effectively.
Well said.
This has been an amazing deep dive
into analytical validation.
(21:11):
I feel like we've learned so much from the fundamentals
to the future challenges.
And to our listener, I hope this has given you the knowledge
and maybe even the inspiration to continue
exploring this field.
Who knows?
Maybe you'll be the one developing
those groundbreaking validation methods of tomorrow.
Absolutely.
Keep asking those questions.
Stay curious and never stop exploring
the amazing world of science.
(21:32):
Perfectly said.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive
into the world of analytical validation.
Until next time, keep learning and keep
pushing those boundaries of knowledge.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.