Manual integration [Bioanalytics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-12-01 17:38 (48 d 07:52 ago) – Posting: # 22682
Views: 362

Hi ElMaestro,

» As I see it, FDA have been completely adverse to manual integrations for a decade at least. Manual integrations not accepted. At all. In any form.

That’s bad. Well, it saves the assessor time.

» The approach is, as I see it, completely safe: If you can run the val. and the sample analysis without MI then you have a great setup and you are not disturbing anyone. But still runs need to be approved and still someone should somehow sign off for the peak identification and correct integration. Which also means that it is a bit demanding from the equipment perspective. You need something which has a noise-less baseline, which means equipment sensitivity, colums integrity and method development is paramount.

Fully ACK. However, let’s face it: If you have to measure really (‼) low levels, ‘a noise-less baseline’ belongs still to the realm of science fiction.

» I am aware of the wording in M10 which other suggests there may be a way for MI.

I’m absolutely fine with Section 3.6.3 of the GL:

Chromatogram integration and reintegration should be described in a study plan, protocol or SOP. Any deviation from the procedures described a priori should be discussed in the Bio­ana­lytical Report. The list of chro­matograms that required reintegration, including any manual integrations, and the reasons for reintegration should be included in the Bioanalytical Report. Original and reintegrated chroma­to­grams and initial and repeat integration results should be kept for future reference and submitted in the Bioanalytical Report for comparative BA/BE studies.


» I have not, hoever, heard of FDA taking any another stance in practice.

I believe it.

» Finally, everything evolves, …

All too true. [image][image][image]

» … including integration algorithms. Perhaps what was pretty bad in 2009 is pretty good in 2021? There is no good way to evaluate it.

No idea. A CDS is a pitch-black box with Schrödinger’s cat lurking inside. In my CRO I had access to all raw data (peak slices). Though the vendor claimed which Al Gore Rhythms were implemented (without giving great detail), I never was able to reproduce it. Tried a lot. Gave up.

» So, I am fine with CROs trying to avoid MI as long as what it is meant is the aim to have a method that is so sensitive that even at low concs the integration is good.

Sure. I was only concerned about the sentence ‘Manual integration is PROHIBITED in any circumstance.’

Reminded me on:

Medical statistician: One who will not accept that Columbus discovered America…
because he said he was looking for India in the trial plan.
    Stephen Senn


» That also means the deficiency letter is a walk in the park.

It was. (1) for the EMA and (2) only automatic anyhow.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,831 posts in 4,567 threads, 1,553 registered users;
online 7 (0 registered, 7 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 01:30 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Research under a paradigm must be a particularly effective way
of inducing paradigm change.    Thomas S. Kuhn

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5