`and Research (CDER)
`
`Reviewer Guidance'
`
`Validation of
`Chromatographic Methods
`
`November 1994
`CMC 3
`
` P. 1
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I .
`
`II .
`
`Ill .
`
`IV .
`
`INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`
`TYPES OF CHROMATOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`A .
`
`High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`1 .
`
`2 .
`
`3 .
`
`4 .
`
`5 .
`
`6 .
`
`Chiral Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`Ion-exchange Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Ion-pair1Affinity Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Normal Phase Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Reversed Phase Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Size Exclusion Chromatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`
`B .
`
`C .
`
`Gas Chromatography (GC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`
`Thin-Layer Chromatography (TLC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`
`REFERENCE STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`
`PARAMETERS FOR VALIDATION OF HPL CHROMATOGRAPHIC
`METHODS FOR DRUG SUBSTANCE AND DRUG PRODUCT . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`A .
`
`B .
`
`C .
`
`D .
`
`Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`Detection Limit and Quantitation Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`Linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`1 .
`
`Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`.
`a
`
`b .
`
`Injection Repeatability
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`13
`
`Analysis Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`
` P. 2
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`E .
`
`F .
`
`G .
`
`H .
`
`I .
`
`J .
`
`2 .
`
`3 .
`
`Intermediate Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`
`Reproducibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Sample Solution Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`
`Specificitylselectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`
`System Suitability Specifications and Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`
`1 .
`
`2 .
`
`3 .
`
`4 .
`
`5 .
`
`6 .
`
`Capacity factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`Precisionllnjection repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`Relative retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`Tailing factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
`
`Theoretical plate number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`K .
`
`General Points to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`V .
`
`COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
`VI . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
`VII . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
` P. 3
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`REVIEWER GUIDANCE'
`
`VALIDATION OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC METHODS
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The purpose of this technical review guide is to present the issues to consider when
`evaluating chromatographic test methods from a regulatory perspective. The
`document discusses the points to note and weaknesses of chromatography so that
`CDER reviewers can ensure that the method's performance claims are properly
`evaluated, and that sufficient information is available for the field chemist to assess the
`method. Analytical terms, as defined by the International Conference of
`Harmonization (ICH), 1993, have been incorporated in this guide.
`
`Chromatographic methods are commonly used for the quantitative and qualitative
`analysis of raw materials, drug substances, drug products and compounds in biological
`fluids. The components monitored include chiral or achiral drug, process impurities,
`residual solvents, excipients such as preservatives, degradation products, extractables
`and leachables from container and closure or manufacturing process, pesticide in drug
`product from plant origin, and metabolites.
`
`The objective of a test method is to generate reliable and accurate data regardless of
`whether it is for acceptance, release, stability or pharmacokinetics study. Data are
`generated for the qualitative and quantitative testing during development and post-
`approval of the drug products. The testing includes the acceptance of raw materials,
`release of the drug substances and products, in-process testing for quality assurance,
`and establishment of the expiration dating period.
`
`Validation of a method is the process by which a method is tested by the developer or
`user for reliability, accuracy and preciseness of its intended purpose. Data thus
`
`'This guidance has been prepared by the Analytical Methods Technical
`Committee of the Chemistry Manufacturing Controls Coordinating Committee (CMC
`CC) of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug
`Administration. Although this guidance does not create or confer any rights for or on
`any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the industry, it does represent the
`agency's current thinking on the validation of chromatographic methods. For additional
`copies of this guidance, contact the Division of Communications Management, HFD-
`210, CDER, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 (Phone: 301-594-1012).
`Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the offices in processing your
`request. An electror~ic version of this guidance is also ava~lable via Internet the World
`Wide Web (WWW) ( connect to the FDA Home Page at WWW.FDA.GOV/CDER and
`go to the "Regulatory Guidance" section).
`
` P. 4
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`generated become part of the methods validation package submitted to CDER.
`
`Methods validation should not be a one-time situation to fulfil Agency filing
`requirements, but the methods should be validated and also designed by the developer
`or user to ensure ruggedness or robustness. Methods should be reproducible when
`used by other analysts, on other equivalent equipment, on other days or locations, and
`throughout the life of the drug product. Data that are generated for acceptance,
`release, stability, or pharmacokinetics will only be trustworthy if the methods used to
`generate the data are reliable. The process of validation and method design also
`should be early in the development cycle before important data are generated.
`Validation should be on-going in the form of re-validation with method changes.
`
`II.
`
`TYPES OF CHROMATOGRAPHY
`
`Chromatography is a technique by which the components in a sample, carried by the
`liquid or gaseous phase, are resolved by sorption-desorption steps on the stationary
`phase.
`
`A.
`
`High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
`
`HPL chromatographic separation is based on interaction and differential
`partition of the sample between the mobile liquid phase and the stationary
`phase. The commonly used chromatographic methods can be roughly
`divided into the following groups, not necessarily in order of importance:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`Chiral
`Ion--exchange
`Ion--pair/affinity
`Normal phase
`Reversed phase
`Size exclusion
`
`1.
`
`Chiral Chromatography
`
`Separation of the enantiomers can be achieved on chiral stationary
`phases by formation of diastereomers via derivatizing agents or
`mobile phase additives on achiral stationary phases. When used
`as an impurity test method, the sensitivity is enhanced if the
`enantiomeric impurity elutes before the enantiomeric drug.
`
` P. 5
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ion-exchange Chromatography
`
`Separation is based on the charge-bearing functional groups,
`anion exchange for sample negative ion (XI, or cation exchange
`for sample positive ion (X'). Gradient elution by pH is common.
`
`3.
`
`Ion-pair1Affinity Chromatography
`
`Separation is based on a chemical interaction specific to the target
`species. The more popular reversed phase mode uses a buffer
`and an added counter-ion of opposite charge to the sample with
`separation being influenced by pH, ionic strength, temperature,
`concentration of and type of organic co-solvent(s). Affinity
`chromatography, common for macromolecules, employs a ligand
`(biologically active molecule bonded covalently to the solid matrix)
`which interacts with its homologous antigen (analyte) as a
`reversible complex that can be eluted by changing buffer
`conditions.
`
`4.
`
`Normal Phase Chromatography
`
`Normal phase chromatography is a chromatographic technique
`that uses organic solvents for the mobile phase and a polar
`stationary phase. Here, the less polar components elute faster
`than the more polar components.
`
`5.
`
`Reversed Phase Chromatography
`
`The test method most commor~ly submitted to CDER is the
`reversed phase HPLC method. UV detection is the most common
`detection technique.
`
`Reversed phase chromatography, a bonded phase
`chromatographic technique, uses water as the base solvent.
`Separation based on solvent strength and selectivity also may be
`affected by column temperature and pH. In general, the more
`polar components elute faster than the less polar components.
`
`UV detection can be used with all chromatographic techniques.
`The concern for this type of detector is the loss of sensitivity with
`lamp aging, and varying sensitivity at the low level depending on
`design and/or manufacturer. A point to note is that observations
`on the HPL chromatograms, by UV detection in combination with
`reversed-phase HPLC, may not be a true indication of the facts for
`
` P. 6
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`the following reasons:
`
`Compounds much more polar than the compound of interest
`may be masked (elute together) in the solvent FronVvoid
`volume.
`
`Compounds very less polar than the analyte may elute
`either late during the chromatographic run or are retained in
`the column.
`
`Compounds with lower UV extinction coefficients or different
`wavelength maxima may not be detectable at the low level
`relative to the visibility of the analyte since only one
`wavelength is normally monitored.
`
`6.
`
`Size Exclusion Chromatography
`
`Also known as gel permeation or filtration, separation is based on
`the molecular size or hydrodynamic volume of the components.
`Molecules that are too large for the pores of the porous packing
`material on the column elute first, small molecules that enter the
`pores elute last, and the elution rates of the rest depend on their
`relative sizes.
`
`6. Gas Chromatography (GC)
`
`Gas chromatography is based on the volatilized sample transported by
`the carrier gas as the moving phase through the stationary phase of the
`column where separation takes place by the sorption/desorption process.
`
`Samples for gas chromatographic analysis are normally low molecular
`weight compounds that are volatile and stable at high temperature. In
`this respect, residual solvents in drug substances and drug products are
`suitable for gas chromatographic analysis. Chemical derivatives can also
`be formed to achieve volatility and thermal stability.
`
`Common detectors are flame ionization (FID) for carbon-containing
`compounds, electron capture (ECD) for halogenated compounds, flame
`photometric (FPD) for corrlpounds containing sulphur or phosphorous
`and nitrogen-phosphorous (NPD) for compounds containing nitrogen or
`phosphorous. Chiral separation also can be achieved by gas
`chromatography. Separation by the packed column is rapidly being
`replaced by the capillary colurrln that provides improved resolution and
`analysis speed. The location of the analyte on the gas chromatogram is
`
` P. 7
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`described by retention time (R,) which is similar to HPLC.
`
`C.
`
`'Thin-Layer Chromatography ('TLC)
`
`Thin-layer chromatography is the simplest of the more common
`chromatographic techniques. Separation is based on migration of the
`sample spotted on a coated (stationary phase) plate with one edge
`dipped in a mixture of solvents (mobile phase). The whole system is
`contained in an enclosed tank.
`
`Detection techniques include fluorescence, UV and sprays (universal and
`specific) for compounds that are not naturally colored. The location of the
`analyte on the TLC plate is described by the R, value which is the ratio of
`the migration distance of the compound of interest to the mobile phase
`front.
`
`Of the three techniques, gas, liquid and thin-layer, TLC is the most universal test
`method as all components are present on the plate and with appropriate detection
`techniques, all components can be observed. However, it normally is not as accurate
`or sensitive as HPLC. TLC has a higher analytical variation than HPLC, although one
`sees the "whole picture" when appropriate detection schemes are selected.
`
`Ill.
`
`REFERENCE STANDARDS
`
`A reference standard is a highly purified compound that is well characterized.
`Chromatographic methods rely heavily on a reference standard to provide accurate
`data. Therefore the quality and purity of the reference standard is very important. Two
`types of reference standards, chemical and nuclidic, exist. With the latter, the radio-
`label purity should also be considered as well as the chemical purity.
`
`As described in the Guideline for Submitting Samples and Analytical Data for Methods
`Validation, the two categories of chemical reference standards are as follows:
`
`USPINF reference standard that does not need characterization, and
`
`non-compendia1 standard that should be of the highest purity that can be
`obtained by reasonable effort and should be thoroughly characterized to
`assure its identity, strength, quality and purity.
`
`The points to note are:
`
`Most USPINF reference standards do not state the purity of the
`compound.
`
` P. 8
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`The purity correction factor for non-USP reference standards is
`recommended to be included in the calculation of the test method.
`
`In addition to structurally-related impurities from the synthesis process,
`other process impurities like heavy metals, residual solvents, moisture
`(bound and unbound), pesticides for products of plant origin, and
`degradation products can also contribute to the lack of purity in the
`reference standard.
`
`The drying of the reference standard before use, if stated in the method,
`will eliminate residual solvent(s), unbound moisture and sometimes
`bound moisture (depending on the drying conditions). The drying step is
`always included for hygroscopic compounds. On the other hand, drying
`can result in the loss of a hydrate or cause degradation in heat-sensitive
`compounds.
`
`Chromatographic test methods use either external or internal standards for
`quantitation.
`
`A.
`
`An external standard method is used when the standard is analyzed on a
`separate chromatogram from the sample. Quantitation is based on a
`comparison of the peak arealheight (HPLC or GC) or spot intensity (TLC)
`of the sample to that of a reference standard of the analyte of interest.
`
`The external standard method is more appropriate for samples as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Sample with a single target concentration and narrow
`concentration range, e.g., acceptance and release tests.
`
`Simple sample preparation procedure.
`
`Increased baseline time for detection of potential extraneous
`peaks, e.g., impurities test.
`
`B. With an internal standard method, compound of known purity that does
`not cause interference in the analysis is added to the sample mixture.
`Quantitation is based on the response ratio of compound of interest to the
`internal standard vs the response ratio of a similar preparation of the
`reference standard (HPLC or GC). This technique is rarely used for TLC
`methods.
`
`The internal standard method is more appropriate for samples as follows:
`
` P. 9
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Complex sample preparation procedures, e.g., multiple
`extractions.
`
`Low concentration sample (sensitivity being an issue), e.g.,
`pharmacokinetics studies.
`
`3. Wide range of concentrations expected in the sample for analysis,
`e.g., pharmacokinetics studies.
`
`Although CDER does not specify whether the method must use an internal or
`external standard for quantitation, it is commonly observed that HPLC methods
`for release and stability and TLC methods use external standards; and methods
`for biological fluids and GC methods use internal standards.
`
`The workina concentration is the target concentration of the compound of interest as
`described in the method. Keeping the concentrations of the sample and the standard
`close to each other for the external standard method iniproves tlie accuracy of the
`method.
`
`Recommendations:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Include the purity correction factor, if knowti, of the reference standard in
`the calculation.
`
`State .the working concentrations of the standard and sample in the
`method.
`
`IV.
`
`PARAMETERS FOR VALIDATION OF HPL CHROMATOGRAPHIC
`METHODS FOR DRUG SUBSTANCE AND DRUG PRODUCT
`
`Though many types of HPL chromatographic techniques are available; the most
`commonly submitted method, the reversed-phase HPLC with UV detection, is selected
`to illustrate the parameters for validation. The criteria for the validation of this
`technique can be extrapolated to other detection methods and chromatographic
`techniques. For acceptance, release or stability testing, accuracy should be optimized
`since the need to show deviation from the actual or true value is of the greatest
`concern.
`
`A.
`
`Accuracy
`
`Accuracy is the measure of how close the experimental value is to the
`true value.
`
` P. 10
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`Accuracy studies for drug substance and drug product are recommended
`to be performed at the 80, 100 and 120% levels of label claim as stated in
`the Guideline for Submitting Samples and Analytical Data for Methods
`Validation.
`
`For the drug product, this is performed frequently by the addition of
`known amounts of drug by weight or volume (dissolved in diluent) to the
`placebo formulation working in the linear range of detection of tlie
`analyte. This would be a true recovery for liquid formulations. For
`formulations such as tablet, suppository, transdermal patch, this could
`mean evaluating potential interaction of the active drug with the
`excipients in the diluent. From a practical standpoint, it is difficult to
`manufacture a single unit with known amount of active drug to evaluate
`recovery. This test evaluates the specificity of the method in the
`presence of the excipients under the chromatographic conditions used for
`the analysis of the drug product. It will pick up recovery problems that
`could be encountered during the sample preparation and the
`chromatographic procedures. However, it does not count the effect of the
`manufacturing process.
`
`At each recorr~mended level studied, replicate samples are evaluated.
`The RSD of the replicates will provide the analysis variation or how
`precise the test method is. The mean of the replicates, expressed as %
`label claim, indicates how accurate the test method is.
`
`Recommendations:
`
`Recovery data, at least in triplicate, at each level (80, 100 and 120% of
`label claim) is recommended. The mean is an estimate of accuracy and
`the RSD is an estimate of sample analysis precision.
`
`B.
`
`Detection Limit and Quantitation Limit
`
`These limits are normally applied to related substances in the drug
`substance or drug product. specifications on these limits are submitted
`with the regulatory impurities method relating to release and stability of
`both drug substance and drug product.
`Detection limit is the lowest concentration of analyte in a sample that can
`be detected, but not necessarily quantitated, under the stated
`
` P. 11
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`experimental conditions. Quantitation limit is the lowest concentration of
`analyte in a sarr~ple that can be determined with acceptable precision and
`accuracy under the stated experimental conditions.
`
`With UV detectors, it is difficult to assure the detection precision of low
`level compounds due to potential gradual loss of sensitivity of detector
`lamps with age, or noise level variation by detector manufacturer. At low
`levels, assurance is needed that the detection and quantitation limits are
`achievable with the test method each time. With no reference standard
`for a given impurity or means to assure detectability, extraneous peak(s)
`could "disappearlappear." A crude method to evaluate the feasibility of
`the extraneous peak detection is to use the percentage claimed for
`detection limit from the area counts of the analyte. For example,
`detection limit claim of 0.01% for the analyte integrated area count of
`50,000 will give an area count of 5 that is not detectable.
`
`Though USP expresses detection limit and quantitation limit in terms of 2 .
`or 3, and 10 times noise level respectively, this concept is not very
`practical. Noise level on a detector during the method development
`phase may be different when samples are assayed on different detectors,
`etc. The use of standard(s) in the test method at the quantitation limit
`level (proposed by the applicant) is assurance that the impurity can be
`observed and quantitated.
`
`Detector sensitivity can vary with the model number andlor manufacturer
`as illustrated in Table 1 for the analysis of a compound by two
`commercial detectors. The data should not be taken as the expected
`ratio of sensitivity of the two detectors. It is not known if other parameters
`which can also play a part, e.g., age of lamp, column, were considered
`when setting these limits.
`
` P. 12
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`Table I. Comparison of Detector Sensitivity Limits in Two
`Commercial Detectors.
`
`Quantitatio
`
`II
`II n ~ i m i t
`1 Detection
`I Limit
`
`I
`
`I
`I
`
`Detector 1 I
`I
`I
`0.21%
`I
`
`0.16%
`
`Detector 2
`
`0.07%
`
`I
`II
`
`One also should be cautious that baseline noise is not interpreted as
`extraneous peaks. Undulations may be observed at the void volume if
`the diluent for the sample is different from the solvents (proportion and
`type) used in the mobile phase.
`
`If a reference standard for the compound of interest is available, a
`standard close to the quantitation limit or the specification could be used.
`For monitoring peak(s) with no reference standard for the impurity, a
`diluted reference standard of the drug substance is recommended. The
`method should then check that the high and low concentrations are
`operating in the linear range of detection of the drug substance.
`Otherwise the information that is expressed as % area or height of the
`drug substance peak from the same HPL chromatogram will be biased. It
`should also be noted that the extraneous peak using area count does not
`consider the detection response which depends on the UV extinction
`coefficient or absorptivity of the compound.
`
`Recommendations:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis repeatability and injection repeatability data at the
`quantitation limit.
`
`Use of an additional reference standard at the quantitation limit
`level in the test method.
`
` P. 13
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Linearity
`
`The linear range of detectability that obeys Beer's Law is dependent
`onzthe compo~~nd analyzed and detector used. The working sample
`concentration and samples tested for accuracy should be in the linear
`range.
`
`Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the behavior of UV response vs.
`concentration of a (a) linear and (b) non-linear relationship. A point to
`note is that when monitoring impurity peaks expressed as percent
`area of the parent drug substance, the impurity observed may not be
`a true reflection of the theoretical amount if the non-linear section of
`the concentration curve is employed. In addition, the actual amount
`will be obtained only if the extinction coefficient or absorptivity values
`are the same for both impurity and parent compound, Impurity
`reference standards are often needed.
`
`Figure 1. Concentrations vs. Peak Areas of Standards to Illustrate
`Linearity.
`
`regression coefficient = 0.999998
`intercept = 0.103
`slope = 0.000011
`
`Concentrat ion
`,
`
`rwa&--
`. ..
`
`wwow-
`
`.
`
`..
`
`4owwo--
`
`wwooo--
`
`~ w w o - -
`
`I-k--+.t
`
`I-(-.-
`
`-1
`
`70
`
`.--.
`
`Y)
`
`-
`
`I
`
`4
`,-
`
`. .
`I--
`,lo
`
`t ; . k L
`
` P. 14
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`Figure 2.
`
`Concentrations vs. Peak Areas of Standards Outside the Linear Range.
`
`Concentration ug/mL
`
`Recommendations:
`
`The linearity range for examination depends on -the purpose of the test
`method. For example, the recorr~mended range for an assay method
`for content would be NLT * 20% and the range for an
`assaylimpurities combination method based on area % (for impurities)
`would be +20% of target concentration down to the limit of
`quantitation of the drug substance or impurity. Under most
`circumstances, regression coefficient (r) is 2 0.999. Intercept and
`slope should be indicated.
`
` P. 15
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Precision
`
`Precision is the measure of how close the data values are to each other
`for a number of measurements under the same analytical conditions.
`ICH has defined precision to contain three components: repeatability,
`intermediate precision and reproducibility. Ruggedness as defined in
`USP XXll < I 225>, 1990 incorporates the concepts described under the
`terms "intermediate precision", "reproducibility" and "robustness" of this
`guide.
`
`I.
`
`Repeatability
`
`a.
`
`Injection Repeatability
`
`Sensitivity is the ability to detect small changes in the
`concentration of the analyte in the sample. Sensitivity can
`be partially controlled by monitoriug the specification for
`injection reproducibility (system suitability testing).
`
`The sensitivity or precision as measured by multiple
`injections of a homogeneous sample (prepared solution)
`indicates the performance of the HPLC instrument under the
`chromatographic conditions and day tested. The
`information is provided as part of the validation data and as
`a systeni suitability test. The specification, as the
`coefficient of variation in % or relative standard deviation
`(RSD), set here will dete~mine the variation limit of the
`analysis. The tighter the value, the more precise or
`sensitive to variation one can expect the results. This
`assumes that the chromatograph does not malfunction after
`the system suitability testing has been performed. Keep in
`mind, however, that it does not consider variations due to
`the drug product manufacturing and laboratory sample
`preparation procedures. As an illustration for injection and
`R, variation, Table 2 provides representative data collected
`when a leak developed in the chromatographic system
`during sampling. The set of four duplicate samples were
`injected sequentially. Variations in peak area and drift of
`retention times are noted. Sets of typical data from a well-
`behaved system for comparison are shown in Table 3.
`
` P. 16
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`Table 2.
`
`Representative Injection Repeatability Data for an HPL
`Chromatographic System that Developed a Leak During
`Sampling.
`
`Sample
`
`A1
`A2
`
`B1
`82
`
`C1
`C2
`
`D l
`D2
`
`R,
`
`5.62
`5.66
`
`5.87
`6.13
`
`6.21
`6.48
`
`6.73
`6.99
`
`Peak Area
`
`21 55699
`21 20466
`
`2205659
`2288355
`
`2227066
`2265279
`
`2581 888
`260201 6
`
`A R,
`
`0.04
`
`0.26
`
`0.27
`
`0.26
`
`A Peak Area
`
`35233
`
`82696
`
`38213
`
`20128
`
`Table 3.
`
`Representative Injection Repeata,bility Data for Select
`Formulations from a Normally Functional HPL
`Chromatographic System.
`
`Dosage Form
`
`n
`
`Mean & SD
`
`RSD
`
`Inhalation
`Solution
`
`10
`
`1993162 +
`5029
`
`Solution for
`Inhalation
`
`10
`
`1722253
`6288
`
`Capsule
`
`10
`
`1744320 +
`3133
`
`0.25%
`
`0.37%
`
`0.18%
`
` P. 17
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`Recommendations:
`
`As part of methods validation, a minimum of 10 injections
`with an RSD of 11% is recommended. With the methods
`for release and stability studies, an RSD of I 1% RSD for
`precision of the system suitability tests for at least five
`injections (n 2 5) for the active drug either in drug substance
`or drug product is desirable. For low level impurities, higher
`variations may be acceptable.
`
`b.
`
`Analysis Repeatability
`
`Determination, expressed as the RSD, consists of multiple
`measurements of a sample by the same analyst under the
`same analytical conditions. For practical purpose, it is often
`combined with accuracy and carried out as a single study.
`See section 1V.A under Accuracy.
`
`lntermediate Precision
`
`lntermediate precision was previously known as part of
`ruggedness. The attribute evaluates the reliability of the method in
`a different environment other than that used during development of
`the method. The objective is to ensure that the method will provide
`the same results when similar samples are analyzed once the
`method development phase is over.
`
`Depending on time and resources, the method can be tested on
`multiple days, analysts, instruments, etc.
`
`lntermediate precision in the test method can be' partly assured by
`good system suitability specifications. 'Thus, it is important to set
`tight, but realistic, system suitability specifications.
`
`Recommendations:
`
`As a minimum, data generated as described under section 1V.A
`Accuracy, for two separate occasions, is recommended to indicate
`the intermediate precision of the test method.
`
` P. 18
`
`UT Ex. 2035
`SteadyMed v. United Therapeutics
`IPR2016-00006
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Reproducibility
`
`As defined by ICH, reproducibility expresses the precision
`between laboratories as in collaborative studies. Multiple
`laboratories are desirable but not always attainable because of the
`size of the firm.
`
`Recommendations:
`
`It is not normally expected if intermediate precision is
`accomplished.
`
`E.
`
`Range
`
`Range is the interval between the high and low levels of analyte studied.
`See also sections 1V.A and C under Accuracy and Linearity respectively.
`
`The ranges recommended in sections 1V.A and C under Accuracy and
`Linearity can be applied to other analytes, e.g., preservatives.
`
`F.
`
`Recovery
`
`Recovery is expressed as the amountJweight of the compound of interest
`analyzed as a percentage to the theoretical amount present in the
`medium.
`
`Full recovery should be obtained for the compound(s) of interest. During
`the sample preparation procedure, the compound of interest is recovered
`from excipients in the for