A Quality By Design Approach For Longitudinal Quality Attributes

Abstract

The concept of Quality by Design (QbD) as published in ICH-Q8 is currently one of the most recurrent topics in the pharmaceutical literature. This guideline recommends the use of information and prior knowledge gathered during pharmaceutical development studies to provide a scientific rationale for the manufacturing process of a product and provide guarantee of future quality. This poses several challenges from a statistical standpoint and requires a shift in paradigm from traditional statistical practices. First, to provide "assurance of quality" of future lots implies the need to make predictions regarding quality given past evidence and data. Second, the Quality Attributes described in the Q8 guidelines are not always a set of unique, independent measurements. In many cases, these criteria are complicated longitudinal data with successive acceptance criteria over a defined period of time. A common example is a dissolution profile for a modified or extended release solid dosage form that must fall within acceptance limits at several time points. A Bayesian approach for longitudinal data obtained in various conditions of a Design of Experiment is provided to elegantly address the ICH-Q8 recommendation to provide assurance of quality and derive a scientifically sound Design Space.

The current state of Bayesian methods in nonclinical pharmaceutical statistics: Survey results and recommendations from the DIA/ASA‐BIOP Nonclinical Bayesian Working Group

“…The complete survey is available online as Supporting Information to this article. The survey included questions related to respondent 21 Gelman et al (2004) 22 Sivaganesan et al (2008) 23 Peterson and Yahyah (2009) Feng et al (2011) 25 Rozet et al (2011) 26 Novick et al (2012) 27 Lebrun et al (2013) 28 Fronczyk and Kottas (2014) 29 Rozet et al (2015) 30 Muleme et al (2016) 31 Sondag et al (2016) 32 Novick et al (2018) 33 Yang and Novick (2019) 34 Lebrun and Rozet (2020) 35 Process development Peterson (2004) 36 Miro-Quesada et al (2004) 37 Peterson (2008) 38 Peterson et al (2009) 39 Peterson and Lief (2010) 40 Mockus et al (2011) 41 Woodward (2011) 42 Lebrun et al (2012) 43 Hubert et al (2014) 44 Lebrun et al (2015) 45 Mockus et al (2015) 46 Lebrun et al (2018) 47 Boulanger and Mutsvari (2020) 50 Sano et al (2020) 48 Tabora et al (2019) 49 Yang and Novick (2019) 34 Process validation Yang (2013) 51 LeBlond and Mockus (2014) Faya et al (2017) 13 Yang and Novick (2019) 34 Peterson (2020) 53 Process control/manufacturing Mockus et al (2011) 54 Yang and Zhang (2016) 55 Novick et al (2017) 56 Faya et al (2017) 57 Yu et al (2017) 58 Banton et al (2019) 59 Overstall et al (2019)…”