Beyond ICH Q1E Opening Remarks
31
Company Confidential © 2012 Eli Lilly and Company Beyond ICH Q1E Opening Remarks Rebecca Elliott Senior Research Scientist Eli Lilly and Company MBSW 2013
description
Beyond ICH Q1E Opening Remarks. Rebecca Elliott Senior Research Scientist Eli Lilly and Company MBSW 2013. ICH Q1E. Required analysis for setting specifications Statistical details BUT what does the analysis tell us? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Beyond ICH Q1E Opening Remarks
Company Confidential
© 2012 Eli Lilly and Company
Beyond ICH Q1EOpening RemarksRebecca ElliottSenior Research ScientistEli Lilly and Company
MBSW 2013
2
ICH Q1E
• Required analysis for setting specifications• Statistical details• BUT what does the analysis tell us?
• The more data, the narrower the interval on the regression line, the longer the dating.
• Assuming common slopes, the analysis provides an average change for a PRODUCT.
3
Estimate of Dating
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
Res
ult
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24Age (months)
Linear Fit
Decreasing Property
Dating is 22 months.
4
Estimate of Dating with More Data
• Dating is now 24 months.• (Assuming common slopes.)• Slope represents average
change across batches.• Batches are a random
sample from product.• Slope represents
average change for the PRODUCT.
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
Res
ult
0 6 12 18 24Age (months)
Linear Fit
Decreasing Property
5
Estimate of Dating with More Data
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
Res
ult
0 6 12 18 24Age (months)
Linear Fit
Decreasing Property
• AND, we already know some batch results are likely to be outside of spec.• Observed• Projected
6
Why Do ICH Q1E?• Batches are released and evaluated individually.
• Individual results must meet specs. • Dating/specifications need to apply to actual test results.• ICH Q1E does not provide analysis for individual results.• ICH Q1E does not consider additional circumstances
that can cause molecule to degrade.• Shipping• Patient/customer use
7
Session Agenda• Jim Schwenke
• Consulting Statistician, Applied Research Consultants, PQRI• On the Shelf-Life of Pharmaceutical Products
• Jeff Gardner• President and Principal Consultant, DataPharm Statistical &
Data Management Services• Statistical Considerations for Mitigating the Risk of
Individual OOS Results on Stability• Becky Elliott
• Senior Research Scientist, Eli Lilly and Company• Change During Patient Use—Questions and Challenges
• Question and Answer Period
Company Confidential
© 2012 Eli Lilly and Company
Change During Patient Use—Questions and ChallengesRebecca ElliottSenior Research ScientistEli Lilly and Company
MBSW 2013
9
Stability Model
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 6 12 18 24 30Age (months)
Linear Fit
Decreasing Property
Release buffer is for assay variability
Release buffer is for change, change variability, assay variability
Is this picture complete?
10
More Complex Stability Model
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 6 12 18 24 30Age (months)
Fit Each Value Batch=="AA"
Decreasing Property
Patient use
Controlled stability chamber
Release buffer: normal change & variability, assay variability, and in-use change
Multi-use products
11
In-Use Change
• Can be large• Potentially fewer batches for analysis• Can have a different change model than routine
stability
12
Statistics are “easy”
• Determine routine and in-use models• Linear• Quadratic• Nonlinear
• Determine estimates of variability• Model• Assay
• Adjust release buffer(s)
Non-statistical questions are “hard.”
13
Today’s Topics
• Modeling in-use change1. Complexity of complete statistical model and
impact on business2. Significance of in-use change3. Correlation of results4. Groups5. Proxy data
• Other uncontrolled conditions
14
#1 Analysis Impact to Business
• One-time or yearly studies?• Requirement is often upon registration
• “Fresh” batch• “Aged” batch
• There may be no regulatory requirement to generate data yearly
• One-time estimate or yearly update?• Implications are to WHO does stat analysis
WHEN and HOW.• One complicated model• Two easier models
15
#2 Significance of Change
• Change estimates• Errors can be high depending on assay
• Is change significant?• Include estimate of change variability?
16
#2 Significance of Change
• Assay variability is included in buffer for long term stability change. Is it “double counting” to include it for in-use change?
• Is there “room” within the specifications?
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Age in Days
Linear Fit
Lot B1
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Age in Days
Linear Fit
Lot B2
17
#2 Significance of Change
• Is change meaningful?• Science vs. statistical significance
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Age in Days
Linear Fit
Lot B3
90
95
100
105
Res
ult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Age in Days
Linear Fit
Lot B4
p-value = 0.02 p-value = 0.06
18
#3 Correlation in Results• Multiple batches can be manufactured close together in
time (e.g., validation batches, special studies).• Timepoints to be assayed are close together.• Lab wants to maximize resources.
• Hold samples• Test them together
• Common timepoints across batches are put on same assay run.
Testing batches together dependent slopes
19
#3 Correlation—Shared Assay Dates
96
98
100
102
Res
ult
0 10 20 30Age in days
12/15/200802/16/200902/17/2009
Test Date
Linear Fit
Lot A1
96
98
100
102
Res
ult
0 10 20 30Age in days
01/01/200902/16/200902/17/2009
Test Date
Linear Fit
Lot A2
96
98
100
102
Res
ult
0 10 20 30Age in days
12/28/200802/16/200902/17/2009
Test Date
Linear Fit
Lot A3
96
98
100
102
Res
ult
0 10 20 30Age in days
01/09/200902/16/200902/17/2009
Test Date
Linear Fit
Lot A4
Are these 4 independent estimates of the slope?
20
#3 Correlation—Solution• Backload samples• E.g.: 30 day study tested on day 0, 7, 15, 30
• Study day 1: put 30-day samples on stability• Study day 15: put 15-day samples on stability• Study day 23: put 7-day samples on stability• Study day 30: test all samples on same assay run
• Independent slope estimates without run-to-run assay variability
• More planning with lab• Protocols are more complicated
21
#4 Groups
• What about group differences?• Sites, components, raw materials?• Different testing labs
• Do we have “enough” data to tell meaningful differences?
• Should we expect group differences?
22
#4 Groups—Are they different?
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Res
ult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Age in Days
Fit Each Value Lot=="B1"Fit Each Value Lot=="B2"Fit Each Value Lot=="B3"Fit Each Value Lot=="B4"Fit Each Value Lot=="B5"Fit Each Value Lot=="B6"
Increasing Property: Groups
No technical or scientific reason for these groups to be different. Therefore, there is no practical difference here. Sums of squares is small due to low variability within batches.
Group x age effect p-value < 0.0001
Age in DaysGroupLot[Group]Group*Age in DaysLot*Age in Days[Group]
Source12323
Nparm12323
DF2.31153643.24465950.01256730.15561130.0253697
Seq SS465.5347326.7311
0.843715.66981.7031
F Ratio<.0001*<.0001*0.4853<.0001*0.1970
Prob > FSequential (Type 1) Tests
23
#5 Proxy Data
• Patient use involves simulating dosing regimen• Does this impact the molecule?
• Accelerated studies may be held under the same ambient conditions as patient use• Do these studies have same change?• What are timepoints? Are there enough during
the in-use period?
24
In-Use Change
• Non-statistical questions can impact• Conclusions• Analysis• Cost to the business
25
Other Uncontrolled Environments
• Manufacturing wait times• Transfer times between production steps• Transfer times to packaging• Packaging/labeling time• Transfer time shipping• Shipping excursions• When in the process are stability samples
assayed?
26
Estimating Routine Stability Change
Manufacturing Shipping Customer Use
27
Estimating Routine Stability Change
Manufacturing• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Wait times• Packaging
Shipping Customer Use
28
Estimating Routine Stability Change
Manufacturing• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Wait times• Packaging
Shipping• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Warehouse• Loading• Shipping excursions
Customer Use
29
Estimating Routine Stability Change
Manufacturing• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Wait times• Packaging
Shipping• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Warehouse• Loading• Shipping excursions
Customer Use• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps
30
Estimating Routine Stability Change
Manufacturing• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Wait times• Packaging
Shipping• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps• Warehouse• Loading• Shipping excursions
Customer Use• Controlled temps• Uncontrolled temps
Time 0
• Batch release
Stability Chamber
• End of shelf-life
Where is time 0 sample drawn?Are we missing changes?
31
Conclusions
• Estimating stability change goes beyond statistical computations.• Consider business processes
• Impact to statistical modeling• Consider data structure
• Correlated data points• Data groups
• Consider science AND statistical significance• Consider proxy data
