David M. Saylor, Robert M. Elder, Kaleb Duelge, Nimesh P.R. Ranasinghe Arachchige, David D. Simon, Samanthi Wickramasekara, Joshua A. Young
{"title":"医疗器械萃取测试的实验室间研究","authors":"David M. Saylor, Robert M. Elder, Kaleb Duelge, Nimesh P.R. Ranasinghe Arachchige, David D. Simon, Samanthi Wickramasekara, Joshua A. Young","doi":"10.1016/j.jpba.2024.116496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Biocompatibility evaluation of medical devices often relies on chemical testing according to ISO 10993–18 as a critical component for consideration. However, the precision associated with these non–targeted chemical characterization assessments has not been well established. Therefore, we have conducted a study to characterize intra–laboratory (repeatability) and inter–laboratory (reproducibility) variability associated with chemical testing of extractables from polymeric materials. To accomplish this, this study focused on two polymers, each with nine chemicals that were intentionally compounded into the materials. Eight different laboratories performed extraction testing in two solvents and subsequently characterized the extracts using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography methods. Analysis of the resulting data revealed the central 90 % range for the repeatability and reproducibility relative standard deviations are (0.09, 0.22) and (0.30, 0.85), respectively, for the participating laboratory methods. This finding implies that if the same sample was tested by two different laboratories using the same extraction conditions, there is 95 % confidence for 95 % of systems that the test results could exhibit differences up to 240 %. While the study was not designed to evaluate the relative impact of specific underlying factors that may contribute to variability in quantitation, the data obtained suggest the variability associated with analytical method alone is a substantial contribution to the overall variability. The relatively large reproducibility limits we observed may have significant implications where variability in extraction measurements can impact aspects of biocompatibility risk evaluation, such as exposure dose estimation and chemical equivalence assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16685,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-laboratory study for extraction testing of medical devices\",\"authors\":\"David M. Saylor, Robert M. Elder, Kaleb Duelge, Nimesh P.R. Ranasinghe Arachchige, David D. Simon, Samanthi Wickramasekara, Joshua A. Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpba.2024.116496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Biocompatibility evaluation of medical devices often relies on chemical testing according to ISO 10993–18 as a critical component for consideration. However, the precision associated with these non–targeted chemical characterization assessments has not been well established. Therefore, we have conducted a study to characterize intra–laboratory (repeatability) and inter–laboratory (reproducibility) variability associated with chemical testing of extractables from polymeric materials. To accomplish this, this study focused on two polymers, each with nine chemicals that were intentionally compounded into the materials. Eight different laboratories performed extraction testing in two solvents and subsequently characterized the extracts using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography methods. Analysis of the resulting data revealed the central 90 % range for the repeatability and reproducibility relative standard deviations are (0.09, 0.22) and (0.30, 0.85), respectively, for the participating laboratory methods. This finding implies that if the same sample was tested by two different laboratories using the same extraction conditions, there is 95 % confidence for 95 % of systems that the test results could exhibit differences up to 240 %. While the study was not designed to evaluate the relative impact of specific underlying factors that may contribute to variability in quantitation, the data obtained suggest the variability associated with analytical method alone is a substantial contribution to the overall variability. The relatively large reproducibility limits we observed may have significant implications where variability in extraction measurements can impact aspects of biocompatibility risk evaluation, such as exposure dose estimation and chemical equivalence assessments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0731708524005387\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0731708524005387","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Inter-laboratory study for extraction testing of medical devices
Biocompatibility evaluation of medical devices often relies on chemical testing according to ISO 10993–18 as a critical component for consideration. However, the precision associated with these non–targeted chemical characterization assessments has not been well established. Therefore, we have conducted a study to characterize intra–laboratory (repeatability) and inter–laboratory (reproducibility) variability associated with chemical testing of extractables from polymeric materials. To accomplish this, this study focused on two polymers, each with nine chemicals that were intentionally compounded into the materials. Eight different laboratories performed extraction testing in two solvents and subsequently characterized the extracts using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography methods. Analysis of the resulting data revealed the central 90 % range for the repeatability and reproducibility relative standard deviations are (0.09, 0.22) and (0.30, 0.85), respectively, for the participating laboratory methods. This finding implies that if the same sample was tested by two different laboratories using the same extraction conditions, there is 95 % confidence for 95 % of systems that the test results could exhibit differences up to 240 %. While the study was not designed to evaluate the relative impact of specific underlying factors that may contribute to variability in quantitation, the data obtained suggest the variability associated with analytical method alone is a substantial contribution to the overall variability. The relatively large reproducibility limits we observed may have significant implications where variability in extraction measurements can impact aspects of biocompatibility risk evaluation, such as exposure dose estimation and chemical equivalence assessments.
期刊介绍:
This journal is an international medium directed towards the needs of academic, clinical, government and industrial analysis by publishing original research reports and critical reviews on pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. It covers the interdisciplinary aspects of analysis in the pharmaceutical, biomedical and clinical sciences, including developments in analytical methodology, instrumentation, computation and interpretation. Submissions on novel applications focusing on drug purity and stability studies, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic monitoring, metabolic profiling; drug-related aspects of analytical biochemistry and forensic toxicology; quality assurance in the pharmaceutical industry are also welcome.
Studies from areas of well established and poorly selective methods, such as UV-VIS spectrophotometry (including derivative and multi-wavelength measurements), basic electroanalytical (potentiometric, polarographic and voltammetric) methods, fluorimetry, flow-injection analysis, etc. are accepted for publication in exceptional cases only, if a unique and substantial advantage over presently known systems is demonstrated. The same applies to the assay of simple drug formulations by any kind of methods and the determination of drugs in biological samples based merely on spiked samples. Drug purity/stability studies should contain information on the structure elucidation of the impurities/degradants.