This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
»


MANUFACTURING


» “


Another test to evaluate the diff erence between cleaning validation runs is to use 2 sample t-tests to compare data pop- ulations for 2 runs. Figure 4 shows the result of such tests as produced by statistical package Minitab.


Non-normal is a very typical outcome of a cleaning validation study since the point of ECP is to remove manufacturing and cleaning process residuals completely.


We may inspect a number of parameters presented in the Figure 4 summary. However, the most important one we are looking for is a p-value. The p-value or calculated probability is the estimated probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of a study question when that hypothesis is true. When the p-value is above 0.05 when using it to test null hypothesis that both cleaning runs represent same sample populations (because ECP should be consistent), then we can say that 2 population means are the same with 95% confi dence. In this case, the p-value is 0.454 which well above a 0.05 p-value.


A Confi dence Interval (CI) gives an estimated range of values which is likely to include an unknown population parameter, the estimated range being calculated from a given set of sample data. If independent samples are taken repeatedly from the same population (consistent cleaning process should produce same results), and a CI calculated for each sample, then a certain percentage (confi dence level) of the intervals will include the unknown population para- meter. CIs are typically calculated so that this percentage is 95%, but we can produce 90%, 99%, 99.9%, etc, confi dence intervals for the unknown parameter. Then we can examine tolerance intervals5


and perform


early process capability analyses using normal and non-normal capability analyses (depending on normality of the data sets). When data are found to be non-normal, fi nd the best fi tting model.


The following inter-cleaning run variability analyses can be utilized for cleaning process qualifi cation study examination:


• Individual value plot


• Box-plot • ANOVA


*Default is limit presented for illustration only. Limits for each cleaning process should be determined and evaluated separately. Please refer to Part 1 of this article for information on determining product-specifi c limits.


30 | | January/February 2015 Figure 4. Results of 2 sample t-tests.


• Two-sample t-test •


Two one-sided t-test


• Non-parametric tests (eg, Mann-Whitney test)


We will illustrate some of these tools in the following few examples. Figure 3 shows a Box-plot of TOC results of the cleaning studies of 7 products that utilize the same clean-in- place (CIP) cycle.


As we can see in Figure 3, all of the cleaning studies are quite similar and are well within set default limit of 3 ppm.*


Additionally, two one-sided t-test (TOST) can be used to determine the equivalence of 2 data sets. When a regular t-test is used to conclude there is a substantial diff erence, we must observe a diff erence large enough to conclude it is not due to sampling error, p-value above pre-set α (eg, 0.05). TOST applies with equivalence testing to conclude there is not a substantial diff erence we must observe a diff erence small enough to reject that closeness is not due to sampling error from distributions centered on large eff ects (within 95%, 90%). Figure 5 illustrates the diff erence in the population tail examination between a regular t-test and TOST.





Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76