Dataset Information

Workflow for Criticality Assessment Applied in Biopharmaceutical Process Validation Stage 1.

ABSTRACT: Identification of critical process parameters that impact product quality is a central task during regulatory requested process validation. Commonly, this is done via design of experiments and identification of parameters significantly impacting product quality (rejection of the null hypothesis that the effect equals 0). However, parameters which show a large uncertainty and might result in an undesirable product quality limit critical to the product, may be missed. This might occur during the evaluation of experiments since residual/un-modelled variance in the experiments is larger than expected a priori. Estimation of such a risk is the task of the presented novel retrospective power analysis permutation test. This is evaluated using a data set for two unit operations established during characterization of a biopharmaceutical process in industry. The results show that, for one unit operation, the observed variance in the experiments is much larger than expected a priori, resulting in low power levels for all non-significant parameters. Moreover, we present a workflow of how to mitigate the risk associated with overlooked parameter effects. This enables a statistically sound identification of critical process parameters. The developed workflow will substantially support industry in delivering constant product quality, reduce process variance and increase patient safety.

SUBMITTER: Zahel T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5746752 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Workflow for Criticality Assessment Applied in Biopharmaceutical Process Validation Stage 1.

Zahel Thomas T Marschall Lukas L Abad Sandra S Vasilieva Elena E Maurer Daniel D Mueller Eric M EM Murphy Patrick P Natschläger Thomas T Brocard Cécile C Reinisch Daniela D Sagmeister Patrick P Herwig Christoph C

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) 20171012 4

Identification of critical process parameters that impact product quality is a central task during regulatory requested process validation. Commonly, this is done via design of experiments and identification of parameters significantly impacting product quality (rejection of the null hypothesis that the effect equals 0). However, parameters which show a large uncertainty and might result in an undesirable product quality limit critical to the product, may be missed. This might occur during the e ...[more]

PMID: 29023375

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Research funders use a wide variety of application assessment processes yet there is little evidence on their relative advantages and disadvantages. A broad distinction can be made between processes with a single stage assessment of full proposals and those that first invite an outline, with full proposals invited at a second stage only for those which are shortlisted. This paper examines the effects of changing from a one-stage to a two-stage process within the UK's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme which made this change in 2015. METHODS:A retrospective comparative design was used to compare eight one-stage funding competitions (912 applications) with eight two-stage funding competitions (1090 applications). Comparisons were made between the number of applications submitted, number of peer and lay reviews required, the duration of the funding round, average external peer review scores, and the total costs involved. RESULTS:There was a mean number of 114 applications per funding round for the one-stage process and 136 for the two-stage process. The one-stage process took a mean of 274 days and the two-stage process 348 days to complete, although those who were not funded (i.e. the majority) were informed at a mean of 195 days (mean 79 days earlier) under the two-stage process. The mean peer review score for full applications using the one-stage process was 6.46 and for the two-stage process 6.82 (5.6% difference using a 1-10 scale (with 10 being the highest), but there was no significant difference between the lay reviewer scores. The one-stage process required a mean of 423 peer reviews and 102 lay reviewers and the two-stage process required a mean of 208 peer reviews and 50 lay reviews (mean difference of 215 peer reviews and 52 lay reviews) per funding round. Overall cost per funding round changed from £148,908 for the one-stage process to £105,342 for the two-stage process saving approximately £43,566 per round. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a two-stage application process increases the number of applications submitted to a funding round, is less burdensome and more efficient for all those involved with the process, is cost effective and has a small increase in peer reviewer scores. For the addition of fewer than 11 weeks to the process substantial efficiencies are gained which benefit funders, applicants and science. Funding agencies should consider adopting a two-stage application assessment process.

Project description:Little is known on how to best prioritize various tele-ICU specific tasks and workflows to maximize operational efficiency. We set out to: 1) develop an operational model that accurately reflects tele-ICU workflows at baseline, 2) identify workflow changes that optimize operational efficiency through discrete-event simulation and multi-class priority queuing modeling, and 3) implement the predicted favorable workflow changes and validate the simulation model through prospective correlation of actual-to-predicted change in performance measures linked to patient outcomes.SettingTele-ICU of a large healthcare system in New York State covering nine ICUs across the spectrum of adult critical care.PatientsSeven-thousand three-hundred eighty-seven adult critically ill patients admitted to a system ICU (1,155 patients pre-intervention in 2016Q1 and 6,232 patients post-intervention 2016Q3 to 2017Q2).InterventionsChange in tele-ICU workflow process structure and hierarchical process priority based on discrete-event simulation.Measurements and main resultsOur discrete-event simulation model accurately reflected the actual baseline average time to first video assessment by both the tele-ICU intensivist (simulated 132.8 ± 6.7 min vs 132 ± 12.2 min actual) and the tele-ICU nurse (simulated 128.4 ± 7.6 min vs 123 ± 9.8 min actual). For a simultaneous priority and process change, the model simulated a reduction in average TVFA to 51.3 ± 1.6 min (tele-ICU intensivist) and 50.7 ± 2.1 min (tele-ICU nurse), less than the added simulated reductions for each change alone, suggesting correlation of the changes to some degree. Subsequently implementing both changes simultaneously resulted in actual reductions in average time to first video assessment to values within the 95% CIs of the simulations (50 ± 5.5 min for tele-intensivists and 49 ± 3.9 min for tele-nurses).ConclusionsDiscrete-event simulation can accurately predict the effects of contemplated multidisciplinary tele-ICU workflow changes. The value of workflow process and task priority modeling is likely to increase with increasing operational complexities and interdependencies.

Dataset Information

Workflow for Criticality Assessment Applied in Biopharmaceutical Process Validation Stage 1.

Publications

Workflow for Criticality Assessment Applied in Biopharmaceutical Process Validation Stage 1.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure