Validation of qualitative microbiological test methods

Non-inferiority testing for qualitative microbiological methods:Assessing and improving the approach in USP <1223>

The United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) presents two approaches for showing non-inferiority of an alternate qualitative microbiological method versus a compendial method. One approach compares the positive rates for the alternate and compendial methods at one spike level, while the other one compares multiple most probable number (MPN) estimates from a multi-spike design using a t-test. In this paper, we discuss these approaches under certain assumptions and propose a third approach that can be used for both single and multiple dilutions, which we call the generalized MPN (gMPN) approach. Simulations, using Poisson distributed numbers of microorganisms in test samples, confirm that the USP approach based on rates is not suitable, that the USP approach based on MPNs is appropriate for non-inferiority, but the gMPN approach outperforms the MPN-based approach and is therefore recommended.

A comparison of spiking experiments to estimate the detection proportion of qualitative microbiological methods

The detection proportion of a qualitative microbiological test method is the probability to detect a single micro-organism. A general expression for the moment estimator of the detection proportion is provided. It depends on the distribution of the spikes used in a validation study through its moment-generating function. Several forms of spiking experiments are compared on their estimation performance using simulations and assuming a generalized Poisson distribution (GPD) for the spikes. The optimal design, which minimizes the mean squared error of our proposed moment estimator, depends on the dispersion parameter of the GPD. The design that uses just one spiked solution instead of multiple solutions is optimal for Poisson and overdispersed Poisson and it is robust against distributions for the spikes.

Equivalence testing for similarity in bioassays using bioequivalence criteria on the relative bioactivity

Similarity in bioassays means that the test preparation behaves as a dilution of the standard preparation with respect to their biological effect. Thus, similarity must be investigated to confirm this biological property. Historically, this was typically conducted with traditional hypothesis testing, but this has received substantial criticism. Failing to reject similarity does not imply that the 2 preparations are similar. Also, rejecting similarity when bioassay variability is small might simply demonstrate a nonrelevant deviation in similarity. To remedy these concerns, equivalence testing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional hypothesis testing, and it has found its way in the official guidelines. However, similarity has been discussed mainly in terms of the parameters in the dose-response curves of the standard and test preparations, but the consequences of nonsimilarity on the relative bioactivity have never been investigated. This article provides a general equivalence approach to evaluate similarity that is directly related to bioequivalence on the relative bioactivity of the standard and test preparations. Bioequivalence on the relative bioactivity can only be guaranteed for positive (only nonblanks) and finite dose intervals. The approach is demonstrated on 4 case studies in which we also show how to calculate a sample size and how to investigate the power of equivalence on similarity.