Analytical method validation report of Saxagliptin Tablet
Post on 20-Dec-2015
59 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
2015
Page 1 of 24
ANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION REPORT Saglip Tablets
DOCUMENT NO.: CCL-AMVR-170-A
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 3
2 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 ASSAY PROCEDURE.........................................................................................................................................................3
3 VALIDATION OF METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 SPECIFICITY...................................................................................................................................................................43.2 LINEARITY....................................................................................................................................................................53.3 RANGE........................................................................................................................................................................73.4 ACCURACY...................................................................................................................................................................83.5 PRECISION..................................................................................................................................................................10
3.5.1 Repeatability......................................................................................................................................................113.5.2 Intermediate precision........................................................................................................................................14
3.6 LIMIT OF DETECTION (LOD) AND LIMIT OF QUANTITATION (LOQ).......................................................................................173.7 ROBUSTNESS..............................................................................................................................................................173.8 SYSTEM SUITABILITY.....................................................................................................................................................233.9 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................................233.10 DEVIATION.................................................................................................................................................................23
Page 2 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
1 IntroductionThe analytical method for Saglip Tablet was validated and found to be valid for assay and stability studies due to its accuracy and specificity. Forced degradation studies of finished pharmaceutical product (Saglip tablet) were performed, the resolution between degraded products and principle peak was found to be >2. Peak purity and relative retention times confirmed the specificity of method. Method was investigated for its range, linearity, accuracy, precision, robustness, and LOQ, LOD and solution stability. All the parameters were performed on Agilent 1260 series HPLC equipped with Auto sampler, column oven, quaternary low pressure gradient pump and PDA detector for peak purity purposes
2 Analytical Procedure2.1 Assay procedureBuffer: Dissolve 2.72 grams of Potassium Dihydrogen Phosphate in 1000 mL of distilled water and adjust the pH 4.6 with dilute Sodium Hydroxide solution.Diluent: 0.1N HClMobile phase: Buffer: Acetonitrile (80:20)Standard solution: Weigh on analytical balance, working standard of Saxagliptin HCl equivalent to 25mg of Saxagliptin and transfer it into a 50ml volumetric flask, make up the volume with diluent and sonicate for 10 minutes. Take 10ml from this solution into a 100ml volumetric flask and make up the volume with diluent.Sample solution: Weigh on analytical balance, ground powder of tablets equivalent to 5mg of Saxagliptin and transfer it into a 100ml volumetric flask, make up the volume with diluent and sonicate for 10 minutes (50ppm). Mode: LCDetector: UV 213 nmColumn: C18Column temperature: AmbientFlow rate: 1.5 mL/min Injection size: 10 µL System suitability requirementsTailing factor: NMT 2.0 Relative standard deviation: NMT 2.0%
Calculate the percentage of the labeled amount of Saxagliptin in the portion of Tablets taken:Result = (rU/rS) x (CS/CU) x 100/1.116
rU = peak response from the Sample solution rS = peak response from the Standard solutionCS = concentration of Saxagliptin HCl RS in the Standard solution (mg/mL)CU = nominal concentration of Saxagliptin in the Sample solution (mg/mL)
Acceptance criteria: 90.0%–110.0%
3 Validation of Method
Following Validation characteristics were considered for analytical method validation:
Page 3 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
1) Specificity (Identification)2) Linearity 3) Range4) Accuracy (Recovery)5) Precision
i. Repeatability ii. Intermediate Precision
6) LOD and LOQ7) Robustness8) Solution stability 9) System suitability
3.1 SpecificitySamples of drug product were exposed to heat, light, acid, base, and oxidizing agent to produce 10%–30% degradation of the active. The degraded samples were then analyzed using the method to determine if there were interferences with the active or related compound peaks.
The following degradation conditions were selected:Obtain or prepare solutions of ~0.1 N HCL, 1 N HCL, 2 N HCL ~0.15 N NaOH, 1 N NaOH, 2 N NaOH ~1% H2O2, 5% H2O2, 10% H2O2 and purified water.
Table 1FORCED DEGRADATION FOR SAXAGLIPTIN
Stress Condition
weight taken (mg) Chrom. No.
Peak Area
Mean Area
No. of degradation product
(Area; RT)
Theoretical Content
(µg mL−1)
Amount recovered (µg mL−1)
Recovery (%)
Degradation
Unstressed sample
231.011 606.7
607.2 0 2.49 2.76 99.52% 0.48%2 608.53 606.5
0.1 N HCl 226.054 666.7
668.4 0 2.43 3.04 111.95% -11.95%5 667.46 671.1
1 N HCl 229.947 669.5
669.1 0 2.48 3.05 110.17% -10.17%8 668.39 669.4
2 N HCl 229.8210 675.8
675.8 0 2.48 3.08 111.33% -11.33%11 673.812 677.7
0.1N NaOH 228.7113 443.6
443.9(4)
2.2,3.6,3.8,7.12.46 2.02 73.49% 26.51%14 443.6
15 444.6
1 N NaOH 233.5516 40.8
40.8(6)
2.2,3.6,3.8,7.1,1.7,4.52.52 0.19 6.61% 93.39%17 41.1
18 40.4
2 N NaOH 227.219 0.0
0.0(6)
2.2,3.6,3.8,7.1,1.7,4.52.45 0.00 0.00% 100.00%20 0.0
21 0.01 %
H2O2229.99 22 664.5 665.0 (1)
3.82.48 3.03 109.47% -9.47%
23 665.4
Page 4 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Table 1FORCED DEGRADATION FOR SAXAGLIPTIN
24 665.0
5 %H2O2
231.2825 667.3
667.1(2)
3.8,3.62.49 3.04 109.20% -9.20%26 667.1
27 666.8
10 %H2O2
232.3728 601.0
601.3 0 2.50 2.74 97.97% 2.03%29 602.830 600.0
Stan
dard
25.12
34 555.4
551.9
-----
35 551.036 550.237 553.038 550.739 551.2
Acceptance Criteria: Peak purity should be NLT 990 Resolution should be more than 2.0
Conclusion:Resolution was found to be more than 2.0 (See chromatograms)Peak purity was found to be more than 990 (See chromatograms)Relative retention times are mentioned in table and are different for degraded products from active.3.2 LinearityA stock solution of Saxagliptan (0.5mg mL−1 saxagliptan) was prepared by dissolving 1000 mg drug in 100 mL Diluent. Solutions of different concentration (30--70 µg mL−1) for construction of calibration plots were prepared from this stock solution. The mobile phase was filtered through a 0.22-µm membrane filter and delivered at 1.50 mL min−1 for column equilibration; the baseline was monitored continuously during this process. The detection wavelength was 213 nm. The prepared dilutions were injected at the rate of 10µl in series, peak area was calculated for each dilution, and concentration was plotted against peak area.
Page 5 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Table 2
Linearity study of Saxagliptin Sr. # Chrom. # Conc. (ppm) Peak Area MEAN RSD (%)
1 4 30 222.3223.2 0.339%2 5 30 223.5
3 6 30 223.74 7 40 299.4
298.4 0.355%5 8 40 298.66 9 40 297.37 10 50 372.1
372.8 0.217%8 11 50 372.79 12 50 373.7
10 13 60 447.2447.1 0.169%11 14 60 446.3
12 15 60 447.813 16 70 518.7
519.1 0.077%14 17 70 519.515 18 70 519.1
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 750
100
200
300
400
500
600
f(x) = 7.40533333333334 x + 1.85999999999996R² = 0.999898962830931
Linear plot for Saglip Tablet
Concentration
Peak
Are
a
Acceptance Criteria: Coefficient of determination (r2) should be greater than 0.990. The y intercept should not significantly depart from zero Area response of y intercept should be less than 5% of the response of the midrange concentration
value.Conclusion:Page 6 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
The calibration plot of peak area against concentration was linear in the range investigated (30–70 µg mL−1). Calibration data, with their relative standard deviations, % RSD and standard error are listed in Table I. The low values of RSD and standard error show the method is precise. The linear regression data for the calibration plot are indicative of a good linear relationship between peak area and concentration over a wide range. The linear regression equation was y =1468.5x + 40069 and the re-gression coefficient was 0.9999.3.3 Range A stock solution of Saxagliptan (0.5mg mL−1 saxagliptan) was prepared by dissolving 1000 mg drug in 100 mL Diluent. Solutions of different concentration (20--100 µg mL−1) for construction of calibration plots were prepared from this stock solution. The mobile phase was filtered through a 0.22-µm membrane filter and delivered at 1.50 mL min−1 for column equilibration; the baseline was monitored continuously during this process. The detection wavelength was 213 nm. The prepared dilutions were injected at the rate of 10µl in series, peak area was calculated for each dilution, and concentration was plotted against peak area.
Table 3Range study of Sitagliptin
Sr. # Conc. (ppm) Peak Area MEAN RSD (%)
1 20 147.4148 0.434%2 20 148.4
3 20 148.64 30 222.3
223 0.339%5 30 223.56 30 223.77 40 299.4
298 0.355%8 40 298.69 40 297.3
10 50 372.1373 0.217%11 50 372.7
12 50 373.713 60 447.2
447 0.169%14 60 446.3
15 60 447.8
16 70 518.7519 0.077%17 70 519.5
18 70 519.119 80 600.3
600 0.025%20 80 600.421 80 600.1
22 100 741.6742 0.075%23 100 742.7
24 100 742.0
Page 7 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
f(x) = 7.44456140350877 x + 0.135087719298383R² = 0.999870806227799
Concentration (ppm) Line Fit Plot for Range study of Saglip Tablet
Concentration (ppm)
Peak
Are
a
ConclusionThe calibration plot of peak area against concentration was linear in the range investigated (20-100 µg mL−1). Calibration data, with their relative standard deviations, % RSD and standard error are listed in Table I. The low values of RSD and standard error show the method is precise. The linear regression data for the calibration plot are indicative of a good linear relationship between peak area and concentration over a wide range. The linear regression equation was y = 1412.1x + 13700 and the regression coefficient was 0.9999.Acceptance CriteriaRegression Coefficient > 0.990
3.4 Accuracy Standard preparation:Weight accurately about 50 mg of Saxagliptin in a 100 ml volumetric flask and dissolve it in 0.1N HCl and make up volume 0.1N HCl. Take 10ml from this dilution in 100ml volumetric flask and makeup volume with 0.1N HCl.Sample preparation:Weight accurately about 195.0 mg of placebo in a 100 ml volumetric flask (thre different flasks) and dissolve it in water. (A, B, C) 2-A stock solution of Saxagliptan HCl (0.5mg mL−1) was prepared by dissolving 50 mg of Saxagliptan HCl in 100 mL 0.1N HCl. Transfer 8, 10, and 12 ml of this solution in three different 100 ml volumetric flasks A, B, C respectively containing placebo. Make up volume with diluent to get three concentration levels of 80%, 100% and 120% respectively.
Page 8 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Accuracy Set 1Potency of WS: 99.10% Prop Wt: 230mgWeight of placebo: 195.00 Weight of active: 50.04
Table 4Accuracy SET 1
Weight of placebo
mg
Volume ofstock
solution(ml)
Theoretical Content (µg/ml) Peak Area Mean Area RSD
Actual Recovery
Content (µg/ml)%age
140.30 8.039.67
431.9434 0.49 39.34 99.18434.3
436.1
140.28 10.049.59
541.9539 0.40 48.89 98.59537.8
538.6
140.26 12.059.51
656.5656 0.07 59.46 99.93655.6
656.1
Working Standard 50.04 -----
551.1
552.10 0.26
Mean recovery (%) 99.23552.6
550.9
554.4
551.5
----
Accuracy Set 2Potency of WS: 99.10% Prop Wt: 150mgWeight of placebo: 140.00 Weight of active: 50.23
Table 5Accuracy SET 2
Weight of placebo
mg
Volume ofstock solution
(ml)
Theoretical Content (µg/ml) Peak Area Mean Area RSD
Actual Recovery
Content (µg/ml)%age
140.30 8.039.74
438438 0.15 39.70 99.91438.7
437.4
140.28 10.049.59
545.2544 0.14 49.34 99.49543.9
543.9
140.26 12.059.73
652.0652 0.02 59.11 98.95652.3
652.1Working Standard 50.23 551.1 552.10 0.26
Mean recovery (%) 99.38552.6
550.9
554.4
551.5
Page 9 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
-----
Accuracy Set 3Potency of WS: 99.10% Prop Wt: 150 mgWeight of placebo: 140.00 Weight of active: 49.79
Table 6Accuracy SET 3
Weight of placebo
mg
Volume of Active
mlTheoretical Content (%) Peak Area Mean Area RSD
Actual Recovery
Content (w/w %)%age
140.01 8.0
39.39
437.1
437 0.08 39.74 100.88436.8
436.4
140.54 10.0
49.59
531.4
532 0.17 48.41 97.62533.1
531.8
140.07 12.0
59.51
644.6
645 0.38 58.71 98.66643.3
648
Working Standard 49.79
542.8
543.14 0.09
Mean recovery (%) 99.98542.6
543.2
543.2
543.9
The recovery of the method is determined by spiking a placebo with active pharmaceutical ingredient of known potency. The values of recovery (%), RSD (%), and SEM listed in Table 4, 5 and 6 listed above indicate that the method is accurate.Acceptance Criteria:
The percent recovery of the spiked placebos should be within 100±2.0% for the average of each set of three weights.
Each individual sample recovery should lie within the range of 98% to 102%.
Conclusion:Hence above acceptance criteria for accuracy is met, therefore method is accurate3.5 Precision Precision was determined as both repeatability and intermediate precision. For repeatability six replicates of a sample were analyzed on three different days and their RSD was calculated. For intermediate precision same
Page 10 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
sample was analyzed on two different equipments, columns, days and by two different analyst and their standard deviation and relative standard deviations were recorded
3.5.1 Repeatability
Tablet 7Set 1
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 51.4 mgWeight of sample taken 205.46 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 365.6 1 274.12 361.6 2 274.43 362.6 3 274.44 363.3
0.39
Average274.30
Result5 362.66 362.1
RSD (%)0.06 70.51%Average 363.0
Tablet 8Set 2
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 48.5 mgWeight of sample taken 210.57 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 349.6 1 301.52 350.2 2 302.33 348.5 3 302.44 348.9
0.33
Average302.07
Result5 346.86 348.5
RSD (%)0.16 74.40%Average 348.8
Page 11 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Tablet 9Set 3
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 48.7 mgWeight of sample taken 209.07 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 376.2 1 319.32 377.0 2 320.23 376.7 3 316.94 376.7
0.27
Average318.80
Result5 375.06 374.5
RSD (%)0.54 73.66%Average 376.0
Tablet 10Set 4
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.1 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.18 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 360.5 1 299.1
2 360.5 2 302.2
3 361.1 3 297.7
4 361.6
0.26
Average299.67
Result5 361.1
6 363.0RSD (%)
0.77 73.74%Average 361.3
Page 12 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Tablet 11Set 5
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.19 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.06 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 363.3 1 302.5
2 365.1 2 302.6
3 365.4 3 302.5
4 366.3
0.30
Average302.53
Result5 363.8
6 364.7RSD (%)
0.02 73.91%Average 364.8
Tablet 12Set 6
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 49.84 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.06 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 361.6 1 301.5
2 364.4 2 296.9
3 363.7 3 297.0
4 360.4
0.42
Average298.47
Result5 362.0
6 361.2RSD (%)
0.88 72.92%Average 362.2
Average 73.19%RSD 1.40%
Page 13 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Acceptance Criteria:The % RSD of the assay values should not be greater than 2.0%.
Conclusion:% RSD for assay repeatability is 1.40% (i.e. less than 2.0%) hence repeatability is accepted
3.5.2 Intermediate precisionDIFFERENT DAYS
Tablet 13Day 1
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.1 mgWeight of sample taken 210.18 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 360.5 1 299.12 360.5 2 302.23 361.1 3 297.74 361.6
0.26
Average299.67
Result5 361.16 363.0
RSD (%)0.77 73.74%Average 361.3
Tablet 14DAY 2
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.33 mgWeight of sample taken 210.56 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 365.6 1 304.52 365.7 2 304.33 367.6 3 306.24 368.1
0.28
Average305.00
Result5 366.46 366.3
RSD (%)0.34 74.16%Average 366.6
Absolute difference 0.58 Acceptance Value NMT 4.0
DIFFERENT EQUIPMENTS
Page 14 of 24
Average 73.95% RSD 0.41%
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Tablet 15Agilent (QA-0129)
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 25.12 mgWeight of sample taken 231.01 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 230 mg
Factor 1.116 Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 555.4 1 606.72 551.0 2 608.53 550.2 3 606.54 553.0
0.35
Average607.23
Result5 550.76 551.2
RSD (%)0.18 97.74%Average 551.9
Tablet 16
AGILENT(QA-095)Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 57.94 mgWeight of sample taken 478.07 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 230 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 621.1 1 640.52 623.8 2 639.63 626.3 3 642.34 631.3
0.69
Average640.80
Result5 630.3
Average 626.6RSD (%)
0.21 101.26%
Absolute difference 3.54 Average 99.50%
Acceptance Value NMT 4.0 RSD 2.50%
Page 15 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
DIFFERENT ANALYSTTablet 17
Kashif MumtazPotency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 49.84 mgWeight of sample taken 210.06 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 361.6 1 301.52 364.4 2 296.93 363.7 3 297.04 360.4
0.42
Average298.47
Result5 362.06 361.2
RSD (%)0.88 72.92%Average 362.2
Tablet 18Arslan Khalid
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 51.4 mgWeight of sample taken 205.46 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 365.6 1 274.12 361.6 2 274.43 362.6 3 274.44 363.3
0.39
Average274.30
Result5 362.66 362.1
RSD (%)0.06 70.51%Average 363.0
Absolute difference -3.35 Average 71.71%
Acceptance Value NMT 4.0 RSD 2.37%
Page 16 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Acceptance Criteria: The % RSD of the assay/recovery values generated by a single analyst should not be greater than 2.0%. The % RSD of the combined assay/recovery values generated by both analysts, over both days should
not be greater than 3.0%.Absolute difference should not be more than 4.0.
Conclusion:Repeatability has been performed as per protocol and values for % RSDs and Absolute difference is with acceptance limit hence repeatability is accepted.3.6 Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)LOD was determined by the residual standard deviation and slop of the line in range study.The relationship for Detection Limit is given belowDetection Limit= 3.3* RSD/ mWhere m is the slop of line in linear relation RSD is the residual standard deviation of the y intercept in the linear regression.LOQ was determined by the residual standard deviation and slop of the line in range study.The relationship for Quantitation Limit is given belowQuantitation Limit= 10* RSD/ mWhere m is the slop of line in linear relation RSD is the residual standard deviation of the y intercept in the linear regression
Regression StatisticsR Square 0.999871
Standard Error 2.20688Observations 24
Sum of residual squares 2.20687992
Slop 7.444561404Limit of detection (ppm) 1.0Limit of quantitation (ppm) 3.0
3.7 RobustnessThe robustness of the method was determined to assess the effect of small but deliberate variation of the chromatographic conditions on the determination of Saxagliptin. Robustness was determined by changing the mobile phase pH + 0.2, flow rate to 0.85and 1.15 mL min−1 and the concentration of acetonitrile in the mobile phase to 57 and 63%
Page 17 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Results from testing of the robustness of the method by changing the pH of the mobile phaseTable 20
Mobile phase pH
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.23 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.13 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116
pH 4.4
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 367.9 1 302.9
2 369.2 2 302.3
3 370.1 3 302.8
4 371.2
0.59
Average302.67
Result5 366.6
6 365.5RSD (%)
0.11 73.24%Average 368.4
pH 4.6
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 365.6 1 304.5
2 365.7 2 304.3
3 367.6 3 306.2
4 368.1
0.28
Average305.00
Result5 366.4
6 366.3RSD (%)
0.34 74.17%Average 366.6
pH 4.8
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area
1 367.6 1 307.1
2 366.8 2 299.7
3 366.6 3 305.1
4 366.5
0.27
Average303.97
Result5 365.9
6 368.7RSD (%)
1.26 73.84%Average 367.0
Average 73.75%
Page 18 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
RSD 0.47%
Acceptable NMT 3%
Results from testing of the robustness of the method by changing the composition of the mobile phase
Table 21Mobile phase Composition
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.23 mgWeight of sample taken 210.13 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116 Acetonitrile 17 %
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 373.5 1 296.12 373.5 2 296.73 374.5 3 292.84 373.7
0.23Average
295.20Result
5 375.76 374.1
RSD (%)0.71 70.39%Average 373.9
Acetonitrile 20 %Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 372.9 1 294.52 372.9 2 293.93 375.8 3 293.04 372.1
0.35Average
293.80Result
5 372.76 373.9
RSD (%)0.26 70.15%Average 373.4
Acetonitrile 23 %Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 375.2 2 288.72 377.0 3 289.23 375.7
0.32
Average 288.60 Result4 378.2
RSD (%)
0.23 66.28%
5 376.96 378.8
Average 376.8
Page 19 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Average 69.61%
RSD 1.16%
Acceptable NMT 3%
Results from testing of the robustness of the method by changing flow rate of the mobile phase
Table 22Mobile phase Flow rate
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.23 mgWeight of sample taken 210.13 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mgFactor 1.116
1.35 mlStandard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 415.8 1 325.02 415.0 2 325.03 415.9 3 324.54 415.7
0.09Average
324.83Result
5 415.56 416.0
RSD (%)0.09 69.67%Average 415.7
1.5 mlStandard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 372.9 1 294.52 372.9 2 293.93 375.8 3 293.04 372.1
0.35Average
293.80Result
5 372.76 373.9
RSD (%)0.26 70.15%Average 373.4
1.65 mlStandard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 338.9 1 265.82 339.0 2 265.43 339.1 3 265.04 339.3
0.04Average
265.40Result
5 338.96 339.0
RSD (%)0.15 69.79%Average 339.0
Page 20 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Average 69.87%RSD 0.25%Acceptable NMT 3%
Results from testing of the robustness of the method by changing temperature
Table 23Temperature Change
Potency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.23 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.13 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116
20 ° C
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 565.5 1 543.12 562.0 2 540.03 563.2 3 543.04 566.9
0.33
Average542.03
Result5 566.36 564.8
RSD (%)0.33 85.56%Average 564.8
25 ° CStandard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 558.9 1 540.72 559.8 2 538.7
3 559.3 3 537.4
4 561.4
1.27
Average538.93
Result5 563.3
6 543.6RSD (%)
0.31 86.15%Average 557.730 ° C
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 565.0 1 538.52 563.2 2 538.13 563.8 3 539.94 564.6
0.24
Average538.83
Result5 565.66 561.8
RSD (%)0.18 85.17%Average 564.0
Page 21 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Average 85.63%RSD 0.49%Acceptable NMT 3%
Table 24
Solution stabilityPotency of standard 99.10% % Weight of standard taken 50.33 mg
Weight of sample taken 210.56 mg Proposed weight / Tablet 210 mg
Factor 1.116 0 Hour
Standard Peak Areas Sample Peak AreasSr # Area
RSD(%)
Sr # Area1 363.3 1 302.52 365.1 2 302.63 365.4 3 302.54 366.3
0.30
Average302.53
Result5 363.86 364.7
RSD (%)0.02 73.94%Average 364.8
24 HourStandard Peak Areas Sample Peak Areas
Sr # AreaRSD(%)
Sr # Area1 365.6 1 304.52 365.7 2 304.33 367.6 3 306.2
4 368.1
0.28
Average305.00
Result5 366.4
6 366.3RSD (%)
0.34 74.46%Average 366.6
Average 74.46%RSD 0.37%Acceptable NMT 3%
3.8 System Suitability
Page 22 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
SYSTEM SUITABILITY
Table 25
Sr. # Peak Area Theoretical plates Symmetry ResolutionCapacity Factor k S/N
1 361.6 5518.0 0.5900 ---- 17.584 126.52 364.4 5480.0 0.5900 ---- 17.397 97.03 363.7 5535.0 0.5900 ---- 17.777 95.34 360.4 5250.0 0.5900 ---- 18.918 89.45 362 5390.0 0.5900 ---- 18.055 89.4
6 361.2 5404.0 0.5900 ---- 18.626 87.1
Results
Peak Area T. P T. F Resolution k S/N
n=6 6 6 6 6 6Mean=362 5430 0.59 ----- 18 97
SD=1.532 105.777 0.000 ----- 0.600 14.717
RSD %=0.4228% 1.9482% 0.0000% ----- 3.3249% 15.1027%
Acceptance CriteriaRelative Standard deviation < 1.0
Theoretical plates > 2000Tailing Factor 0.8 > 2.2
3.9 Conclusion
It is obvious from all the above mentioned results that this method is valid for the analysis of Saglip tablet for intermediate, finished and stability stages. It complies with all the required parameters and hence declared as validated method for Saglip tablet.
3.10 Deviation
The Analytical Method mentioned in protocol was found fit for Saglip Tablet. Diluent was changed (0.1N HCl)and method was VALIDATED thereof (see section 2.1).
Page 23 of 24
Analytical Method Validation ReportSaglip TabletDocument No. CCL-AMVR-170-A
Author, Quality Assurance (Validation), CCL Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd Date
Reviewed by, Deputy Manager Quality Assurance (Validation), CCL Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Date
Reviewed by, QCM, CCL Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Date
Approved by, Head of QA&R, CCL Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Date
Page 24 of 24
top related