Consistency of FMEA used in the validation of analytical procedures.

In order to explore the consistency of the outcome of a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in the validation of analytical procedures, an FMEA was carried out by two different teams. The two teams applied two separate FMEAs to a High Performance Liquid Chromatography-Diode Array Detection-Mass Spectrometry (HPLC-DAD-MS) analytical procedure used in the quality control of medicines. Each team was free to define their own ranking scales for the probability of severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) of failure modes. We calculated Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) and we identified the failure modes above the 90th percentile of RPN values as failure modes needing urgent corrective action; failure modes falling between the 75th and 90th percentile of RPN values were identified as failure modes needing necessary corrective action, respectively. Team 1 and Team 2 identified five and six failure modes needing urgent corrective action respectively, with two being commonly identified. Of the failure modes needing necessary corrective actions, about a third were commonly identified by both teams. These results show inconsistency in the outcome of the FMEA. To improve consistency, we recommend that FMEA is always carried out under the supervision of an experienced FMEA-facilitator and that the FMEA team has at least two members with competence in the analytical method to be validated. However, the FMEAs of both teams contained valuable information that was not identified by the other team, indicating that this inconsistency is not always a drawback.

Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical validation.

We subjected a Near-Infrared (NIR) analytical procedure used for screening drugs on authenticity to a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), including technical risks as well as risks related to human failure. An FMEA team broke down the NIR analytical method into process steps and identified possible failure modes for each step. Each failure mode was ranked on estimated frequency of occurrence (O), probability that the failure would remain undetected later in the process (D) and severity (S), each on a scale of 1-10. Human errors turned out to be the most common cause of failure modes. Failure risks were calculated by Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs)=O x D x S. Failure modes with the highest RPN scores were subjected to corrective actions and the FMEA was repeated, showing reductions in RPN scores and resulting in improvement indices up to 5.0. We recommend risk analysis as an addition to the usual analytical validation, as the FMEA enabled us to detect previously unidentified risks.