Implications of variability on medical device chemical equivalence assessment.

ABSTRACT

Chemical equivalence testing can be used to assess the biocompatibility implications of a materials or manufacturing change for a medical device. This testing can provide a relatively facile means to evaluate whether the change may result in additional or different toxicological concerns. However, one of the major challenges in the interpretation of chemical equivalence data is the lack established criteria for determining if two sets of extractables data are effectively equivalent. To address this gap, we propose a two-part approach based upon a relatively simple statistical model. First, the probability of a false positive conclusion, wherein there is an incorrectly perceived increase for a given analyte in the comparator relative to the baseline device, can be reduced to a prescribed level by establishing an appropriate acceptance criterion for the ratio of the observed means. Second, the probability of a false negative conclusion, where an actual increase in a given analyte cannot be discerned from the test results, can be minimized by specifying a limiting value of applicability based on the margin of safety (MoS) of the analyte. This approach provides a quantitative, statistically motivated method to interpret chemical equivalence data, despite the relatively high intrinsic variability and small number of replicates typically associated with a chemical characterization evaluation.