See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262484875

Methods for Identifying Out-of-Trend Results in Ongoing Stability Data

Article · June 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 10,640

2 authors:

Adrijana Torbovska Suzana Trajkovic-Jolevska

ReplekFarm LTD Ss. Cyril and Methodius University
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Thesis View project

Methods for OOT results in Ongoing Stability Data View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrijana Torbovska on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

peer-reviewed
Methods for Identifying Out-of-Trend
Results in Ongoing Stability Data
Adrijana Torbovska and Suzana Trajkovic-Jolevska
It is important to distinguish between out-of-
specification (OOS) and out-of-trend (OOT) results in
stability studies. The authors discuss three methods
for identification of OOT results: the regression-
control-chart method, by-time-point method, and
the slope-control-chart method and further compare
the z-score method and the tolerance interval in OOT
analysis. The results highlight the need for issuing a
regulatory confirmed guideline for identification of
OOT results for ongoing stability data.
Adrijana Torbovska* is an analyst in the Quality Control
Department of ReplekPharm, Kozle 188, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia,
adrijana.torbovska@replek.com.mk. Suzana Trajkovic-Jolevska,
PhD, is a professor in the Drug Quality Control Department,
Faculty of Pharmacy, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje,
Macedonia.
* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.
Submitted Nov. 9. 2012; Accepted Dec. 5, 2012.
2
2 Pharmaceutical Technology 
Pharmaceutical Technology 2013 P hJune
June Europe  a r mTe c hPharmTech.com
2013 .com
T he two terms out-of-trend (OOT ) and out-of specification (OOS)
results are in many cases confused by pharmaceutical
companies and regulatory agencies. OOT results are defined
as a stability result that does not follow the expected trend,
either in comparison with other stability batches or with
respect to previous results collected during a stability study
(1). OOT results are not necessarily OOS, but they do not look
like a typical data point. Although OOT results are a serious
problem, the scientific literature and regulatory guidelines
do not fully address this issue.
According to FDA’s Guidance for Industry: Investigating Out-
Of-Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production
(2), OOT results should be limited and scientifically justified.
The guideline, however, does not define the process for
identification of OOT results in stability data. The CMC
Statistics and Stability Expert Teams of the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America made an attempt
to address this problem by suggesting several statistical
methods for the identification of OOT results (3). The
proposed statistical methods were redesigned and analyzed
for the purposes of this study.
T h e aim of t his s t u d y wa s t o ma ke a s t at is t ic al
confirmation of the statistical methods, which will prove
their functionality in identification of OOT results in ongoing
stability data within a batch or data among batches. In
addition, a comparison was made between the z-score
method and the tolerance interval (TI) in terms of defining
the limits for identification of the present OOT result.
Materials and methods
For the purpose of this study, data from ongoing sta-
bility studies of a final drug product with a shelf life of 36
months were used. The ongoing studies were conducted on
10 batches of Product X. Product X is manufactured in a
tablet dosage form and consisted of one active substance
with defined strength of 10 mg and packaged in a primary
aluminium–polyvinyl chloride (Al–PVC) blister and a sec-
ondary package. The ongoing studies were conducted for
36 months in stability chambers at a constant temperature
of 25 °C ± 2 °C and relative humidity of 60% ± 5% in accord-
ance with the ICH guideline Q1A(R2) (4).
The reported data are single data results for the assay
attribute, calculated as a percentage of the declared active
substance concentration. The assay attribute was analyzed
 Stability Testing

Table I: Regression-control chart for the tenth batch.

Figure 1: Least-square line method for the time period of
0–9 months. Months Y Expected Y Residuals z
100,20
0 100.12 100.13 -0.0050 -0.577
100,00

99,80
3 99.59 99.58 0.0100 1.155
99,60

99,40 6 99.03 99.04 -0.0050 -0.577

99,20

99,00
9 98.68 98.49 0.1900 21.939
Real value of Y
98,80 yi
12 98.34 98.14 0.2050 1.653
98,60 (yi – yi)
Residual
98,40
yi 18 95.82 97.36 -1.5440 -14.962
Predicted value of Y
98,20

98,00 24 94.70 95.04 -0.3363 -0.216

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

36 95.41 92.04 3.3682 5.834

Extrapolation of the 0-6 month least square line 9 month value of Y

Table II: The regression-control chart method limits

Figure 2: Representation of the historical data with the
from the tolerance interval (TI) and z-values for the
use of the by-time-point method.
corresponding TI values
102
Historical data base Time TI - z for TI - TI + z for TI +
101
Mean
period
(months)
100

0–6 -0.137 -15.819 0.137 15.819

99
Result

98 0–9 -0.882 -9.757 0.978 9.768

96
0-12 -0.763 -7.762 0.921 7.762
96

95
0–18 -4.344 -6.201 4.726 7.343
24
12

36
6
0

18
3

Time
0–24 -3.559 -5.453 3.983 6.835

in accordance to the validated internal method of the for assay at the first three time points (0, 3, and 6 months).
manufacturer at the time points of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and With extrapolation of that regression line, the expected
36 months in all of the tested batches. values for Y and the Y residuals were calculated (see
The first nine batches were used as historical data for Figure 1) (6). The procedure was then repeated by gradually
the purposes of the by-time-point method and the slope- adding all the other consecutive time points.
control-chart-method in addition to which the tenth batch The next step was to calculate the mean and standard
was compared and analyzed. The historical data were used deviation (σ) of the Y residuals of the regression line. As
to define the limits for identification of present OOT results a result, a sum of five means and standard deviations
in the tenth batch; the regression-control-chart-method corresponding to the time periods (0–6, 0–9, 0–12, 0–18
analysis was conducted only on the tenth batch. and 0–24 months) were constructed. To identify the present
In addition, simulated data also were implemented. The OOT result, the z-score test was used to calculate the
simulated data were comprised of eight test time points for z-value for each Y residual at each time point. The z-value
each of the 10 simulated batches. Unlike the experiment, is based on the means and standard deviations of the
All figures are courtesy of the author.

in the simulation, the 10 batches were tested using the defined time periods (see Table I). The z-value was limited to
regression-control-chart method. In the by-time-point -3 < z <+3, where 99.73% of the future results are expected
method and the slope-control-chart method, however, the to enter the interval within these limits.
historical data of the real batches were used to individually Testing the precision of the TI in comparison to the z-score
analyze the 10 randomly generated batches. test, the TI for the same five time periods was calculated
Regression-control-chart-method. The regression-control- according to the suitable equation with defined certainty
chart method is used to compare the results within the (α=0.027) and confidence (γ=0.95) (7). To compare the two
batch and detect present OOT results. For the purpose of methods for each TI value, a corresponding z-value was
this method, the tenth batch was examined. Several least- calculated (see Table II).
square regression lines were fit to the suitable data (5). The By-time-point method. The by-time-point method is used
first regression line was constructed from the three results to determine whether a result is within expectations on the
Pharmaceutical
Pharmaceutical Technology Technology 
Europe June
June 2013
2013 3
3
Stability Testing

Table III: Mean value and standard deviation of the database. For the purpose of this experiment, control limits
historical data and z-value for Batch 10. were defined from the historical data and then used to test
Batch 10 for the presence of OOT results. For each time
Months Mean value Standard z-value for
point, a least-squares regression line that includes all data
deviation Batch 10
up to that time point was constructed. The regression line
0 100.65 0.6358 -0.835 was constructed from the data of 0, 3, and 6 months, and
3 99.66 0.5152 -0.134 the slope of that line was calculated. The procedure was
repeated until the last tested time point of the ongoing
6 98.97 0.5866 0.108 stability study. The mean and standard deviation of the
slopes for the given time intervals were calculated. The
9 98.56 0.4846 0.243
slope-control chart was then constructed (see Table V).
12 98.03 0.4197 0.741 To identify the present OOT result, the z-score test
was used to calculate the z value for the slope at each
18 97.53 0.3126 -5.464
time period of the batch 10. The value of z was limited to
24 96.69 0.4406 -4.517 -2 < z <+2, provided that 95.45% of the future values
will enter the interval of these limits. Unlike the previous
36 95.77 0.4888 -0.746
two methods for identification of OOT results, where the
absolute value of the result was analyzed, in this method,
Table IV: The by-time-point method limits from the the authors analyzed the values for the slope. Because
tolerance interval (TI) and z-values for the corresponding small changes in the slope value causes a significant change
TI values. in the regression line (and in this case it would mean the
TI - z for TI- TI + z for TI+ kinetics of degradation), for this model, narrower limits for
the z-value were chosen.
97.21 -5.41 104.09 5.41 Additionally, the TI also was calculated from the slope
96.87 -5.41 102.45 5.42 values at each time interval. In this case, however, the TI
was calculated with defined α=0.045 and γ=0.95, for proper
95.80 -5.40 102.14 5.41 comparison with the limits determined by the z-score test
95.94 -5.41 101.18 5.40
(7). In order to compare the two methods for each TI value a
corresponding z-value was calculated (see Table VI).
95.76 -5.41 100.30 5.41
Results and discussion
95.84 -5.40 99.22 5.41
The simulation gave the same results with as the experi-
94.31 -5.40 99.07 5.40 ment. Therefore, this study was focused only on elabo-
rating the experiment on its own. It must be noted that the
93.13 -5.41 98.41 5.39
obtained limits in this experiment will only apply to this final
product in the given dosage form, strength, and primary,
basis of experiences from other batches measured at the and secondary packaging.
same stability time point. To minimize the α and β error (6), With the use of the regression-control-chart method,
batches that comprise the historical data (Batches 1 to 9) three OOT results were detected in the time points of 9,
were individually tested for present OOT results. In addition, 18 and 36 months (see Table I). The result in the 9-month
calculations for the mean and standard deviation of the time point deviates approximately 0.19%. The result in
values for the tested attribute were made from the historical the 18-month time point deviated by 2%, and the result
data for each time point individually (see Figure 2). in the 36-month time point deviated by 3% from the
To identify the present OOT result, the z-score test was expected value according to the regression line. Taking
used to calculate the z-value for each value of Y (the assay into consideration that in the time point of 9 months the
result) of the tenth batch. Analysis was made at each time regression line is constructed of only three points, the
point using the mean and the standard deviation from the result is falsely identified as an OOT result, and it was
historical data corresponding to the tested time point (see not investigated further. In terms of the control limits,
Table III). The value of z was again limited to -3 < z < +3. the z-score test provides a constant limit of 3σ standard
The TI was also calculated with α=0.027 and γ=0.95 for deviations throughout the whole regression line unlike the
each time point. To compare the two methods for each TI TI that limits the results within 15σ for the time point of 6
value, a corresponding z-value was calculated (see Table IV). months to 5σ for the time interval of 24 months.
Slope - control- char t method . The slope-control-chart The by-time-point method identified two OOT results
method is commonly used when it is necessary to compare in the time points of 18 and 24 months (see Table III) .
the results between several tested batches or between the Compared with the results from the historical data for the
currently tested batch and other batches from the historical appropriate time points, the results of the tested batch
4
4 Pharmaceutical Technology 
Pharmaceutical Technology 2013 P hJune
June Europe  a r mTe c hPharmTech.com
2013 .com
 Stability Testing

Table V: Slope-control chart and the z-values for Batch 10.

Time Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Batch 7 Batch 8 Batch 9 Batch 10 z
period
(months)

0–6 -0.327 -0.290 -0.348 -0.215 -0.082 -0.330 -0.503 -0.207 -0.225 -0.182 0.840

0–9 -0.239 -0.179 -0.272 -0.222 -0.127 -0.264 -0.339 -0.219 -0.228 -0.163 1.166

0–12 -0.233 -0.143 -0.243 -0.190 -0.171 -0.204 -0.278 -0.214 -0.227 -0.149 1.542

0–18 -0.175 -0.132 -0.203 -0.159 -0.144 -0.146 -0.201 -0.167 -0.193 -0.223 -2.056

0–24 -0.140 -0.152 -0.169 -0.155 -0.144 -0.129 -0.163 -0.160 -0.167 -0.233 -5.977

0–36 -0.102 -0.133 -0.136 -0.137 -0.135 -0.103 -0.142 -0.126 -0.138 -0.158 -1.995

deviated approximately by 2%. According to the z-value the Table VI: The slope-control chart method limits from
results deviated 5σ from the average value of the historical tolerance intervals (TI) and z values for the corresponding
data at those time points. In this method, the z-score test TI values.
provided limits of 3σ, and the TI constant limit of 5.4σ
Time TI - z for TI - TI + z for TI +
(see Table IV). period
The slope-control-chart method analysis resulted in (months)
identifying two OOT results. (see Table V). The present OOT
0–6 -0.706 -3.606 -0.144 3.605
result for the time point of 18 months deviated 2.05σ and
for 24 months deviated 5.97σ from the average value for 0–9 -0.447 -3.617 -0.017 3.616
the slope, according to the z-value. The TI, on the other
0–12 -0.357 -3.600 -0.065 3.618
hand, provided limits of 3.6σ, which were wider than the
limits comprised from the z-score test. Ultimately, each 0–18 -0.263 -3.609 -0.075 3.606
manufacturer is responsible for choosing their own control
0–24 -0.201 -3.569 -0.011 3.569
limits, suitable to the analysis of the corresponding final
product with its own strength and primary and secondary 0–36 -0.182 -3.579 -0.074 3.574
packaging.
This study provided a thorough explanation of the
proposed methods for identification of OOT results. The the previous or next time point result. In conclusion, this
methods were redesigned and improved to achieve proper method is more appropriate for analysis of the results of
evaluation of the tested stability data. The experiment the first four time points. The main disadvantage is that
revealed the positive and negative features of the proposed a large history of data is preferred for proper use of this
methods, thereby defining their appropriate use. method. This method, therefore, is not suitable for analysis
The regression-control-chart method allowed analysis of ongoing stability data at the beginning of the production
of the results within a batch, which was achieved by of the final product.
comparing the absolute values of the results and the By measuring the slope of the regression line, the slope-
predicted values that were obtained by extrapolation of control-chart method provided analysis of each time
the regression line. The main disadvantage of this method point individually by analyzing the influence of each time-
was the necessity of having results for each time point point result on the regression line. Any small change in
due to the fact that the construction of the regression the value of the tested attribute from point to point was
line was based on gradually adding the values in each precisely recorded in the slope value of each time point. It
subsequent time point. For the time period of 0–9 months, is advised, therefore, to establish slightly narrower limits in
the regression line was constructed only from three points; this method in comparison to the first two methods. The
therefore, the calculations for the predicted values were main disadvantage of this method is that if the test of the
prone to an error. This method, however, is suitable for attribute were omitted in any time point for various reasons,
identification of present OOT results in cases where there is the limits of that time point may not be appropriate.
no historical stability data. In terms of the limits, the z-score method produced
The by-time-point method provides analysis of the results limits that remain constant around all of the time points
in each time point individually, and no assumptions about in all of the methods for OOT results identification. The
the shape of the degradation curve are needed. The main dependence of the TI on the number of samples included
advantage of the method was that the absence of having in the calculation was a major drawback for its use in the
a result in any time point did not affect the analysis of methods for OOT results identification. The TI requires a
Pharmaceutical
Pharmaceutical Technology Technology 
Europe June
June 2013
2013 5
5
Stability Testing

large number of results, which is difficult to meet in (2010), www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-con/documents/web-

everyday practice within the pharmaceutical industry. The
freedom of choosing the z-score limits remains a decision of
each manufacturer,and it is determined according to its own
requirements.
Conclusion
The pharmaceutical industry still lacks having a proper
guideline for the identification of present OOT results among
ongoing stability data. As a result, many pharmaceutical
companies are not harmonized in the way they conduct this
type of analysis.
In this study, three methods for identification of OOT
results in ongoing stabilit y data were proposed: the
regression-control-chart method, the by-time-point method,
and the slope-control-chart method. To obtain more
accurate identification of existing OOT results, simultaneous
use of all three methods is advised, which will result in
getting a visual image of the results of the analyzed batches.
The use of the z-score method for defining the limits for the
OOT results is preferred. Lastly, the study highlighted the
necessity of issuing a regulatory confirmed guideline for
identification of OOT results within ongoing stability data.
siteresources/con088215.pdf, accessed May 13, 2013.
2. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Investigating Out-Of-Specification (OOS) Test
Results for Pharmaceutical Production (Rockville, MD, 2006).
3. PhRMA CMC Statistics and Stability Expert Teams, Pharm. Technol. 27 (4),
38-52 (2003).
4. ICH, Q1A (R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products (Feb.
2003).
5. P.Rowe, Essential Statistics for the Pharmaceutical Sciences (John Wiley &
Sons, West Sussex, UK, 2007), pp. 169-194.
6. W.W. Daniel, Biostatistics- A Foundation for Analysis in the Health
Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 9th ed., 2009), pp. 93-131,
215-304, and 409-484.
7. S. Bolton and C. Bon, Pharmaceutical Statistics–Practical and Clinical
Applications (Marcel Dekker Inc., Monticello, NY, Vol. 135, 4th ed., 2004),
pp. 96-150. PT

References
1. MHRA, Guidance for Out Of Secification Investigation, online presentation,

6
6 Pharmaceutical Technology 
Pharmaceutical Technology 2013 P hJune
June Europe  a r mTe c hPharmTech.com
2013 .com

View publication stats