﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--RSS generated by Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator on 9/6/2010 8:13:35 PM-->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/QbDViewpoint/_layouts/RssXslt.aspx?List=364183f7-b387-4f00-be85-de9d766aa800" version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>QbD Viewpoint: Posts</title>
    <link>http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx</link>
    <description>RSS feed for the Posts list.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:13:35 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <item>
      <title>Inference for QbD Bayesian Approach Featured in pharmaQbD</title>
      <link>http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=9</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass0EFC0F4F00D94758BEE622913A1FD070>
<p>Despite a bountiful enumerated list of benefits, implementation of Quality by Design in pharmaceutical development is moving at glacial speed. Needed are cheaper, easier and faster methods for achieving QbD goals. The source of the problem and its potential solution, featuring Inference for QbD, are outlined in an article by Paul Thomas, Senior Editor of pharmaQbD, entitled: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pharmaqbd.com/node/332"><strong>Can Bayesians Get QbD Past Tipping Point?</strong></a> </p>
<p>The article is bases on a persistent refrain heard in pharmaceutical development comprised of the following: </p>
<ul>
<li>Clear business benefits of QbD need to be demonstrated before large-scale implementation. However there is a reluctance to initiate demonstration programs because current QbD approaches require a large investment of resources (people, time and materials) to execute the requisite scope of experimental work. </li>
<li>There is a plethora of prior data from past development studies. However, using classical risk assessment, DOE and multivariate analysis, there is no way to integrate prior data with new studies. Huge benefits would be gained if one could make effective use of the abundance of prior data for QbD planning, execution, decision making and CMC filings.</li></ul></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Design of Experiments;Design Space;Quality by Design;Knowledge Discovery</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 4/29/2009 1:37 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Paul van Eikeren</author>
      <category>Design of Experiments;Design Space;Quality by Design;Knowledge Discovery</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:42:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=9</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Bayesian Approach to the Specification of Design Space to be Presented at useR! 2009</title>
      <link>http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=10</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass383D66EC93364464A071AE53D4B9C711><p>Central to the QbD approach is the notion of a Design Space comprised of the &quot;multidimensional combination and interaction of input variables (e.g., material attributes) and process parameters that have been demonstrated to provide assurance of quality.&quot; However, limited prescriptive information is available regarding to how to construct such a Design Space and to demonstrate that operation within it &quot;…provides assurance of quality.&quot; 
</p><p>Development and calibration of a Design Space typically involves construction of multiple predictive response surface models corresponding to critical drug product attributes.  Such a Design Space is constraint by requirements of meeting multiple response criteria.  Optimizations are typically approached using overlapping mean response or by a desirability function.  However, these approaches fail to account for the uncertainty in model parameters and the correlation structure of the data, which can lead to dramatically misguided conclusions. As shown by Peterson (<em>Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics</em>, <strong>18</strong>, 959-975, 2008), a Bayesian approach employing posterior predictive distributions addresses both of these limitations. 
</p><p>At the useR! 2009 conference, Blue Reference will present several case studies illustrating the use of Inference for R in conjunction with an assortment of R packages towards the construction of design spaces for representative pharmaceutical products using Bayesian Methods.  An abstract of the presentation can be obtained at its linked title below: 
</p><p><a href="http://www.agrocampus-ouest.fr/math/useR-2009/abstracts/pdf/vanEikeren_Dow-Hygelund.pdf"><span style="color:blue;font-size:10pt;text-decoration:underline"><strong>Bayesian Approach to the Specification of Design Space in Quality by Design</strong></span></a>
	</p><p>Also to be presented at the useR! 2009 conference, is a paper illustrating the use of Inference to construct dynamic applications, as in Inference for QbD. An abstract of this presentation can be obtained at its linked title below: 
</p><p><a href="http://www.agrocampus-ouest.fr/math/useR-2009/abstracts/pdf/vanEikeren_vanEikeren.pdf"><span style="color:blue;font-size:10pt;text-decoration:underline"><strong>Microsoft Office Dynamic Documents as R Applications</strong></span></a></p></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Design of Experiments;Design Space;Quality by Design</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 4/29/2009 3:31 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Paul van Eikeren</author>
      <category>Design of Experiments;Design Space;Quality by Design</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:37:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=10</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>QbD Modeling and Simulation Infrastructure: Challenges</title>
      <link>http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=8</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClassE28A045F92F1498BADC033959BC5CE61><p>In the previous blog on &quot;Transitioning to QbD,&quot; it was noted that QbD workers will need an accessible modeling and simulation environment for QbD to achieve a central role in pharmaceutical development. Discussions with workers indicate that they are currently using a bewildering array of software, which was not designed for QbD. Some software like DOE software is highly restrictive and performs a limited subset of QbD tasks.  Other software like general purpose statistical analysis software is too broad and performs many more tasks than necessary for QbD.  The net result is that today QbD work processes involve a complex combinatorial array of software to get the QbD work done.
</p><p> 
 </p><p><img src="/QbDViewpoint/Pictures/QbDInfrastructureChallenges/Image2.png" alt="">
	</p><p> 
 </p><p>Unfortunately cobbling together software from a variety of internal and external sources, illustrated above, has led to an array of problems and shortcomings including the following:
</p><ul><li>QbD workers get a lot more features than they need for completing QbD tasks.
</li><li>There is huge learning and retention problem for QbD workers.
</li><li>QbD workers are faced with complex data integration and management issues.
</li><li>There is no audit trail of how the results were obtained.
</li><li>Assembling QbD results require inefficient and non-reproducible cut-and-paste processes.
</li><li>There is no easy way to extend the functionality of the software as functions are hard wired in.
</li><li>And, the situation is costly to set up and maintain.
</li></ul><p>My experience in developing and implementing electronic lab notebooks in pharmaceutical R&amp;D as replacements for the paper notebook (P. van Eikeren, &quot;Intelligent Electronic Laboratory Notebooks for Accelerated Organic Process R&amp;D,&quot; Organic Process Research and Development 2004, 8, 1015-1023) made it clear that pharmaceutical R&amp;D workers expect focused software tools, devoid of extraneous functions, designed to help them get their jobs done.  General purpose tools simply won't do.  In response to this need, Blue Reference has initiated a project, entitled Inference for QbD project, directed at development of a software umbrella appropriate for implementation of QbD practices.  The Inference for QbD project, described on the website at <a href="http://www.inferenceforqbd.com/">www.InferenceForQbD.com</a>, encompasses a number of novel elements including the following:
</p><ul><li>A comprehensive software solution for the implementation of QbD practices in a pharmaceutical environment;
</li><li>It is being constructed on the patent-pending Inference platform developed by Blue Reference;
</li><li>Users access it through the easy-to-use and familiar user interface of Microsoft Office;
</li><li>It is being progressed from technical feasibility to development in a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program; and
</li><li>It is being development into a commercial product within the context of a consortium of pharmaceutical companies whom are providing guidance on requirements and testing prototypes in production settings.
</li></ul><p><img src="/QbDViewpoint/Pictures/QbDInfrastructureChallenges/Image3.png" alt="">
	</p><p>Pharmaceutical customers tell us that Inference for QbD should address the needs of a broad audience and enable guided decision making-that is, analyze development and manufacturing data within the context of QbD objectives with the intent to identify the best way to move pharmaceutical development forward.  The resulting implementation, illustrated in the figure above, represents a greatly simplified approach to the implementation of QbD practices. Specific benefits include the following:
</p><ul><li>Capabilities of the software are tailored to QbD requirements and can be further tailored to company-specific best practices;
</li><li>Users only see the functions that they need to get the job done without extraneous distractions;
</li><li>Users experience a shallow learning curve as a result of using the familiar Microsoft Office interface;
</li><li>Data preparation and management are tightly integrated;
</li><li>The software enables concurrent data assembly and preparation, analysis and documentation, thereby providing an audit trail of how the results were obtained;
</li><li>The software generates QbD results documents automatically with the press of a single button;
</li><li>The software is adaptable and extensible using the Inference platform SDK allowing for future extension and re-direction; and
</li><li>The software is inexpensive to set up and maintain because it is based on Microsoft Office, which is already deployed.
</li></ul><p>Demonstration of these benefits through relevant, illustrative examples will be the subject of future blog entries.</p></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Knowledge Discovery;Quality by Design</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 10/16/2008 2:31 PM</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Paul van Eikeren</author>
      <category>Knowledge Discovery;Quality by Design</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:30:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://inferenceforqbd.com/QbDViewpoint/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=8</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>