The Role of Biostatistics in Pharmaceutical Quality Control and Process Validation
Keywords:
biostatistics, pharmaceutical quality control, process validation, process performance qualification, continued process verification, statistical process control, process capability, design of experiments, analytical procedure validation, measurement uncertainty, process analytical technology, quality by designAbstract
Background: Pharmaceutical quality control and process validation are fundamentally problems of inference under variation. Specifications define acceptable product attributes, but they do not by themselves establish process stability, capability, reproducibility, analytical reliability or the probability of future conformance. Contemporary lifecycle frameworks therefore require statistical evidence across process design, process performance qualification (PPQ), continued process verification (CPV) and analytical procedure management. The extent to which the published pharmaceutical-quality literature integrates these distinct biostatistical functions has not been quantified systematically.
Methods: An original quantitative evidence-mapping study was performed using 42 peer-reviewed, method-focused publications issued from 2006 through 10 December 2025, supplemented by current FDA, ICH, EMA, EU GMP and compendial guidance. Publications were classified into seven lifecycle focus groups and coded against nine prespecified statistical-method families: design of experiments (DoE), regression/ANOVA/general modelling, risk-based sampling and interval estimation, statistical process control (SPC), process capability, multivariate analysis/chemometrics, Bayesian methods, measurement uncertainty/decision risk, and artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML). A Statistical Integration Score (SIS; 0–9) captured the number of method families represented per publication. Older (2006–2019) and recent (2020–2025) publications were compared using Fisher exact tests with Benjamini–Hochberg false-discovery-rate correction and a two-sided Mann–Whitney U test with tie correction.
Results: General statistical modelling was represented in 40/42 publications (95.2%), multivariate analysis in 29/42 (69.0%), SPC in 20/42 (47.6%), DoE in 17/42 (40.5%), measurement uncertainty/decision-risk methods in 14/42 (33.3%), sampling/interval methods in 13/42 (31.0%), capability indices in 12/42 (28.6%), and Bayesian and AI/ML methods in 4/42 each (9.5%). Recent publications integrated more method families than older publications (median SIS 4 [IQR 4–4] versus 3 [IQR 3–4]; U=307, P=0.0227; rank-biserial effect=0.39). Multivariate analysis and measurement-uncertainty methods showed nominal era associations, but no individual method-family trend remained significant after false-discovery-rate adjustment. The evidence map revealed strong lifecycle specialization: PPQ literature concentrated on sampling and assurance; CPV literature on SPC and capability; PAT/continuous-manufacturing literature on multivariate monitoring; and analytical-validation literature on DoE, interval estimation and measurement uncertainty.
Conclusions: Biostatistics functions as the quantitative control architecture of pharmaceutical quality rather than as a narrow support activity. The strongest validation strategy links experimental design, risk-based sampling, estimation, SPC, capability analysis, multivariate monitoring and analytical uncertainty to the specific decision being made at each lifecycle stage. A proposed Biostatistical Validation Architecture translates this evidence into a practical workflow for process design, PPQ, CPV and analytical procedure lifecycle management, while highlighting common errors such as treating specification limits as control limits, calculating capability before demonstrating statistical stability, and deploying high-dimensional AI models without model-lifecycle governance.
References
1. US Food and Drug Administration. Process Validation: General Principles and Practices. Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2011.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. PAT—A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Development, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance. Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2004.
3. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q8(R2): Pharmaceutical Development. Geneva: ICH; 2009.
4. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q9(R1): Quality Risk Management. Geneva: ICH; 2023.
5. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System. Geneva: ICH; 2008.
6. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q13: Continuous Manufacturing of Drug Substances and Drug Products. Geneva: ICH; 2022.
7. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q2(R2): Validation of Analytical Procedures. Geneva: ICH; 2023.
8. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q14: Analytical Procedure Development. Geneva: ICH; 2023.
9. European Commission. EudraLex Volume 4, EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice, Annex 15: Qualification and Validation. Brussels: European Commission; 2015.
10. US Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; current through 10 December 2025.
11. United States Pharmacopeia. General Chapter <1210> Statistical Tools for Procedure Validation. Rockville (MD): United States Pharmacopeial Convention; current edition.
12. United States Pharmacopeia. General Chapter <1220> Analytical Procedure Life Cycle. Rockville (MD): United States Pharmacopeial Convention; current edition.
13. Montgomery DC. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 8th ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2020.
14. Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG. Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2005.
15. NIST/SEMATECH. e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology; current online edition.
16. Lionberger RA, Lee SL, Lee L, Raw A, Yu LX. Quality by design: concepts for ANDAs. AAPS J. 2008;10(2):268-276. doi:10.1208/s12248-008-9026-7.
17. Yu LX, Amidon G, Khan MA, Hoag SW, Polli J, Raju GK, et al. Understanding pharmaceutical quality by design. AAPS J. 2014;16(4):771-783. doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9598-3.
18. Politis SN, Colombo P, Colombo G, Rekkas DM. Design of experiments (DoE) in pharmaceutical development. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017;43(6):889-901. doi:10.1080/03639045.2017.1291672.
19. Grangeia HB, Silva C, Simões SP, Reis MS. Quality by design in pharmaceutical manufacturing: a systematic review of current status, challenges and future perspectives. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2020;147:19-37. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2019.12.007.
20. Zhang L, Mao S. Application of quality by design in current drug development. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2017;12(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/j.ajps.2016.07.006.
21. Kovács B, Péterfi O, Kovács-Deák B, et al. Quality-by-design in pharmaceutical development: from current perspectives to practical applications. Acta Pharm. 2021;71(4):497-526. doi:10.2478/acph-2021-0039.
22. Yadav P, et al. A brief review on application of design of experiment for the analysis of pharmaceuticals using HPLC. Ann Pharm Fr. 2024;82(2):203-228. doi:10.1016/j.pharma.2023.12.011.
23. Boyer M, Gampfer J, Zamamiri A, Payne R. A roadmap for the implementation of continued process verification. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2016;70(3):282-292. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2015.006395.
24. Sayeed-Desta N, Pazhayattil AB, Collins J, Chen S, Ingram M, Spes J. Assessment methodology for process validation lifecycle Stage 3A. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017;18(5):1881-1886. doi:10.1208/s12249-016-0641-9.
25. Pazhayattil A, Alsmeyer D, Chen S, Hye M, Ingram M, Sanghvi P. Stage 2 Process Performance Qualification (PPQ): a scientific approach to determine the number of PPQ batches. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2016;17(4):829-833. doi:10.1208/s12249-015-0409-7.
26. Faya P, Seaman JW Jr, Stamey JD. Bayesian assurance and sample size determination in the process validation life-cycle. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;27(1):159-174. doi:10.1080/10543406.2016.1148717.
27. Wiles F. Risk-based methodology for validation of pharmaceutical batch processes. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2013;67(4):387-398. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2013.00923.
28. Charoo NA, Durivage MA, Rahman Z, Ayad MH. Sample size for tablet compression and capsule filling events during process validation. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(12):3533-3538. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2017.07.021.
29. Chopra V, Bairagi M, Trivedi P, Nagar M. A case study: application of statistical process control tool for determining process capability and sigma level. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2012;66(2):98-115. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2012.00807.
30. Gunter B, Coleman D, Goerke A, Koulis T, Lamerz J, Peng Y. A risk index and data display for process performance in the pharmaceutical industry. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2018;72(2):188-198. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2017.008177.
31. Patel SM, et al. Recommended best practices for lyophilization validation 2021 Part II: process qualification and continued process verification. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2021;22:266.
32. Jesubalan NG, Saxena N, Yezhuvath VB, Deore N, Rathore AS. AI-enhanced continued process verification for ultrafiltration/diafiltration. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Published online 2025. doi:10.1002/bit.70075.
33. Ondracka A, Gasset A, García-Ortega X, Hubmayr D, van Wijngaarden J, Montesinos-Seguí JL, et al. CPV of the future: AI-powered continued process verification for bioreactor processes. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2023;77(3):146-165. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2021.012665.
34. Stassen M, Leitão CS, Manzano T, Valero F, Stevens B, Schmucki M, et al. Recommendations for artificial intelligence application in continued process verification: a journey toward the challenges and benefits of AI in the biopharmaceutical industry. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2025;79(1):68-87. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2024.012950.
35. Manzano T, Whitford W. Artificial intelligence empowering process analytical technology and continued process verification in biotechnology. GEN Biotechnology. 2025;4(1). doi:10.1089/genbio.2024.0041.
36. Tavares da Silva A, Sarraguça M, Fonteyne M, Vercruysse J, De Leersnyder F, Vanhoorne V, et al. Multivariate statistical process control of a continuous pharmaceutical twin-screw granulation and fluid bed drying process. Int J Pharm. 2017;528(1-2):242-252. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.05.075.
37. Silva AF, Vercruysse J, Vervaet C, Remon JP, Lopes JA, De Beer T, et al. In-depth evaluation of data collected during a continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing process: a multivariate statistical process monitoring approach. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(1):439-450. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2018.07.033.
38. Vargas JM, Nielsen S, Cárdenas V, et al. Process analytical technology in continuous manufacturing of a commercial pharmaceutical product. Int J Pharm. 2018;538(1-2):167-178. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.01.003.
39. Pauli V, Roggo Y, Pellegatti L, et al. Process analytical technology for continuous manufacturing tableting processing: a case study. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019;162:101-111. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2018.09.016.
40. Sacher S, Poms J, Rehrl J, Khinast JG. PAT implementation for advanced process control in solid dosage manufacturing—a practical guide. Int J Pharm. 2022;613:121408. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.121408.
41. Kim EJ, Kim JH, Kim MS, Jeong SH, Choi DH. Process analytical technology tools for monitoring pharmaceutical unit operations: a control strategy for continuous process verification. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(6):919. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13060919.
42. Ferreira AP, Tobyn M. Multivariate analysis in the pharmaceutical industry: enabling process understanding and improvement in the PAT and QbD era. Pharm Dev Technol. 2015;20(5):513-527. doi:10.3109/10837450.2014.898656.
43. Kourti T. The process analytical technology initiative and multivariate process analysis, monitoring and control. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2006;384(5):1043-1048. doi:10.1007/s00216-006-0303-y.
44. Matero S, van den Berg F, Poutiainen S, Rantanen J, Pajander J. Towards better process understanding: chemometrics and multivariate measurements in manufacturing of solid dosage forms. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(5):1385-1403. doi:10.1002/jps.23472.
45. Separovic L, Lourenço FR. Measurement uncertainty and risk of false conformity decision in the performance evaluation of liquid chromatography analytical procedures. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019;171:73-80. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2019.04.005.
46. Rozet E, Lebrun P, Michiels JF, Sondag P, Scherder T, Boulanger B. Analytical procedure validation and the Quality by Design paradigm. J Biopharm Stat. 2015;25(2):260-268. doi:10.1080/10543406.2014.971176.
47. Chiang C, Hsiao CF. Tolerance interval testing for assessing accuracy and precision simultaneously. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0246642. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246642.
48. Faya P, Wolfe CN, Rauk AP. Confidence intervals for validation of analytical procedures under ICH Q2(R2). Pharmaceutical Statistics. Published online 26 Nov 2025. doi:10.1002/pst.70055.
49. Eberle M, Wasylenko JT, Kostelac D, Kiehna S, Schellinger A, Zhang Z, et al. A modern framework for analytical procedure development and lifecycle management based on ICH Q14 principles. Anal Chem. 2025;97(1):12-21. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.4c04521.
50. Schmidt AH, Stanic M, Parr MK. ICH Q14-inspired novel approach to establish an SFC-based purity method for carbamazepine. Drug Test Anal. 2024;16(7):680-691. doi:10.1002/dta.3635.
51. Passarin PBS, Lourenço FR. Enhancing analytical development in pharmaceutical industry: DoE-QSRR model for virtual method operable design region assessment. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2024;239:115907. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2023.115907.
52. Simeoni P, Deissler M, Bienert R, Gritsch M, Nerkamp J, Kirsch S, et al. Using enhanced development tools offered by analytical Quality by Design to support switching of a quality-control method. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2023;120(11):3299-3310. doi:10.1002/bit.28517.
53. van Tricht E, Sänger-van de Griend CE. A practical approach to implementing ICH Q14: tools for analytical Quality by Design in capillary electrophoresis. Electrophoresis. 2025;46(13-14):933-953. doi:10.1002/elps.8110.
54. Zhang J, Raghavachari R, Kirkpatrick DC, Keire DA, Xu X, Faustino PJ. Analytical procedure development and proposed established conditions: a mass spectrometry NDSRI case study. J Pharm Sci. 2024;113(10):3028-3033. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2024.07.022.
55. Chiarentin L, Gonçalves C, Augusto C, Miranda M, Cardoso C, Vitorino C. Drilling into the Quality by Design approach for analytical methods. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2024;54(8):3478-3519. doi:10.1080/10408347.2023.2253321.
56. Passerine BFG, Breitkreitz MC. Important aspects of Design of Experiments and data treatment in the analytical Quality by Design framework for chromatographic method development. Molecules. 2024;29(24):6057. doi:10.3390/molecules29246057.
57. Recent applications of analytical quality-by-design methodology for chromatographic analysis: a review. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. 2024;254:105243. doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2024.105243.
58. Nasr MM, Krumme M, Matsuda Y, Trout BL, Badman C, Mascia S, et al. Regulatory perspectives on continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing: moving from theory to practice. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(11):3199-3206. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2017.06.015.
59. Jiang M, Severson KA, Love JC, Madden H, Swann P, Zang L, et al. Opportunities and challenges of real-time release testing in biopharmaceutical manufacturing. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;114(11):2445-2456. doi:10.1002/bit.26383.
60. ASTM International. ASTM E2500: Standard Guide for Specification, Design, and Verification of Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Systems and Equipment. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; current edition.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohammed Fahad, Md. Shakil, Prianka Saha, Sayema Afroz Eva, Susmita Saha, Rajib Kumar Malakar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their published work. Unless an individual Version of Record identifies different terms, JMRIS articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial use, with appropriate attribution, a link to the license, and indication of changes. Third-party material may be subject to separate terms. Existing articles retain the license originally granted to their Version of Record; a policy update does not retrospectively replace that license.
