Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD): A Comprehensive Review with Emphasis on Risk Assessment Approaches

Palak Jethava*¹, Dr. Nilesh Patel²

1 Research Scholar, Gujarat Technological University, Nr.Vishwakarma Government Engineering College Nr. Visat Three Roads, Visat - Gandhinagar Highway, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad – 382424 - Gujarat

2 Department of Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance, B. K. Mody Government Pharmacy College, Polytechnic Campus, Bhavnagar Rd, Near Aji Dam Road, GIDC, Rajkot, Gujarat 360003

*Correspondence: jethawapalak@gmail.com; Tel.: +91-8128617182

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71431/IJRPAS.2025.4801

INTRODUCTION

The pharmaceutical industry is governed by stringent quality standards to ensure that medicinal products are safe, effective, and of consistent quality. In this context, analytical methods play a pivotal role, as they are used to assess the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drug substances and products throughout the development and manufacturing lifecycle. Traditionally, analytical method development followed a trial-and-error approach with limited understanding of variable interactions and minimal consideration of long-term method robustness. [1] This often led to issues such as frequent method failures, variability in results, and difficulties in regulatory submissions and post-approval changes. To address these limitations, the concept of Quality by Design (QbD) was introduced by regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). QbD emphasizes a systematic, science- and risk-based approach to pharmaceutical development, promoting a thorough understanding of processes and a proactive control strategy. Following the success of QbD in drug product and process development, its principles have been extended to analytical method development under the term Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD). AQbD is not just a regulatory trend—it is a comprehensive framework that ensures method performance through defined objectives, risk identification, and lifecycle management. It begins with the establishment of the Analytical Target Profile (ATP), a predefined statement of method requirements, and continues through method understanding, experimental design, optimization, and ongoing control. [2] This structured approach not only improves the reliability and efficiency of analytical methods but also aligns them with regulatory expectations, facilitating smoother product registration and lifecycle changes. A cornerstone of AQbD is the incorporation of risk assessment tools, which help identify Critical Method Parameters (CMPs) and Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) that impact method performance. These tools enable the prioritization of method variables and support the design of robust, well-controlled analytical procedures. Risk assessment acts as a bridge between scientific understanding and practical implementation, guiding method development teams to focus on areas of greatest potential impact [3].

Despite the recognized benefits, the implementation of AQbD remains a challenge for many organizations due to its perceived complexity, resource requirements, and the need for cross-functional collaboration. However, as pharmaceutical companies increasingly seek to optimize product quality, reduce regulatory risk, and support lifecycle flexibility, AQbD is gaining traction as a best practice model. This review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of AQbD, with a particular emphasis on risk assessment approaches. It covers fundamental concepts, methodological tools, practical examples, and regulatory perspectives to support both academic researchers and industry professionals in adopting and applying AQbD principles effectively [4].

OVERVIEW OF ANALYTICAL QUALITY BY DESIGN (AQBD)

The concept of Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) stems from the broader Quality by Design (QbD) initiative and represents a paradigm shift in analytical method development. AQbD advocates a systematic, risk-based, and science-driven approach to developing and controlling analytical procedures, with the goal of ensuring consistent method performance and regulatory flexibility across the lifecycle of the method. It contrasts traditional approaches by emphasizing method understanding, predictive modelling, and the establishment of control strategies, rather than relying solely on empirical adjustments. At its core, AQbD begins with the Analytical Target Profile (ATP)—a fundamental document that defines what the analytical method is intended to measure and the criteria it must meet. The ATP is analogous to the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) used in QbD and serves as the foundation for all subsequent development activities. It includes method performance attributes such as accuracy, precision, range, specificity, and detection limits. By clearly articulating the analytical goals, the ATP aligns method development with product quality requirements and regulatory expectations.

Once the ATP is established, a systematic approach is followed to identify and understand the variables that influence method performance. This involves defining the Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)—the measurable characteristics of the analyte or sample matrix that must be controlled to ensure quality. The next step is to identify the Critical Method Parameters (CMPs)—the operational parameters (e.g., flow rate, column temperature, pH of mobile phase) that can influence CQAs. Understanding the relationship between CMPs and CQAs is vital to ensuring the method's reliability and reproducibility. To explore and quantify the impact of various method parameters, Design of Experiments (DoE) is employed. DoE is a statistical tool that allows the systematic variation of multiple parameters simultaneously, enabling the identification of interactions and optimal conditions. The results are used to establish a Method Operable Design Region (MODR)—a multidimensional space within which changes to method parameters do not significantly affect performance. Operating within the MODR offers flexibility for post-approval changes without the need for regulatory revalidation, provided the method remains within the validated space [5].

Another key feature of AQbD is the development of a robust control strategy, which includes system suitability tests, performance criteria, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). This ensures consistent method performance over time and across different laboratories or equipment. The control strategy is informed by risk assessment and experimental data, focusing attention on the parameters that have the most impact on method quality. Finally, AQbD supports a lifecycle management approach. Method performance is monitored continuously, and any necessary improvements or adjustments are made based on scientific evidence and ongoing risk assessment. This aligns closely with ICH Q12 guidelines and promotes the principles of continual improvement and knowledge management. In summary, AQbD transforms analytical method development into a more strategic, knowledge-based process. By integrating risk assessment, statistical design, and lifecycle thinking, it enhances the reliability, regulatory flexibility, and overall quality of analytical procedures. The next section of this review will explore in detail how risk assessment tools are applied within the AQbD framework to guide decision-making and ensure method robustness [6].

IMPORTANCE OF RISK ASSESSMENT IN AQBD

Risk assessment is the cornerstone of the Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) framework, bridging the gap between method understanding and control. In AQbD, risk assessment is not a one-time activity, but a continuous, iterative process that guides every stage of analytical method development, from initial planning through to validation, routine use, and eventual lifecycle management. The purpose of risk assessment in AQbD is to identify, evaluate, and prioritize variables that could potentially impact the performance, reliability, and robustness of the analytical method. This includes factors such as instrument settings, environmental conditions, reagent quality, sample preparation techniques, and analyst variability. By understanding which factors are most likely to cause method variability or failure, developers can proactively design experiments and control strategies that mitigate these risks, thereby ensuring consistent method performance [7].

A fundamental concept in AQbD-based risk assessment is the identification of Critical Method Parameters (CMPs) and their relationship with Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). CMPs are method variables that, when varied, can significantly impact method output, such as resolution, peak symmetry, or detection limit. CQAs, on the other hand, are the quality characteristics of the analyte that must be measured accurately to ensure product quality. Risk assessment helps establish which CMPs need to be controlled tightly to maintain the integrity of CQAs. Risk assessment also plays a crucial role in the selection and design of experiments (DoE). By identifying high-risk parameters early on, developers can design experiments that focus on these variables, rather than testing all possible parameters indiscriminately. This improves the efficiency of method development while generating data that is directly relevant to risk mitigation. Importantly, risk assessment supports regulatory compliance by providing a documented rationale for method design decisions. Regulatory authorities such as the FDA and EMA increasingly expect applicants to provide evidence of risk-based thinking in their method development strategies. A well-documented risk assessment helps demonstrate method understanding and control, which can reduce regulatory queries and streamline the approval process.

Moreover, risk assessment is invaluable during post-approval changes and method lifecycle management. As methods are transferred to new laboratories, scaled up, or adapted for new products, previously low-risk parameters may become critical, or new risks may emerge. Continuous risk assessment allows for the timely identification and mitigation of these evolving challenges, promoting method robustness and long-term sustainability. In practice, several structured tools are available to support risk assessment within AQbD, including Ishikawa diagrams, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and Risk Ranking and Filtering (RRF). These tools enable teams to visualize risks, quantify their impact, and prioritize mitigation strategies based on data and expert knowledge. The use of these tools will be discussed in detail in the following section. In conclusion, risk assessment is not only essential to the technical success of AQbD but also foundational to its philosophy. It transforms analytical method development from a reactive process into a proactive, knowledge-driven endeavour. By enabling a thorough understanding of method risks and their controls, risk assessment ensures that analytical methods are fit for purpose, resilient, and compliant across their entire lifecycle [8].

Table 1. Key Components of Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) and Associated Risk Assessment Elements [9]

Figure 1. Overview of Quality Risk Management

RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN AQBD

Risk assessment in Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) relies on structured, qualitative and quantitative tools that help method developers identify, evaluate, and control factors that could impact method performance. These tools facilitate scientific decision-making by providing visual and numerical insight into potential risks during method development and validation. The choice of tool often depends on the complexity of the method, the stage of development, and the availability of data [10]. Below are the most commonly used risk assessment tools in AQbD, along with their applications and strengths:

1. Ishikawa Diagram (Fishbone Diagram)

The Ishikawa diagram, also known as the fishbone diagram or cause-and-effect diagram, is a visual brainstorming tool used to identify all possible sources of variability that could affect a method’s performance. It organizes potential causes into categories, such as:

• Method (e.g., HPLC conditions)
• Materials (e.g., solvents, columns)
• Manpower (e.g., operator training)
• Machines (e.g., instrument type)
• Measurements (e.g., calibration errors)
• Environment (e.g., temperature, humidity)

Application
During early method development, a team may use an Ishikawa diagram to identify what factors could affect peak resolution in an HPLC method. This helps focus subsequent experiments and risk evaluations on the most relevant variables.

2. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

FMEA is a quantitative, systematic approach used to evaluate and prioritize potential failures in a method. Each failure mode is scored across three parameters:

• Severity (S): How serious the consequences are
• Occurrence (O): How likely the failure is to occur
• Detection (D): How likely it is to detect the failure before it impacts results

The Risk Priority Number (RPN) is calculated as:

RPN = S × O × D

High RPN values signal areas needing immediate control or redesign.

Application

If method robustness testing shows inconsistent retention time due to mobile phase composition, FMEA could be used to evaluate the risk, prompting tighter control limits or pH adjustments.

3. Risk Ranking and Filtering (RRF)

This method is used to qualitatively or semi-quantitatively rank multiple risks when numerical data is insufficient. It is particularly useful when comparing different parameters, methods, or vendors.

Parameters are ranked based on their impact (e.g., high, medium, low), and those with higher potential consequences are prioritized for further control or study.

Application
When selecting between several chromatographic columns, RRF can help rank them based on their risk contribution to resolution, peak shape, and durability under method conditions [11-13].

4. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)

FTA is a deductive, top-down analytical method that starts with a specific undesirable event (e.g., method failure) and works backward to identify its root causes through logical pathways. It uses symbols and logic gates (AND/OR) to depict how combinations of events can lead to failure.

Application
FTA can be used to explore why an assay method fails system suitability criteria. Possible causes like detector malfunction, sample prep errors, or software glitches are traced backward to isolate the root issue.

5. HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points)

Though more common in food and manufacturing sectors, HACCP principles can be adapted in analytical labs to identify “critical control points” where variability must be monitored and controlled.

Application

In stability testing, HACCP can help identify critical points such as sample storage temperature or sampling intervals that need strict control [14-16].

Table 2. Common Risk Assessment Tools in AQbD [17]

PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT IN AQBD

The practical integration of risk assessment into the Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) framework is essential for achieving method robustness, regulatory compliance, and lifecycle adaptability. This process begins with the development of a clearly defined Analytical Target Profile (ATP), which outlines the method’s intended purpose and the quantitative performance expectations for attributes such as accuracy, precision, linearity, specificity, and detection limits. A well-constructed ATP ensures that subsequent development efforts are aligned with both scientific goals and regulatory standards. Once the ATP is established, a structured risk identification exercise is conducted, typically using qualitative tools such as Ishikawa diagrams or brainstorming matrices [18-20]. These tools help identify potential sources of method variability across categories such as instrumentation, reagents, analysts, environmental conditions, and operational settings. The identified factors are then subjected to prioritization using semi-quantitative or quantitative tools—most commonly Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or Risk Ranking and Filtering (RRF). FMEA, in particular, allows for the calculation of Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) based on severity, occurrence, and detectability, enabling the method development team to focus resources on the most critical parameters that may impact method performance.

Following risk prioritization, high-risk variables are subjected to systematic study using statistical tools such as Design of Experiments (DoE). Unlike traditional one-factor-at-a-time approaches, DoE enables simultaneous evaluation of multiple parameters, facilitating the identification of factor interactions and optimal operating conditions. This leads to the definition of a Method Operable Design Region (MODR)—a multidimensional design space within which method parameters can vary without significantly affecting performance. The MODR not only supports method robustness and reliability but also provides regulatory flexibility by allowing future adjustments within this space without requiring full revalidation. Based on insights gained from the MODR and risk analysis, a comprehensive control strategy is developed, incorporating system suitability criteria, operating limits, calibration procedures, equipment maintenance, and sample handling protocols. This control strategy ensures that critical method parameters are adequately monitored and maintained throughout routine use.

Importantly, the AQbD approach treats risk assessment as a dynamic, ongoing activity rather than a one-time event. During method validation, technology transfer, scale-up, or post-approval changes, previously low-risk parameters may become critical, or new risks may emerge. Therefore, periodic risk reviews and real-time performance monitoring must be incorporated into the method lifecycle strategy. This enables early detection of trends, facilitates continuous improvement, and ensures long-term method sustainability. Ultimately, the successful implementation of risk assessment within AQbD transforms analytical method development from a reactive, compliance-driven activity into a proactive, science- and risk-based process that is aligned with modern regulatory expectations and quality systems thinking. It encourages deeper process understanding, enables knowledge sharing across development teams, and supports global harmonization efforts in method lifecycle management [21].

REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

The integration of Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) into method development aligns closely with the evolving expectations of global regulatory authorities, who increasingly advocate for risk-based, science-driven approaches across the pharmaceutical lifecycle. While AQbD is not yet mandated by any specific regulation, its principles are well-supported by key International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, notably ICH Q8 (Pharmaceutical Development), Q9 (Quality Risk Management), Q10 (Pharmaceutical Quality System), Q11 (Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances), Q12 (Lifecycle Management), and more recently, ICH Q14 (Analytical Procedure Development). These documents collectively promote the application of structured quality planning, enhanced product and process understanding, and robust lifecycle oversight—tenets that AQbD naturally fulfills when applied to analytical methods. The introduction of ICH Q14, finalized in 2023, marks a significant milestone for the formal acceptance of AQbD concepts in regulatory frameworks. This guideline provides a dedicated structure for analytical procedure development, with explicit encouragement for defining an Analytical Target Profile (ATP), applying risk assessment tools, using multivariate experimentation (e.g., DoE), and establishing a Method Operable Design Region (MODR). It recognizes the benefits of developing analytical procedures within a defined design space, stating that changes made within the MODR may not require post-approval submissions, thus promoting regulatory flexibility and encouraging continuous improvement. Furthermore, ICH Q12 complements Q14 by introducing enhanced tools for managing post-approval changes, facilitating a smoother regulatory pathway for analytical method modifications when supported by appropriate risk assessments and scientific justification [22-23].

Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) of Japan have all demonstrated openness toward AQbD approaches. The FDA, for instance, explicitly supports the use of QbD principles in its guidance documents and has accepted regulatory submissions containing AQbD-developed methods with defined MODRs and ATPs. Reviewers are increasingly looking for evidence of method understanding, risk prioritization, and proactive control strategies during New Drug Application (NDA) and Abbreviated NDA (ANDA) assessments. In the European Union, the EMA has also encouraged risk-based method development in accordance with ICH guidelines, especially in the context of centralized procedures and biologics. Notably, the increasing harmonization between ICH regions has helped create a more unified regulatory environment, thereby promoting broader adoption of AQbD practices. Despite growing support, some regulatory ambiguities and implementation challenges remain. One key challenge is the lack of a universally standardized format for presenting AQbD data in regulatory submissions. While ICH Q14 provides guidance, sponsors must still exercise judgment when determining how much detail to include, and in what format. Furthermore, different regions may interpret risk data and MODR boundaries differently, particularly when defining the regulatory implications of making changes within the design space. To navigate this uncertainty, many companies are taking a hybrid approach—adopting AQbD internally for its scientific and operational benefits while tailoring their regulatory strategies based on the expectations of specific agencies. the regulatory landscape for AQbD is increasingly supportive, especially in light of recent ICH harmonization efforts. Regulatory agencies are no longer satisfied with analytical methods that merely pass validation criteria; they are looking for demonstrated understanding, rationale for method parameters, and evidence that the method is robust under real-world conditions. AQbD, when implemented properly, meets these expectations and offers a pathway to enhanced method quality, flexibility in lifecycle management, and potentially faster regulatory approvals. As such, it is not just a development philosophy but a strategic advantage in the global pharmaceutical industry [24-25].

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

While Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) offers numerous advantages in terms of method robustness, regulatory alignment, and lifecycle flexibility, its implementation is not without challenges. Both technical and organizational barriers can hinder its full adoption, especially in resource-constrained environments or in organizations unfamiliar with QbD principles. Understanding these limitations is crucial for developing realistic expectations and strategies to overcome them. One of the primary challenges in implementing AQbD is the complexity and resource intensity of the process. Unlike traditional methods that rely on straightforward method optimization and pass/fail validation criteria, AQbD requires a deeper investment in scientific planning, multivariate experimentation (e.g., Design of Experiments), data modeling, and risk assessment. This often translates into longer development timelines during the early phases of method design. Additionally, significant computational and statistical expertise is needed to perform robust experimental designs and analyze results effectively. In many laboratories, especially those with limited training in statistical tools, this can be a substantial barrier [25].

Another limitation is the lack of harmonized regulatory requirements for AQbD implementation. Although ICH Q14 has made significant strides toward formalizing analytical development standards, there is still variability in how different regulatory agencies interpret and evaluate AQbD components such as the Method Operable Design Region (MODR), Analytical Target Profile (ATP), or risk assessment documentation. This can lead to inconsistencies in approval processes, prompting some companies to adopt a more conservative, hybrid approach—using AQbD internally for development while presenting simplified or traditional data in regulatory submissions to avoid uncertainty. Cultural and organizational resistance also plays a role in slowing AQbD adoption. Many pharmaceutical laboratories operate under time and cost pressures that prioritize speed over long-term robustness. Shifting from a results-focused culture to a process-focused, knowledge-driven approach requires changes in mindset, workflows, and team dynamics. Moreover, cross-functional collaboration between analytical scientists, statisticians, regulatory experts, and quality assurance personnel is essential—but not always well established in organizations. A further concern involves the initial cost burden of implementing AQbD tools and platforms. Licensing software for statistical modelling, training personnel in DoE and risk management, and validating systems for lifecycle data storage all require upfront investments that smaller firms may find prohibitive. While the long-term benefits of reduced rework, better regulatory compliance, and method sustainability can outweigh these costs, the return on investment may not be immediately apparent during early development phases [26].

From a scientific standpoint, AQbD is also limited by the quality and availability of data. In early development stages, insufficient understanding of the analyte, matrix effects, or formulation behavior may impair effective risk identification and DoE planning. Additionally, not all methods benefit equally from AQbD; simpler methods with limited variables or legacy methods nearing obsolescence may not justify the full AQbD treatment. Lastly, method lifecycle management, while emphasized in theory, is often poorly executed in practice. Once a method is validated and transferred, the motivation to maintain continuous risk evaluation and performance monitoring often diminishes. Without a strong quality culture and proper systems for trending, auditing, and reviewing analytical performance data, the potential benefits of AQbD’s lifecycle approach may go unrealized. Although AQbD represents a significant advancement in analytical science and regulatory alignment, its successful implementation requires overcoming technical, regulatory, cultural, and economic challenges. Addressing these limitations calls for targeted training, strategic resource allocation, harmonized regulatory expectations, and organizational commitment to a quality-driven culture. By acknowledging these hurdles, stakeholders can better prepare for realistic, phased adoption of AQbD principles, ensuring that its long-term benefits are fully realized across the analytical lifecycle [26].

CONCLUSION

Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) has emerged as a transformative paradigm in pharmaceutical analytical method development, offering a structured, science-based, and risk-informed approach that aligns seamlessly with modern regulatory expectations. Unlike traditional methods that often rely on rigid validation protocols and limited process understanding, AQbD fosters a deeper comprehension of method behavior through the integration of risk assessment tools, multivariate experimentation, and lifecycle management principles. By defining an Analytical Target Profile (ATP) at the outset and systematically identifying and controlling Critical Method Parameters (CMPs) through Design of Experiments (DoE) and risk prioritization techniques such as FMEA and RRF, AQbD ensures that analytical methods are not only robust and reproducible but also adaptable to future changes. The regulatory landscape is increasingly embracing AQbD, particularly with the introduction of ICH Q14, which formalizes key concepts like design space, ATP, and method lifecycle management. This reflects a shift in regulatory philosophy—from evaluating analytical methods solely on validation outcomes to requiring evidence of scientific understanding, risk control, and operational flexibility. Despite this growing support, challenges such as the need for statistical expertise, lack of harmonized implementation strategies, resource constraints, and cultural inertia continue to limit widespread adoption, especially in small to mid-sized organizations. Nevertheless, the long-term value of AQbD is undeniable. It facilitates greater consistency in analytical performance, reduces the likelihood of method failures, and provides a robust foundation for post-approval changes, technology transfers, and regulatory inspections. More importantly, AQbD aligns with the overarching Quality by Design (QbD) philosophy that promotes proactive quality assurance over reactive problem-solving. As pharmaceutical development becomes increasingly complex—with the rise of biologics, novel drug delivery systems, and continuous manufacturing—AQbD offers a reliable framework to ensure that analytical methods remain fit for purpose across diverse conditions and evolving regulatory landscapes.

In conclusion, while the journey toward full-scale adoption of AQbD may be gradual and met with operational challenges, its integration into the pharmaceutical analytical ecosystem is both timely and necessary. With appropriate training, strategic planning, and commitment to quality, organizations can leverage AQbD not only as a compliance tool but as a catalyst for innovation, efficiency, and long-term method sustainability.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Nilesh Patel for his valuable guidance, encouragement, and support throughout the work.

REFERENCES       

1.      Volta e Sousa L, Gonçalves R, Menezes JC, Ramos A. Analytical method lifecycle management in pharmaceutical industry: a review. Aaps Pharmscitech. 2021 Apr 9;22(3):128.

2.      Deidda R, Orlandini S, Hubert P, Hubert C. Risk-based approach for method development in pharmaceutical quality control context: A critical review. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. 2018 Nov 30;161:110-21.

3.      Jayagopal B, Shivashankar M. Analytical quality by design–a legitimate paradigm for pharmaceutical analytical method development and validation. Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering Journal. 2017 Apr 10;9.

4.      Hanna-Brown M, Ermer J, Katzenbach S, Rignall A, Gervais A, Hoffmann J, Wypych J, McLaughlin K, Borman P, Grosche O, Hamilton P. Analytical procedure lifecycle management: current status and opportunities.

5.      European Medicines Agency ICH Guideline Q9(R1) on Quality Risk Management. Step 2b, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2021. [(accessed on 01 August 2025)]. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-international-conference-harmonisation-technical-requirements-registration-pharmaceuticals_en-1.pdf

6.      Beg S, Hasnain MS, Rahman M, Almalki WH, editors. Handbook of analytical quality by design. Academic Press; 2021 Jan 9.

7.      Zagalo DM, Silva BM, Silva C, Simoes S, Sousa JJ. A quality by design (QbD) approach in pharmaceutical development of lipid-based nanosystems: A systematic review. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology. 2022 Apr 1;70:103207.

8.      Kovač L, Časar Z, Trdan Lušin T, Roškar R. Development of an analytical method for determination of related substances and degradation products of cabotegravir using analytical quality by design principles. ACS omega. 2022 Mar 4;7(10):8896-905.

9.      Yabré M, Ferey L, Somé TI, Sivadier G, Gaudin K. Development of a green HPLC method for the analysis of artesunate and amodiaquine impurities using Quality by Design. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 2020 Oct 25; 190:113507.

10.  Muchakayala SK, Katari NK, Saripella KK, Schaaf H, Marisetti VM, Ettaboina SK, Rekulapally VK. Implementation of analytical quality by design and green chemistry principles to develop an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography method for the determination of Fluocinolone Acetonide impurities from its drug substance and topical oil formulations. Journal of Chromatography a. 2022 Aug 30; 1679:463380.

11.  Gundecha S, Patel M, Mayur YC. An application of quality by design and analytical greenness assessment approach for the development of erlotinib stability indicating method. Chromatographia. 2022 Jul;85(7):575-88.

12.  Singh B, Khurana RK, Kaur R, Beg S. Quality by design (QbD) paradigms for robust analytical method development. The Pharma Review. 2016;14:61-6.

13.  Zhang L, Mao S. Application of quality by design in the current drug development. Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 2017 Jan 1;12(1):1-8.

14.  Holm P, Allesø M, Bryder MC, Holm R. ICH Quality Guidelines: An Implementation Guide. E. Teasdale, D. Elder, & RW Niims (Eds.) Q. 2017;8.

15.  Borman P, Chatfield M, Nethercote P, Thompson D, Truman K. The application of quality by design to analytical methods. Pharmaceutical Technology. 2007 Oct 1;31(10):142-8.

16.  Tang Y, Aaps O. Quality by design approaches to analytical methods-FDA perspective. FDA/CDER. 2011.

17.  Hanna-Brown M, Ermer J, Katzenbach S, Rignall A, Gervais A, Hoffmann J, Wypych J, McLaughlin K, Borman P, Grosche O, Hamilton P. Analytical procedure lifecycle management: current status and opportunities.

18.  Peraman R, Bhadraya K, Padmanabha Reddy Y. Analytical quality by design: a tool for regulatory flexibility and robust analytics. International journal of Analytical chemistry. 2015;2015(1):868727.

19.  Rozet E, Lebrun P, Hubert P, Debrus B, Boulanger B. Design spaces for analytical methods. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2013 Jan 1; 42:157-67.

20.  Deepa M, Reddy KR, Satyanarayana SV. A review on quality by design approach for analytical method development. J. Pharm. Res. 2017;11(4):272-7.

21.  Ganorkar A, Gupta K. Analytical quality by design: a mini review. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2017;1(6):1555-8.

22.  Pande PP, Sayyad SF, Chavan MJ, Chaudhari SR. Quality by design in analytical method development and validation. J Environ Life Sci. 2017 Jun;2(2):39-45.

23.  Sangshetti JN, Deshpande M, Zaheer Z, Shinde DB, Arote R. Quality by design approach: Regulatory need. Arabian Journal of chemistry. 2017 May 1;10:S3412-25.

24.  Gaudin K, Ferey L. Quality by design: a tool for separation method development in pharmaceutical laboratories. LC-GC, 201; 29(10):16–25.

25.  Peraman R, Bhadraya K, Padmanabha Reddy Y. Analytical quality by design: a tool for regulatory flexibility and robust analytics. International journal of Analytical chemistry. 2015;2015(1):868727.

26.  Rozet E, Lebrun P, Hubert P, Debrus B, Boulanger B. Design spaces for analytical methods. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2013 Jan 1;42:157-67.

27.  Mogal V, Dusane J, Borase P, Thakare P, Kshirsagar S. A review on quality by design. Pharm Biol Eval. 2016;3:313-9.