Quantum-Mechanics Calculations Elucidate Skin-Sensitizing Pharmaceutical Compounds.

Skin sensitization is a critical end point in occupational toxicology that necessitates the use of fast, accurate, and affordable models to aid in establishing handling guidance for worker protection. While many in silico models have been developed, the scarcity of reliable data for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and their intermediates (together regarded as pharmaceutical compounds) brings into question the reliability of these tools, which are largely constructed using publicly available nonspecialty chemicals. Here, we present the quantum-mechanical (QM) Computer-Aided Discovery and REdesign (CADRE) model, which was developed with the bioactive and structurally complex chemical space in mind by relying on the fundamentals of chemical interactions in key events (versus structural attributes of training-set data). Validated in this study on 345 APIs and intermediates, CADRE achieved 95% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity and a combined 79% accuracy in assigning potency categories compared to the mouse local lymph node assay data. We show how historical outcomes from CADRE testing in the pharmaceutical space, generated over the past 10 years on ca. 2500 chemicals, can be used to probe the relationships between sensitization mechanisms (or the underlying chemical classes) and the probability of eliciting a sensitization response in mice of a given potency. We believe this information to be of value to both practitioners, who can use it to quickly screen and triage their data sets, as well as to model developers to fine-tune their structure-based tools. Lastly, we leverage our experimentally validated subset of APIs and intermediates to show the importance of dermal permeability on the sensitization potential and potency. We demonstrate that common physicochemical properties used to assess permeation, such as the octanol-water partition coefficient and molecular weight, are poor proxies for the more accurate energy-pair distributions that can be computed from mixed QM and classical simulations using model representations of the stratum corneum.

Harmonisation of read-across methodology for drug substance extractables and leachables (E&Ls).

Health-based exposure limits (HBELs) are derived for leachables from polymeric components that interact with the drug substance which exceed a safety concern threshold (SCT). However, given the nature of leachables, there is not always chemical-specific toxicology data. Read-across methodology specific to extractables and leachables (E&Ls) was developed based on survey data collected from 11 pharmaceutical companies and methodology used in other industries. One additional challenge for E&L read-across is most toxicology data is from the oral route of administration, whereas the parenteral route is very common for the leachable HBEL derivation. A conservative framework was developed to estimate oral bioavailability and the corresponding oral to parenteral extrapolation factor using physical chemical data. When this conservative framework was tested against 73 compounds with oral bioavailability data, it was found that the predicted bioavailability based on physico-chemical properties was conservatively greater than or equal to the experimental bioavailability 79% of the time. In conclusion, an E&L read-across methodology has been developed to provide a consistent, health protective framework for deriving HBELs when toxicology data is limited.

Acceptable intakes (AIs) for 11 small molecule N-nitrosamines (NAs).

Low levels of N-nitrosamines (NAs) were detected in pharmaceuticals and, as a result, health authorities (HAs) have published acceptable intakes (AIs) in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk. The rationales behind the AIs have not been provided to understand the process for selecting a TD50 or read-across analog. In this manuscript we evaluated the toxicity data for eleven common NAs in a comprehensive and transparent process consistent with ICH M7. This evaluation included substances which had datasets that were robust, limited but sufficient, and substances with insufficient experimental animal carcinogenicity data. In the case of robust or limited but sufficient carcinogenicity information, AIs were calculated based on published or derived TD50s from the most sensitive organ site. In the case of insufficient carcinogenicity information, available carcinogenicity data and structure activity relationships (SARs) were applied to categorical-based AIs of 1500 ng/day, 150 ng/day or 18 ng/day; however additional data (such as biological or additional computational modelling) could inform an alternative AI. This approach advances the methodology used to derive AIs for NAs.

Framework for sensitization assessment of extractables and leachables in pharmaceuticals.

During the toxicological assessment of extractables and leachables in drug products, localized hazards such as irritation or sensitization may be identified. Typically, because of the low concentration at which leachables occur in pharmaceuticals, irritation is of minimal concern; therefore, this manuscript focuses on sensitization potential. The primary objective of performing a leachable sensitization assessment is protection against Type IV induction of sensitization, rather than prevention of an elicitation response, as it is not possible to account for the immunological state of every individual. Sensitizers have a wide range of potencies and those which induce sensitization upon exposure at a low concentration (i.e. strong, or extreme sensitizers) pose the highest risk to patients and should be the focus of the risk assessment. The Extractables and Leachables Safety Information Exchange (ELSIE) consortium has reviewed the status of dermal, respiratory, and systemic risk assessment in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries, and proposes a framework to evaluate the safety of known or potential dermal sensitizers in pharmaceuticals. Due to the lack of specific regulatory guidance on this topic, the science-driven risk-based approach proposed by ELSIE encourages consistency in the toxicological assessment of extractables and leachables to maintain high product quality and ensure patient safety.

Setting impurity limits for endogenous substances: Recommendations for a harmonized procedure and an example using fatty acids.

Endogenous substances, such as fatty, amino, and nucleic acids, are often purposefully used in parenterally pharmaceuticals, but may be present as impurities. Currently, no consensus guidance exists on setting impurity limits for these substances. Specific procedures are needed, as the amount and types of toxicity data available for endogenous substances are typically far less than those for other chemical impurities. Additionally, the parenteral route of administration of these substances is inherently non-physiological, resulting in potentially different or increased severity of toxicity. Risk Assessment Process Maps (RAPMAPs) are proposed as a model to facilitate the development of health-based exposure limits (HBELs) for endogenous substances. This yielded a framework that was applied to derive HBELs for several fatty acids commonly used in parenteral pharmaceuticals. This approach was used to derive HBELs with further vetting based on anticipated perturbations in physiological serum levels, impacts of dose-rate, and consideration of intermittent dosing. Parenteral HBELs of 100-500 mg/day were generated for several fatty acids, and a proposed class-based limit of 50 mg/day to be used in the absence of chemical-specific data. This default limit is consistent with the low toxicity of this chemical class and ICH Q3C value for Class 3 solvents.

Use of less-than-lifetime (LTL) durational limits for nitrosamines: Case study of N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA).

The ICH M7(R1) guideline describes a framework to assess the carcinogenic risk of mutagenic and carcinogenic pharmaceutical impurities following less-than-lifetime (LTL) exposures. This LTL framework is important as many pharmaceuticals are not administered for a patient's lifetime and as clinical trials typically involve LTL exposures. While there has been regulatory caution about applying LTL concepts to cohort of concern (COC) impurities such as N-nitrosamines, ICH M7 does not preclude this and indeed literature data suggests that the LTL framework will be protective of patient safety for N-nitrosamines. The goal was to investigate if applying the LTL framework in ICH M7 would control exposure to an acceptable excess cancer risk in humans. Using N-nitrosodiethylamine as a case study, empirical data correlating exposure duration (as a percentage of lifespan) and cancer incidence in rodent bioassays indicate that the LTL acceptable intake (AI) as derived using the ICH M7 framework would not exceed a negligible additional risk of cancer. Therefore, controlling N-nitrosamines to an LTL AI based on the ICH M7 framework is thus demonstrated to be protective for potential carcinogenic risk to patients over the exposure durations typical of clinical trials and many prescribed medicines.

Calculating qualified non-mutagenic impurity levels: Harmonization of approaches.

The presence of impurities in drugs is unavoidable. As impurities offer no direct benefit to the patient, it is critical that impurities do not compromise patient safety. Current guidelines on the derivation of acceptable impurity levels leave aspects of calculations open for interpretation, resulting in inconsistencies across industry and regulators. To understand current impurity qualification practices from a safety standpoint, regulatory expectations and the safety risk that impurities pose, the IQ DruSafe Impurities Working Group (WG) conducted a pharmaceutical industry-wide survey. Survey results highlighted areas that could benefit from harmonization, including nonclinical species/sex selection and the application of adjustment factors (i.e., body surface area). Recommendations for alignment on these topics is included in this publication. Additionally, the WG collated repeat-dose toxicity information for 181 starting materials and intermediates, reflective of pharmaceutical impurities, to understand the toxicological risks they generally pose in relation to the drug substance (DS) and the assumptions surrounding the calculation of qualified impurity levels. An evaluation of this dataset and the survey were used to harmonize how to calculate a safe limit for an impurity based on toxicology testing of the impurity when present within the DS.

A cross-industry collaboration to assess if acute oral toxicity (Q)SAR models are fit-for-purpose for GHS classification and labelling.

This study assesses whether currently available acute oral toxicity (AOT) in silico models, provided by the widely employed Leadscope software, are fit-for-purpose for categorization and labelling of chemicals. As part of this study, a large data set of proprietary and marketed compounds from multiple companies (pharmaceutical, plant protection products, and other chemical industries) was assembled to assess the models' performance. The absolute percentage of correct or more conservative predictions, based on a comparison of experimental and predicted GHS categories, was approximately 95%, after excluding a small percentage of inconclusive (indeterminate or out of domain) predictions. Since the frequency distribution across the experimental categories is skewed towards low toxicity chemicals, a balanced assessment was also performed. Across all compounds which could be assigned to a well-defined experimental category, the average percentage of correct or more conservative predictions was around 80%. These results indicate the potential for reliable and broad application of these models across different industrial sectors. This manuscript describes the evaluation of these models, highlights the importance of an expert review, and provides guidance on the use of AOT models to fulfill testing requirements, GHS classification/labelling, and transportation needs.

Considerations when deriving compound-specific limits for extractables and leachables from pharmaceutical products: Four case studies.

Leachables from pharmaceutical container closure systems are a subset of impurities that present in drug products and may pose a risk to patients or compromise product quality. Extractable studies can identify potential leachables, and extractables and leachables (E&Ls) should be evaluated during development of the impurity control strategy. Currently, there is a lack of specific regulatory guidance on how to risk assess E&Ls; this may lead to inconsistency across the industry. This manuscript is a cross-industry Extractables and Leachables Safety Information Exchange (ELSIE) consortium collaboration and follow-up to Broschard et al. (2016), which aims to provide further clarity and detail on the conduct of E&L risk assessments. Where sufficient data are available, a health-based exposure limit termed Permitted Daily Exposure (PDE) may be calculated and to exemplify this, case studies of four common E&Ls are described herein, namely bisphenol-A, butylated hydroxytoluene, Irgafos® 168, and Irganox® 1010. Relevant discussion points are further explored, including the value of extractable data, how to perform route-to-route extrapolations and considerations around degradation products. By presenting PDEs for common E&L substances, the aim is to encourage consistency and harmony in approaches for deriving compound-specific limits.

In Silico Assessment of Biomolecule Reactivity with Leachables.

Leachables in pharmaceutical products may react with biomolecule active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), for example, monoclonal antibodies (mAb), peptides, and ribonucleic acids (RNA), potentially compromising product safety and efficacy or impacting quality attributes. This investigation explored a series of in silico models to screen extractables and leachables to assess their possible reactivity with biomolecules. These in silico models were applied to collections of known leachables to identify functional and structural chemical classes likely to be flagged by these in silico approaches. Flagged leachable functional classes included antimicrobials, colorants, and film-forming agents, whereas specific chemical classes included epoxides, acrylates, and quinones. In addition, a dataset of 22 leachables with experimental data indicating their interaction with insulin glargine was used to evaluate whether one or more in silico methods are fit-for-purpose as a preliminary screen for assessing this biomolecule reactivity. Analysis of the data showed that the sensitivity of an in silico screen using multiple methodologies was 80%-90% and the specificity was 58%-92%. A workflow supporting the use of in silico methods in this field is proposed based on both the results from this assessment and best practices in the field of computational modeling and quality risk management.

Sensitization Assessment of Extractables and Leachables in Pharmaceuticals: ELSIE Database Analysis.

Quality by design is the foundation of the risk management framework for extractables and leachables (E&Ls) recommended by the Extractables and Leachables Safety Information Exchange (ELSIE). Following these principles during the selection of materials for pharmaceutical product development minimizes the presence of highly toxic substances and decreases the health risk of potential leachables in the drug product. Therefore, in the context of the broad arena of chemicals, it is important to distinguish E&Ls as a subset of chemicals and evaluate this relevant chemical space to derive appropriate analytical and safety thresholds. When considering the health hazards posed by E&Ls, one area presenting a challenge is understanding the sensitization potential and whether it poses a risk to patients. A dataset of E&Ls compiled by ELSIE (n=466) was analysed to determine the prevalence and potency of skin sensitizers in this chemical subset and explore a scientifically justified approach to the sensitization assessment of potential leachables in parenteral drug products. Approximately half of the compounds (56%, 259/466) had sensitization data recorded in the ELSIE database and of these, 20% (52/259) are potential skin sensitizers. Only 3% (8/259) of the E&L dataset with sensitization data were considered potent (strong or extreme) sensitizers following in silico analysis and expert review, illustrating that potent sensitizers are not routinely observed as leachables in pharmaceutical products. Our analysis highlights that in silico potency prediction and expert review are key tools during the sensitization assessment process for E&Ls. The results confirm where material selection is anticipated to mitigate the risk of presence of strong and/or extreme sensitizers (e.g., extractable testing via ISO 10993-10), and that implementing thresholds per ICH M7 and/or Masuda-Herrera et al. provides a reasonably conservative approach for establishing the analytical testing and safety thresholds.

Development of Duration-Based Non-Mutagenic Thresholds of Toxicological Concern (TTCs) Relevant to Parenteral Extractables and Leachables (E&Ls).

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC), i.e., the dose of a compound lacking sufficient experimental toxicity data that is unlikely to result in an adverse health effect in humans, is important for evaluating extractables and leachables (E&Ls) as it guides analytical testing and minimizes the use of animal studies. The Extractables and Leachables Safety Information Exchange (ELSIE) consortium, which consists of member companies that span biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries, brought together subject matter expert toxicologists to derive TTC values for organic, non-mutagenic E&L substances when administered parenterally. A total of 488 E&L compounds from the ELSIE database were analyzed and parenteral point of departure (PPOD) estimates were derived for 252 compounds. The PPOD estimates were adjusted to extrapolate to subacute, subchronic, and chronic durations of nonclinical exposure and the lower fifth percentiles were calculated. An additional 100-fold adjustment factor to account for nonclinical species and human variability was subsequently applied to derive the parenteral TTC values for E&Ls. The resulting parenteral TTC values are 35, 110, and 180 µg/day for human exposures of >10 years to lifetime, >1-10 years, and ≤1 year, respectively. These parenteral TTCs are expected to be conservative for E&Ls that are considered non-mutagenic per ICH M7(R1) guidelines.

Principles and Procedures for Assessment of Acute Toxicity Incorporating In Silico Methods.

Acute toxicity in silico models are being used to support an increasing number of application areas including (1) product research and development, (2) product approval and registration as well as (3) the transport, storage and handling of chemicals. The adoption of such models is being hindered, in part, because of a lack of guidance describing how to perform and document an in silico analysis. To address this issue, a framework for an acute toxicity hazard assessment is proposed. This framework combines results from different sources including in silico methods and in vitro or in vivo experiments. In silico methods that can assist the prediction of in vivo outcomes (i.e., LD50) are analyzed concluding that predictions obtained using in silico approaches are now well-suited for reliably supporting assessment of LD50-based acute toxicity for the purpose of GHS classification. A general overview is provided of the endpoints from in vitro studies commonly evaluated for predicting acute toxicity (e.g., cytotoxicity/cytolethality as well as assays targeting specific mechanisms). The increased understanding of pathways and key triggering mechanisms underlying toxicity and the increased availability of in vitro data allow for a shift away from assessments solely based on endpoints such as LD50, to mechanism-based endpoints that can be accurately assessed in vitro or by using in silico prediction models. This paper also highlights the importance of an expert review of all available information using weight-of-evidence considerations and illustrates, using a series of diverse practical use cases, how in silico approaches support the assessment of acute toxicity.

In Vivo Mutagenicity Testing of Arylboronic Acids and Esters.

Arylboronic acids and esters (referred to collectively as arylboronic compounds) are commonly used intermediates in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals but pose a challenge for chemical syntheses because they are often positive for bacterial mutagenicity in vitro. As such, arylboronic compounds are then typically controlled to levels that are acceptable for mutagenic impurities, that is, the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC). This study used ICH M7 guidance to design and conduct a testing strategy to investigate the in vivo relevance of the in vitro positive findings of arylboronic compounds. Eight arylboronic compounds representing a variety of chemical scaffolds were tested in Sprague Dawley and/or Wistar rats in the in vivo Pig-a (peripheral blood reticulocytes and mature red blood cells) and/or comet assays (duodenum and/or liver). Five of the eight compounds were also tested in the micronucleus (peripheral blood) assay. The arylboronic compounds tested orally demonstrated high systemic exposure; thus the blood and bone marrow were adequately exposed to test article. One compound was administered intravenously due to formulation stability issues. This investigation showed that arylboronic compounds that were mutagenic in vitro were not found to be mutagenic in the corresponding in vivo assays. Therefore, arylboronic compounds similar to the scaffolds tested in this article may be considered non-mutagenic and managed in accordance with the ICH Q3A/Q3B guidelines. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.