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.

An Evaluation of the Occupational Health Hazards of Peptide Couplers.

Peptide couplers (also known as amide bond-forming reagents or coupling reagents) are broadly used in organic chemical syntheses, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Yet, occupational health hazards associated with this chemical class are largely unexplored, which is disconcerting given the intrinsic reactivity of these compounds. Several case studies involving occupational exposures reported adverse respiratory and dermal health effects, providing initial evidence of chemical sensitization. To address the paucity of toxicological data, a pharmaceutical cross-industry task force was formed to evaluate and assess the potential of these compounds to cause eye and dermal irritation as well as corrosivity and dermal sensitization. The goal of our work was to inform health and safety professionals as well as pharmaceutical and organic chemists of the occupational health hazards associated with this chemical class. To that end, 25 of the most commonly used peptide couplers and five hydrolysis products were selected for in vivo, in vitro, and in silico testing. Our findings confirmed that dermal sensitization is a concern for this chemical class with 21/25 peptide couplers testing positive for dermal sensitization and 15 of these being strong/extreme sensitizers. We also found that dermal corrosion and irritation (8/25) as well as eye irritation (9/25) were health hazards associated with peptide couplers and their hydrolysis products (4/5 were dermal irritants or corrosive and 4/5 were eye irritants). Resulting outcomes were synthesized to inform decision making in peptide coupler selection and enable data-driven hazard communication to workers. The latter includes harmonized hazard classifications, appropriate handling recommendations, and accurate safety data sheets, which support the industrial hygiene hierarchy of control strategies and risk assessment. Our study demonstrates the merits of an integrated, in vivo -in silico analysis, applied here to the skin sensitization endpoint using the Computer-Aided Discovery and REdesign (CADRE) and Derek Nexus programs. We show that experimental data can improve predictive models by filling existing data gaps while, concurrently, providing computational insights into key initiating events and elucidating the chemical structural features contributing to adverse health effects. This interactive, interdisciplinary approach is consistent with Green Chemistry principles that seek to improve the selection and design of less hazardous reagents in industrial processes and applications.

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.

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.

Assessing safety of extractables from materials and leachables in pharmaceuticals and biologics - Current challenges and approaches.

Leachables from pharmaceutical container closure systems can present potential safety risks to patients. Extractables studies may be performed as a risk mitigation activity to identify potential leachables for dosage forms with a high degree of concern associated with the route of administration. To address safety concerns, approaches to toxicological safety evaluation of extractables and leachables have been developed and applied by pharmaceutical and biologics manufacturers. Details of these approaches may differ depending on the nature of the final drug product. These may include application, the formulation, route of administration and length of use. Current regulatory guidelines and industry standards provide general guidance on compound specific safety assessments but do not provide a comprehensive approach to safety evaluations of leachables and/or extractables. This paper provides a perspective on approaches to safety evaluations by reviewing and applying general concepts and integrating key steps in the toxicological evaluation of individual extractables or leachables. These include application of structure activity relationship studies, development of permitted daily exposure (PDE) values, and use of safety threshold concepts. Case studies are provided. The concepts presented seek to encourage discussion in the scientific community, and are not intended to represent a final opinion or "guidelines."

Cell and Gene Therapies: Challenges in Designing Extractables and Leachables Studies and Conducting Safety Assessments.

Over the past decade, Cell and Gene Therapies (C>) have been an emerging therapeutic area with more than twenty C> drug products approved and over 1000 registered trials. The remarkable progress in these modalities brings new challenges for scientists who evaluate manufacturing and storage materials, including risk assessments for extractables and leachables (E&L). Establishing a business process to qualify materials for these applications is an important risk mitigation strategy in support of these assessments. Process validation verifying process performance and product quality requirements using qualified materials also ensures that leachables from the materials do not result in an impact to process and product. The authors provide an overview of available guidelines and publications relevant to E&L risk assessments that can be used to support ex vivo C> products, highlighting gaps and standardization needs in the areas of biocompatibility and extractables conditions. Finally, the authors present leachable testing strategies, relevant to the specific manufacturing and storage conditions of C> products, and safety assessment considerations for organic and inorganic chemical entities.

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.

Has the mist been peered through? Revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment for electronic cigarette use.

Background: Electronic cigarettes, battery-powered nicotine delivery devices, have been increasingly used in the past decade. However, human health risks associated with E-vapor inhalation have not been fully characterized. Aims: This critical review aims at revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment, summarizing the state of the science, and identifying major knowledge gaps in exposure assessment and toxicity assessment. Approach: A qualitative research synthesis was conducted based on scientific findings reported to date in peer-reviewed publications and our own preliminary experimental results. Results: There are a limited number of studies across all lines of evidence on E-vapor exposure and the health impacts of E-vapor inhalation. E-cigarette may be as efficient as traditional cigarettes in nicotine delivery, especially for experienced users, and studies suggest lower emissions of air toxics from E-cigarette vapor and lower second- and third-hand vapor exposures. But some toxic emissions may surpass those of traditional cigarettes, especially under high voltage vaping conditions. Experimentally, E-vapor/E-liquid exposures reduce cell viability and promote pro-inflammatory cytokine release. User vulnerability to concomitant environmental agent exposures, such as viruses and bacteria, may potentially be increased. Conclusion: While evidence to date suggests that e-cigarettes release fewer toxins and carcinogens and compared to cigarettes, E-vapor is not safe and might adversely affect human immune functions. Major knowledge gaps hinder risk quantification and effective regulation of E-cigarette products including: 1) lack of long-term exposure studies; 2) lack of understanding of biological mechanisms associated with exposure; and 3) lack of integration of exposure and toxicity assessments.,. Better data are needed to inform human health risk assessments and to better understand the public health impact of E-vapor exposures.

Evaluation of reproductive development following intravenous and oral exposure to DEHP in male neonatal rats.

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) was administered to 3- to 5-day-old male Sprague-Dawley rats by daily intravenous injections of 60, 300, or 600 mg/kg/day or by daily oral gavage of 300 or 600 mg/kg/day for 21 days. Histopathological evaluation and organ weight measurements were performed on some animals after 21 days of dosing (primary group) and later on the recovery group animals that were held without further treatment until sexual maturity at approximately 90 days of age. No effects of any type were observed in animals treated intravenously with 60 mg/kg/day. Testicular changes, consisting of a partial depletion of the germinal epithelium and/or decrease in diameter of seminiferous tubules, were present in all animals of the 300- and 600-mg/kg/day groups after the 21-day dosing period. Testes weight decreased and liver weight increased in these animals. Testes changes were dose-related and generally more severe among animals dosed orally versus intravenously. In the recovery animals, a residual DEHP-induced decrease in seminiferous tubule diameter was present in the testis of several animals dosed orally at 300 and 600 mg/kg/day, but not in animals dosed intravenously. There was no germinal cell depletion or Sertoli cell alteration observed in any dose group at any time. Notably, no effects on sperm count, sperm morphology, or sperm motility were observed at 90 days of age in any of the groups.