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.

Special endpoint and product specific considerations in pharmaceutical acceptable daily exposure derivation.

Recently, a guideline has been published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on setting safe limits, permitted daily exposures (PDE) [also called acceptable daily exposures (ADE)], for medicines manufactured in multi-product facilities. The ADE provides a safe exposure limit for inadvertent exposure of a drug due to cross-contamination in manufacturing. The ADE determination encompasses a standard risk assessment, requiring an understanding of the toxicological and pharmacological effects, the mechanism of action, drug compound class, and the dose-response as well as the pharmacokinetic properties of the compound. While the ADE concept has broad application in pharmaceutical safety there are also nuances and specific challenges associated with some toxicological endpoints or drug product categories. In this manuscript we discuss considerations for setting ADEs when the following specific adverse health endpoints may constitute the critical effect: genotoxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART), and immune system modulation (immunostimulation or immunosuppression), and for specific drug classes, including antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), emerging medicinal therapeutic compounds, and compounds with limited datasets. These are challenging toxicological scenarios that require a careful evaluation of all of the available information in order to establish a health-based safe level.

Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for developmental and reproductive toxicity of anticancer compounds.

Pharmaceutical companies develop specialized therapies to treat late stage cancer. In order to accelerate life-saving treatments and reduce animal testing, compounds to treat life-threatening malignancies are allowed modified requirements for preclinical toxicology testing. Limited data packages in early drug development can present product quality challenges at multi-product manufacturing facilities. The present analysis established an endpoint-specific threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) for anticancer compounds. A comprehensive database was created consisting of over 300 no-observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for DART of 108 anticancer compounds. The 5th percentile NOAEL for developmental and reproductive toxicity was 0.005 mg/kg/day (300 µg/day), resulting in a human exposure threshold of 3 µg/day assuming standard uncertainty factors and a 60 kg human bodyweight. The analysis shows this threshold is protective for developmental and reproductive toxicity of highly potent groups of anticancer compounds. There were similar TTC values calculated for direct-acting and indirect-acting anticancer compounds.

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.

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.

Introduction of a process mass intensity metric for biologics.

Biopharmaceuticals (or biologics), large molecule therapeutics typically produced using biotechnology, are a rapidly growing segment of the pharmaceutical market. As such, the environmental footprint of the production of these molecules is coming under scrutiny from various stakeholders such as healthcare providers, investors, and even employees. Process mass intensity (PMI), originally adopted for small molecules by the Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable, is a simple metric that can also be applied to evaluate the process efficiency of biopharmaceutical production. PMI for biologics is defined as the total mass input in kg of water, raw materials and consumables, required to make 1 kg of active pharmaceutical ingredient. Six large pharmaceutical companies participated in a benchmarking exercise to calculate the PMI for monoclonal antibody (mAb) production. On average, 7700 kg of input is required to produce 1 kg of mAb. Over 90% of the mass is due to water use, highlighting the water-intensive nature of biologics production.