An Analytical Strategy Based on Multiple Complementary and Orthogonal Chromatographic and Detection Methods (Multidetector Approach) to Effectively Manage the Analytical Evaluation Threshold (AET)

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Jenke D.

   Identification, Analysis and Safety Assessment of Leachables and Extractables. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 101, 56–65.

   OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
2. 2.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, General Chapter <1663> Assessment of Extractables Associated with Pharmaceutical Packaging/Delivery Systems. In USP 40–NF 35, USP: Rockville, MD, 2017; pp 2020–2035.

   Google Scholar
3. 3.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, General Chapter <1664> Assessment of Drug Product Leachables Associated with Pharmaceutical Packaging/Delivery Systems. In USP 40–NF 35, USP: Rockville, MD, 2017; pp 2035–2047.

   Google Scholar
4. 4.↵
   PQRI Leachables and Extractables Working Group. Safety Thresholds and Best Practices for Extractables and Leachables in Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products, 2006. PQRI Web site. http://pqri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/pdf/LE_Recommendations_to_FDA_09-29-06.pdf (accessed June 16, 2019).

   Google Scholar
5. 5.↵
   International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-18:2020 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 18: Chemical Characterization of Medical Device Materials Within a Risk Management Process, 2020. ISO Web site. https://www.iso.org/standard/64750.html (accessed January 1, 2020).

   Google Scholar
6. 6.↵
   1. Broschard T. H.,
   2. Glowienke S.,
   3. Bruen U. S.,
   4. Nagao L. M.,
   5. Teasdale A.,
   6. Stults C. L. M.,
   7. Li K. L.,
   8. Iciek L. A.,
   9. Erexson G.,
   10. Martin E. A.,
   11. Ball D. J.

   Assessing Safety of Extractables from Materials and Leachables in Pharmaceuticals and Biologics—Current Challenges and Approaches. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2016, 81, 201–211.

   OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
7. 7.↵
   1. Norwood D. L.,
   2. Nagao N.

   The Analytical Evaluation Threshold (AET), 2005. PQRI Web site. http://pqri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/pdf/PQRI_AET_Poster.pdf (accessed June 14, 2019).

   Google Scholar
8. 8.↵
   1. Jordi M. A.,
   2. Khera S.,
   3. Roland K.,
   4. Jiang L.,
   5. Solomon P.,
   6. Nelson J.,
   7. Lateef S.,
   8. Woods J.,
   9. Martin L.,
   10. Martin S.,
   11. Aiello F.,
   12. Chen N.

   Qualitative Assessment of Extractables from Single-Use Components and the Impact of Reference Standard Selection. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 150, 368–376.

   OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
9. 9.↵
   McNeil Consumer Healthcare Recalls Wide Range of Products. React. Wkly 2010, 1285 (3).

   Google Scholar
10. 10.↵
    1. Jordi M. A.,
    2. Rowland K.,
    3. Liu W.,
    4. Cao X.,
    5. Zong J.,
    6. Ren Y.,
    7. Liang Z.,
    8. Zhou X.,
    9. Louis M.,
    10. Lerner K.

    Reducing Relative Response Factor Variation Using a Multidetector System for Extractables and Leachables (E&L) Analysis to Mitigate the Need for Uncertainty Factors. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2020, 186 113334.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
11. 11.↵
    1. Blanz J.,
    2. Williams G.,
    3. Dayer J.,
    4. Délémonté T.,
    5. Gertsch W.,
    6. Ramstein P.,
    7. Aichholz R.,
    8. Trunzer M.,
    9. Pearson D.

    Evaluation of Relative MS Response Factors of Drug Metabolites for Semi-Quantitative Assessment of Chemical Liabilities in Drug Discovery. J. Mass Spectrom. 2017, 52 (4), 210–217.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
12. 12.↵
    1. Sica V. P.,
    2. Krivos K. L.,
    3. Kiehl D. E.,
    4. Pulliam C. J.,
    5. Henry I. D.,
    6. Baker T. R.

    The Role of Mass Spectrometry and Related Techniques in the Analysis of Extractable and Leachable Chemicals. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2020, 39 (1–2), 212–226.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
13. 13.↵
    1. Barbarin N.,
    2. Henion J. D.,
    3. Wu Y.

    Comparison between Liquid Chromatography–UV Detection and Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for the Characterization of Impurities and/or Degradants Present in Trimethoprim Tablets. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 970 (1–2), 141–154.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
14. 14.↵
    1. Baertschi S. W.

    Analytical Methodologies for Discovering and Profiling Degradation-Related Impurities. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2006, 25 (8), 758–767.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
15. 15.↵
    1. Wahl O.,
    2. Holzgrabe U.

    Impurity Profiling of Ibandronate Sodium by HPLC–CAD. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2015, 114, 254–264.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
16. 16.↵
    1. Hong P.,
    2. Phoebe A. D.,
    3. Jones M. D.

    Study of Relative Response Factors and Mass Balance in Forced Degradation Studies with Liquid Chromatography/Photo-Diode Array Detector/Evaporative Light Scattering Detector/Mass Spectrometry System. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1512, 61–70.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
17. 17.
    1. Jenke D.,
    2. Odufu A.

    Utilization of Internal Standard Response Factors to Estimate the Concentration of Organic Compounds Leached from Pharmaceutical Packaging Systems and Application of Such Estimated Concentrations to Safety Assessment. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2012, 50 (3), 206–212.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
18. 18.↵
    1. Love B.,
    2. Flynn D.

    France, UK Issue Clashing Advice on Breast Implants, 2011. Reuters Web site. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-breast-implants/france-uk-issue-clashing-advice-on-breast-implants-idUSTRE7BM14420111224 (accessed February 25, 2016).

    Google Scholar