Challenges Associated with Biological Safety Assessments for Drug-Device Combination Products

References

1. 1.↵
   U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, 2017.
2. 2.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. General Chapter<1663> Assessment of Extractables Associated with Pharmaceutical Packaging/Delivery Systems. In USP 43–NF 38, USP: Rockville, MD, 2020.
3. 3.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. General Chapter <1664> Assessment of Drug Product Leachables Associated with Pharmaceutical Packaging/Delivery Systems. In USP 43–NF 38, USP: Rockville, MD, 2020.
4. 4.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. General Chapter <87> Biological Reactivity Tests, In Vitro. In USP 39–NF 34, USP: Rockville, MD, 2016.
5. 5.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. General Chapter <88> Biological Reactivity Tests, In Vivo. In USP 36–NF 31, USP: Rockville, MD, 2013.
6. 6.↵
   1. Anderson J. M.

   ISO 10993-1 “The Early Years”, Presented at the NCAC SOT 2019 Fall Symposium: Toxicology and Safety Considerations in the Development of Devices and Drugs, October 24, 2019. https://www.toxicology.org/groups/rc/ncac/events.asp.
7. 7.↵
   1. DeStefano A. J.

   Extractables and Leachables: Past, Present and Future. 2015. https://pqri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DeStefano.pdf.
8. 8.↵
   U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1. “Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and Testing within a Risk Management Process”, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, 2020.
9. 9.↵
   U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Container Closure Systems for Packaging Human Drugs and Biologics, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, 1999.
10. 10.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, 2017; p 43, footnote 119.
11. 11.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Drug Products–Quality Considerations. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Rockville, MD, 2018.
12. 12.↵
    Council of Europe. European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.), 11th Edition, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, 2022.
13. 13.↵
    European Medicines Agency. EMA/CHMP/QWP/BWP/259165/2019 Guideline on Quality Documentation for Medicinal Products when Used with a Medical Device. EMA: London, 2021.
14. 14.↵
    EU. (2017/745, MDR). Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on Medical Devices, Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 and Repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. 2017.
15. 15.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance: Glass Syringes for Delivering Drug and Biological Products: Technical Recommendations to Supplement International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 11040-4. Office of Combination Products: Rockville, MD, 2013.
16. 16.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products. Fed. Regist. 2013, 78 (14), 4307–4323.

    OpenUrl
17. 17.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Recognized Consensus Standards Online Search ISO 10993-1. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfstandards/detail.cfm?standard__identification_no=38569 (accessed October 18, 2022).
18. 18.↵
    USP <87> Biological Reactivity Tests, In Vitro; USP <88> Biological Reactivity Tests, In Vivo; USP <1031> The Biocompatibility of Materials Used in Drug Containers, Medical Devices, and Implants. Pharmacopeial Forum 2021, 47 (4).
19. 19.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Recognized Consensus Standards Online Search Website. 2022. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm (accessed October 18, 2022).
20. 20.↵
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14971:2019 Medical Devices—Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices. ISO: Geneva, 2019.
21. 21.↵
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 18562-1 Biocompatibility Evaluation of Breathing Gas Pathways in Healthcare Applications—Part 1: Evaluation and Testing within a Risk Management Process. ISO: Geneva, 2017.
22. 22.↵
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-5 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity. ISO: Geneva, 2009.
23. 23.↵
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-10. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices–Part 10: Tests for Irritation and Skin Sensitization. ISO: Geneva, 2010.
24. 24.↵
    PQRI Leachables and Extractables Working Group. Safety Thresholds and Best Practices for Extractables and Leachables in Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products. PQRI, 2006.
25. 25.↵
    1. Ball D.,
    2. Blanchard J.,
    3. Jacobson-Kram D.,
    4. McClellan R. O.,
    5. McGovern T.,
    6. Norwood D. L.,
    7. Vogel W.,
    8. Wolff R.,
    9. Nagao L.

    Development of Safety Qualification Thresholds and Their Use in Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Product Evaluation. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 97 (2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfm058.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    PQRI Leachables and Extractables PODP Working Group. Safety Thresholds and Best Demonstrated Practices for Extractables and Leachables in Parenteral Drug Products (Intravenous, Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular). PQRI, 2022.
27. 27.↵
    1. Robison T. W.

    Application of Thresholds and Expectations: Regulatory Perspectives. Presented at the PQRI PODP Extractables & Leachables Workshop, 2018.
28. 28.↵
    1. Munro I. C.,
    2. Renwick A. G.,
    3. Danielewska-Nikiel B.

    The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) in Risk Assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 2008, 180 (2), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.05.006.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmr048.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Jenke D.,
    2. Christiaens P.,
    3. Beusen J.-M.,
    4. Verlinde P.,
    5. Baeten J.

    A Practical Derivation of the Uncertainty Factor Applied to Adjust the Extractables/Leachables Analytical Evaluation Threshold (AET) for Response Factor Variation. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2022, 76 (3), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2021.012692.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    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 Approach for Extractables and Leachables (E&L) Analysis to Mitigate the Need for Uncertainty Factors. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2020, 186. 113334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113334.

    OpenUrl
32. 32.↵
    1. Oktem B.,
    2. Hood A.,
    3. Goode J.,
    4. Sussman E.,
    5. Wickramasekara S.

    CDRH Scientific Perspective on Chemical Analysis and Toxicological Risk Assessment for Medical Devices. Presented at the SOT MDCPSS Webinar, 2019.
33. 33.↵
    1. Turner P.,
    2. Elder R. M.,
    3. Nahan K.,
    4. Talley A.,
    5. Shah S.,
    6. Duncan T. V.,
    7. Sussman E. M.,
    8. Saylor D. M.

    Leveraging Extraction Testing to Predict Patient Exposure to Polymeric Medical Device Leachables Using Physics-Based Models. Toxicol. Sci. 2020, 178 (1), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaa140.

    OpenUrl
34. 34.↵
    1. Bhave G.,
    2. Neilson E. G.

    Body Fluid Dynamics: Back to the Future. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2011, 22 (12), 2166–2181. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2011080865.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    International Conference for Harmonisation, ICH Guideline M3(R2). Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals. ICH: Geneva, 2010.
36. 36.↵
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-1 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices— Part 1: Evaluation and Testing within a Risk Management Process. ISO: Geneva, 2018.
37. 37.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993‐11. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices–Part 11 Tests for Systemic Toxicity>. ISO: Geneva, 2017.
38. 38.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-6 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 6: Tests for Local Effects after Implantation. ISO: Geneva, 2016.
39. 39.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-3 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 3: Tests for Genotoxicity, Carcinogenicity and Reproductive Toxicity. ISO: Geneva, 2014.
40. 40.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: The Least Burdensome Provisions: Concept and Principles. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, 2019.
41. 41.↵
    1. Wange R. L.,
    2. Brown P. C.,
    3. Davis-Bruno K. L.

    Implementation of the Principles of the 3Rs of Animal Testing at CDER: Past, Present and Future. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 123, 104953.

    OpenUrl