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

Patricia Parris; Geraldine Whelan; Anders Burild; Jessica Whritenour; Uma Bruen; Joel Bercu; Courtney Callis; Martyn L. Chilton; Jessica Graham; Esther Johann; Candice Johnson; Troy Griffin; Martin Kohan; Elizabeth A. Martin; Melisa Masuda-Herrera; Brad Stanard; Maureen T Cruz; Lee Nagao

doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2022.012811

Abstract

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.

Received December 7, 2022.
Accepted August 17, 2023.

PDA members receive access to all articles published in the current year and previous volume year. Institutional subscribers received access to all content. Log in below to receive access to this article if you are either of these.

If you are neither or you are a PDA member trying to access an article outside of your membership license, then you must purchase access to this article (below). If you do not have a username or password for JPST, you will be required to create an account prior to purchasing.

Full issue PDFs are for PDA members only.

Note to pda.org users

The PDA and PDA bookstore websites (www.pda.org and www.pda.org/bookstore) are separate websites from the PDA JPST website. When you first join PDA, your initial UserID and Password are sent to HighWirePress to create your PDA JPST account. Subsequent UserrID and Password changes required at the PDA websites will not pass on to PDA JPST and vice versa. If you forget your PDA JPST UserID and/or Password, you can request help to retrieve UserID and reset Password below.