Abstract
The Analytical Evaluation Threshold (AET) establishes which chromatographic peaks, produced during organic extractables/leachables (E&L) screening, require toxicological safety risk assessment because the peaks are associated with compounds of potentially unacceptable toxicity. Thus, the AET protects patient safety as its proper application ensures that all potentially unsafe extractables/leachables are necessarily assessed. Generally, application of the AET involves the assumption that all organic extractables/leachables have the same detector response factor, an assumption that is not valid for any of the detection methods commonly used in E&L screening. Thus, the AET′s ability to be protective is compromised for poorly responding compounds, as they will appear to be below the AET when in fact they are not. This unacceptable outcome is addressed by adjusting the AET with an uncertainty factor (UF) whose value is dictated by the magnitude of response factor variation, with a larger variation resulting in a larger UF and a lower adjusted AET. Although the concept of the UF is straightforward, setting a generally accepted, scientifically valid and practical value for the UF has been challenging. In this manuscript, a database of relative response factors obtained for nearly 1200 extractables/leachables via the most commonly applied chromatographic screening methods (GC/MS, LC/MS-APCI and LC/MS-ESI) is used to justify UFs for these methods, individually and as a combined practice, based on the practical principle of the ″the point of diminishing returns″. Using this concept results in nearly 92% of the compounds in the database being properly flagged as above an AET adjusted with a UF = 3. Ninety-five percent (95%) coverage of the compounds can be achieved when a UF of 4 is applied to the combination of GC/MS and LC/MS methods or with other combinations of UF values applied to the various methods individually. Coverage is increased to 97% when a UF of 4 is individually applied to the GC/MS method and a UF of 10 is individually applied to the LC/MS methods. Furthermore, the available data suggests that application of both APCI and ESI ionization in LC/MS screening (as opposed to either method separately) provides the greatest coverage of extractables/leachables.
- Received September 11, 2021.
- Accepted November 8, 2021.
- Copyright © 2021, Parenteral Drug Association
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.