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.

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.

A multicenter assessment of single-cell models aligned to standard measures of cell health for prediction of acute hepatotoxicity.

Assessing the potential of a new drug to cause drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. We therefore determined whether cell models currently used in safety assessment (HepG2, HepaRG, Upcyte and primary human hepatocytes in conjunction with basic but commonly used endpoints) are actually able to distinguish between novel chemical entities (NCEs) with respect to their potential to cause DILI. A panel of thirteen compounds (nine DILI implicated and four non-DILI implicated in man) were selected for our study, which was conducted, for the first time, across multiple laboratories. None of the cell models could distinguish faithfully between DILI and non-DILI compounds. Only when nominal in vitro concentrations were adjusted for in vivo exposure levels were primary human hepatocytes (PHH) found to be the most accurate cell model, closely followed by HepG2. From a practical perspective, this study revealed significant inter-laboratory variation in the response of PHH, HepG2 and Upcyte cells, but not HepaRG cells. This variation was also observed to be compound dependent. Interestingly, differences between donors (hepatocytes), clones (HepG2) and the effect of cryopreservation (HepaRG and hepatocytes) were less important than differences between the cell models per se. In summary, these results demonstrate that basic cell health endpoints will not predict hepatotoxic risk in simple hepatic cells in the absence of pharmacokinetic data and that a multicenter assessment of more sophisticated signals of molecular initiating events is required to determine whether these cells can be incorporated in early safety assessment.

Comparative Proteomic Characterization of 4 Human Liver-Derived Single Cell Culture Models Reveals Significant Variation in the Capacity for Drug Disposition, Bioactivation, and Detoxication.

In vitro preclinical models for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) are usually based on cryopreserved primary human hepatocytes (cPHH) or human hepatic tumor-derived cell lines; however, it is unclear how well such cell models reflect the normal function of liver cells. The physiological, pharmacological, and toxicological phenotyping of available cell-based systems is necessary in order to decide the testing purpose for which they are fit. We have therefore undertaken a global proteomic analysis of 3 human-derived hepatic cell lines (HepG2, Upcyte, and HepaRG) in comparison with cPHH with a focus on drug metabolizing enzymes and transport proteins (DMETs), as well as Nrf2-regulated proteins. In total, 4946 proteins were identified, of which 2722 proteins were common across all cell models, including 128 DMETs. Approximately 90% reduction in expression of cytochromes P450 was observed in HepG2 and Upcyte cells, and approximately 60% in HepaRG cells relative to cPHH. Drug transporter expression was also lower compared with cPHH with the exception of MRP3 and P-gp (MDR1) which appeared to be significantly expressed in HepaRG cells. In contrast, a high proportion of Nrf2-regulated proteins were more highly expressed in the cell lines compared with cPHH. The proteomic database derived here will provide a rational basis for the context-specific selection of the most appropriate 'hepatocyte-like' cell for the evaluation of particular cellular functions associated with DILI and, at the same time, assist in the construction of a testing paradigm which takes into account the in vivo disposition of a new drug.