ich q3d metal impurities: excipient realities · magnesium aluminum silicate hydrate 60 magnesium...
Post on 13-Apr-2020
10 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
www.ipecamericas.org 1
ICH Q3D Metal Impurities:
Excipient Realities
David R. Schoneker
Vice Chair – Maker & Distributor Relations – IPEC
Director of Global Regulatory Affairs – Colorcon
Email: dschoneker@colorcon.com
April 25, 2011
• Approved in 2009 by ICH SC
• EWG created in Spring 2010
• Scope restricted to criteria and limits
– Methodology purview of Compendia
• Representatives
– Equal mix of Safety/Toxicologists and Quality Personnel
– US: FDA & PhRMA
– EU: EMA & EFPIA
– Japan: MHLW/PMDA & JPMA
– Interested Parties
• IPEC, WSMI, IGPA, KFDA, BIO, WHO
Q3D: the beginnings
2
• Limits to be set based on published safety
and toxicology data
• Detailed Safety & Toxicological Assessments
have been done on each of the metals of
interest
– Each will have its own report including references
to the appropriate studies
• Build upon EU Metal Catalysts guide
• Excipients within scope
ICH Q3D EWG Process
3
• Determining how we are impacted? – Since it is the finished dosage form that is required to
comply BUT….. • Testing every dosage form is not feasible • Data not yet available for all components
• Test methods are still unclear
• How do we get the data we need? – Need a layered approach to looking at dosage forms
and components
• IPEC Americas held a Q3D Workshop on April 4-5, 2012 to discuss the issues – outcome report will be sent to ICH Q3D EWG
4
Challenges
• Materials which use mined-excipients
– Since many metal impurities are naturally
present (for example Lead) in mined-
excipients and cannot be further
processed out, it is important to
understand the actual levels present
• May have finished product which
contain multiple mined excipients
Points to Consider
5
Max Concentration in Solid Dosage FormsExisting Specifications for some commonly used grades
mg
H
e
a Lead, ppm
Cadmium,
ppm Arsenic, ppm Mercury, ppm
Aluminum silicate 94
Aluminum stearate 105
Calcium carbonate 550 3 1 3 0.5
Calcium silicate 182.7
Calcium stearate 91.9
Calcium sulfate 443
Colloidal silicon dioxide 170 5
Potassium phosphate, dibasic 30
Sodium phosphate, dibasic, anhydrous 300
Sodium phosphate, dibasic, heptahydrate 500
Anhydrous Dibasic calcium phosphate 850 2 3
Dibasic calcium phosphate, dihydrate 635.5 0.3 1 3 0.1
Dihydroxyaluminum sodium carbonate 1350
Magnesium aluminum silicate hydrate 60
Magnesium carbonate 250
Magnesium hydroxide 450
Magnesium oxide 63
Magnesium stearate 256.4 5 3
Magnesium sulfate 29.8
Magnesium trisilicate 76.89
Talc 220.4
Titanium dioxide 1387 10 1 1 1
Tribasic calcium phosphate 333.3 0.3 1 3 0.1
6
IID Maximum Levels of Use in an Approved Product
Points to Consider
• Please note especially the two highlighted per dose levels – TiO2 is used in some approved drug products at very high levels
and actual typical levels of 1 to 9 ppm for lead have been seen in actual routine commercial batches .
– This may cause some issues if the lead PDE will be < 5 ug per day.
• Lead from TiO2 per dose, based on 10 ppm spec – 1387 mg x 10 ug/1000 mg = 13.87 ug
– <---- One dose could be 2 1/2 times higher than the 5 ug per day PDE.
– This only takes into consideration Pb from one excipient – other excipients in the formulation could also contribute…..
• What if there are multiple doses prescribed?
• Even if the lead level in the TiO2 was only 5 ppm which is very typical of actual commercial material, the 5 ug PDE would still be exceeded by one dose.
7
Excipient Realities!!!
Many times the metal content of
certain excipients is inherent from
their sources and cannot be “easily”
purified
Excipient Sources
• Mineral-based Excipients – Conversion of Ores from Mines
– Conversion of Waste Materials
• Plant-derived Excipients – Grown in Soil
– Grown in the Ocean
• Synthetic Excipients – Derived from Oil through synthetic
processes – may use metal catalysts
Kaolin mine near Kaznejov,
Czech Republic
Known – at least
12 to 55 ppm Lead
from periodic testing
Talc extraction in Trimouns Talc Mine,
Midi-Pyrenees, France
Known – Current USP
Spec <10 ppm – only
tested once per year
Typical Open Pit Mining
Operation
Raw Material for Iron Oxide
Manufacturing
Iron Oxides – from scrap
metal to oxidation tanks
Known – Current USP
Spec <10 ppm – only
tested periodically
Cellulose Sources – for MCC,
Cellulose derivatives, etc.
What’s in that Soil the
Tree is growing in?
Brown Seaweed – used to
manufacture Sodium Alginate
What has been
absorbed from
the ocean?
Unknown Unknowns
Most Excipients have not been routinely tested for the metals covered by ICH Q3D – therefore current levels
are Unknown!!
CAN WE PREDICT WHAT TO EXPECT?
Knowns - Metal Impurities from Supplier
COAs – Mineral Based Excipients
Item Description Supplier/Manufacturer Arsenic
ppm
Cadmium
ppm
Total Lead
ppm
Inorganic
Mercury
ppm
Chromium
ppm
Copper
ppm
Nickel
ppm
TITANIUM DIOXIDE,
USP/FCC/EP/JP Supplier A 1.0 max 0.2 max 10.0 max 1.0 max 1.9 max 0.5 max N/A
TITANIUM DIOXIDE USP/EP/JP Supplier B 3.0 max 1.0 max 10.0 max 1.0 max N/A N/A N/A
CALCIUM CARBONATE EP Supplier C 3 max 1 max 10 max N/A N/A N/A N/A
CALCIUM CARBONATE USP - PRECIPITATED Supplier D N/A N/A 3 max 0.5 max N/A N/A N/A
TALC USP/FCC/EP/JP - Supplier E 3 max N/A 10 max N/A N/A N/A N/A
TALC MICRONIZED USP/EP Supplier F 4 max N/A 10 max N/A N/A N/A N/A
TALC USP/EP Supplier G 3 max N/A 5 max N/A N/A N/A N/A
Unknowns: The following additional Metal Impurities did not have Specifications or Results on the Suppliers COA & Specification: Manganese, Molybdenum, Palladium, Platinum, Vanadium, Osmium, Rhodium, Ruthenium, and Iridium.
Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Global Supply
Ore sources used to manufacture TiO2 are common to all producers
Lead content in TiO2 is determined by the Ore used as starting material
TiO2 used in Pharmaceuticals is generally High Purity Anatase made using Sulphate process
There are limited number of HP SP Anatase producers
TiO2 supply is constrained and price is under pressure as demand exceeds supply
TiO2 Purified Anatase
Sulphate Process
Ilmenite Ore
from Mine
USP Current
Spec for Pb
<10 ppm
Hmmm…I wonder what the
lead level is like Here
And Here And Here
And Here
Illmenite Ore Sources
High purity Anatase SP Plants
World's largest opencast ilmenite
mine - in Sokndal, Norway
Ilmenite from Kragero,
Norway.
Ilmenite from the
Normanville, South Australia.
Ilmenite from St-Urbain,
Quebec, Canada.
Purified Anatase (PA) Supply
The Global TiO2 Shortage has put pressure on the availability of PA.
As demand for Technical grades has increased so has pricing for technical grades.
Technical grade pricing now exceeds that of PA.
This gives producers incentive to switch to Technical grade production.
Producers are on allocation
New Pharma customers mean they have to shed volumes in other markets
Example – TiO2
• Supplier A
– Manufactures TiO2 with Ore from Ore Mine A
– Supplier A routinely tests for a number of Metal Impurities including Lead and
Leachable Lead
– Experiences unplanned Excursions from
typical historical levels that can be
prolonged
Batch to Batch Variability of some Metal
Impurities in TiO2 from Supplier A
TITANIUM DIOXIDE, USP/FCC/EP/JP COA Results
Lot Number Arsenic Cadmium Total Lead Leachable
Lead
Inorganic
Mercury Chromium Copper Nickel
1 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5.1 ppm 2.4 ppm < 0.1 ppm 1.9 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 2 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5 ppm 2.5 ppm < 0.1 ppm 1.7 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 3 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5 ppm 2.6 ppm < 0.1 ppm 1.9 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 4 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5 ppm 2.8 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2.1 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 5 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 7 ppm 3.7 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 6 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5 ppm 2.7 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 7 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 4 ppm 1.6 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.6 ppm N/A 8 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 5 ppm 2.7 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 9 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 3 ppm 1.8 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A
10 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 4 ppm 2.0 ppm < 0.1 ppm 1.8 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 11 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 4 ppm 1.6 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.6 ppm N/A 12 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 3 ppm 1.9 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 13 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 2 ppm 0.8 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 14 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 2 ppm 0.8 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A 15 < 0.2 ppm < 0.2 ppm 2 ppm 1.1 ppm < 0.1 ppm 2 ppm < 0.5 ppm N/A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Leachable
0 – 4 ppm
5 – 9 ppm
0 – 4 ppm
3 – 7 ppm
2008 2009 2011
Lead Content Variability in Titanium Dioxide from Supplier A – Ore Mine A
Lead Content, ppm
2008 - 2011
2010
What Metal Impurities are
Bioavailable? • ICH Q3D says they are setting “safety-based” limits,
however, they are focusing just on Total metal content which makes no sense!!!
• Ex; Only Leachable Lead is bioavailable from TiO2
• Leachable Lead level is typically much lower than the Total Lead content
• Sample prep and test methodology is very important to utilize data for decision making!!
• Using Total Lead content in Q3D PDE requirements is NOT “safety-based” and should be re-evaluated!!!
CALCIUM CARBONATE
PhEur
Lot Number Arsenic Cadmium Lead Inorganic
Mercury Chromium Copper Nickel
1 0.29 ppm 0.73 ppm 2 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 0.29 ppm 0.73 ppm 2 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 < 3 ppm 0.19 ppm 2.2 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 < 3 ppm 0.17 ppm 2.4 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 0.42 ppm 0.21 ppm 2.3 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 0.26 ppm 0.5 ppm 2 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 0.21 ppm 0.3 ppm 1.1 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 0.29 ppm 0.5 ppm 4.7 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 0.14 ppm 0.6 ppm 2.5 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 0.35 ppm 0.63 ppm 4.5 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 0.57 ppm 0.44 ppm 2.6 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 0.36 ppm 0.38 ppm 7.1 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 0.16 ppm 0.6 ppm 3 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 0.43 ppm < 0.1 ppm 1.4 ppm N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excursion
Common Excipients Existing Elemental Impurity Data
Item Description Lead Limit Listed on
COA Typical Lead Limit Test Method Frequency of Testing
TITANIUM DIOXIDE, USP/FCC/EP/JP
Max 10 ppm 1 to 9 ppm based on 2
year history, 2 to 5 ppm typically
ICP Every Batch
HPMC 3 cP - USP/EP/JP NMT 20 ppm (Heavy
Metals) 0.2 to 2 ppm ICP-MS Once per year
HPMC 6 cP - USP/EP/JP NMT 20 ppm (Heavy
Metals) 0.2 to 2 ppm ICP-MS Once per year
PEG 400 NF/EP/JP < 5 ppm (Heavy
Metals) NMT 1 mg/kg * *
SODIUM CITRATE - DIHYD. USP/EP/JP/FCC/JSFA
< 2 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg ICP Weekly
POLYSORBATE 80 (VEG.) NF/EP/JP < 10 ppm (Heavy
Metals) Max 1 ppm
Atomic Absorption Electro-thermal
Atomization (Furnace Atomization) according to
“Combined Compendium of Food
Additives Specifications”, FAO JECFA Monographs,
vol 4 (2005).
Statistic Basis
POLYVINYL ALCOHOL, USP/FCC/EP/JPE
NMT 2 ppm * AA Analysis Once per year
PEG 3350 NF/EP/JP < 5 ppm (Heavy
Metals) * * *
Testing of Aluminum Lakes Test Results
Target Maximum Limits (ppm)
Product Batch No Aluminum Arsenic Barium Cadmium Iron Lead Zinc Mercury
Expected Target Maximums >100000 1 500 1 500 1 500 1
Method Reference EPA 6010B EPA 7471B
Method Detection Limit 389 0.486 0.245 0.0225 2.08 0.191 0.132 0.0309
Reporting / Quantitation Limit 10 1 1 0.4 5 2 1 0.1
FD&C RED #40/ALLURA RED AC ALUMINUM LAKES
low dye% 1 226000 0.724 8.60 1.00 57.1 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
2 235000 0.492 16.6 1.08 74.2 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
low dye%
1 214000 <0.486 10.3 1.04 59.7 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
2 225000 1.70 14.2 1.03 66.3 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
3 233000 0.740 8.44 1.14 65.8 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
medium dye%
1 161000 <0.486 8.85 0.703 49.4 <0.191 <0.132 0.0550
2 155000 0.978 5.71 0.674 58.8 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
3 154000 0.731 6.07 0.677 63.7 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
medium dye% 1 169000 0.755 8.00 0.761 57.4 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
high dye% 1 153000 <0.486 5.59 0.681 18.0 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
2 158000 <0.486 5.31 0.699 18.0 <0.191 <0.132 <0.0309
80 Samples
7 Metals
Cost > $20,000
USP – ICH Efforts
• USP plans to implement General Chapter requirements once ICH
publishes their limits which will include the lCH PDE limits and
some information about the use of appropriate test methods
based on the matrix issues that may exist
• FDA appears to understand the need for a slow implementation
to gain an understanding first of the impact
• USP had indicated last year they would like to implement these
General Chapters in 2013 – IPEC FELT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
BIG MISTAKE!!!
• This date has now been taken off the USP website. USP Plans to
be publishing their current position and a new date in the near
future
USP – ICH Efforts
• No implementation date should be identified at this point since most excipient manufacturers will not have a good
understanding of their true variability for some time.
• Therefore, all they can do is commit to the existing USP-NF specifications if they exist – this results in higher levels than
might be typical
– Many Q3D metals do not have specifications in USP-NF
– Suppliers may not agree to any spec on these metals
• ICH Q3D EWG targeting to publish a Step 2 document in
June 2012 at Tokyo meeting
Supplier Information concerning
Metal Impurities • As the ICH Q3D Guideline and the USP Chapters are being
finalized, many suppliers are waiting to assess their products so that they are using the appropriate test methods and detection limits which will be necessary once the limits are established
• Therefore, many suppliers currently have very limited information related to the actual levels of metal impurities in their excipients and food additives
• Routine testing for these Metal Impurities is not typically done at this time and actual levels below the current specifications are not known
• The IPEC Federation has published a position paper on the web which explains why users should NOT request detailed metal impurity information from their suppliers at this time
Supplier Realities
• Many suppliers who don’t routinely test for metal impurities
may NOT be willing or able to agree to specifications that
are lower than what they are required to meet to comply
with USP-NF monograph, 21 CFR or other regulatory
requirements for the component
• In some cases, they may be willing to agree to levels based
on their best understanding of typical values but it is
expected that this will be the exception not the rule
• Remember, for many excipient companies, the pharma
business is a very minor part of their sales and they will not
implement a lot of additional controls without getting
premium prices if they are even willing to do it at all.
User Realities
• What does this all mean
to Pharma Companies? Option #1
?
Option #2a or 2b
?
Option #3 ?
Confusion
?
Realities for Implementation
• Many Excipients do sometimes contain Metal Impurities at the 1 to 10 ppm level. Typical levels Unknown at this time. – Forget using Option 1 limits – not realistic for many excipients
• Suppliers typically will not be willing to agree to tighter specifications than the historical compendial requirements for Option 2 calculations
• Most Suppliers may not do significant testing to determine typical levels until after the ICH Q3D requirements are published – excursions may make it impossible to define typical levels
• Some suppliers may choose not to participate in supplying the pharmaceutical industry if too much pressure is put on them to do routine testing and agree to lower limits
Realities for Implementation
• Pharmaceutical companies will probably need to do significant testing themselves on their excipients or drug products to determine actual levels and if they comply with PDEs – Think Option 3!!!
• Some drug products will probably need to be reformulated to meet PDE requirements – Lead from TiO2 per dose, based on 10 ppm spec
– IID Max. of 1387 mg x 10 ug/1000 mg = 13.87 ug
– One dose could be 2 1/2 times higher than the 5 ug per day PDE.
• All these efforts are going to take quite a bit of time to do properly (probably several years min.)
• ICH and Compendias MUST work closely with industry to only make these requirements official once the unknowns are much better understood!!
IPEC Proposals
• IPEC plans to develop a standardized mechanism for how makers and users should best share information on metal impurities
• Standard format will be provided that meets the key needs at this time
• Request will NOT allude to setting tighter specifications – just information gathering
• Mechanism will be shared throughout the Coalition associations and with Rx-360 for broad usage
• Q3D Workshop – many recommendations to the EWG and points to consider
Q3D Workshop
Recommendations to EWG • Categories should be added to the guideline – with metals
segregated according to whether they are likely to be present from the environment or may be due to use as catalysts (etc)
• Clarification is needed on risk assessments and testing – specifically to indicate that process knowledge, understanding of your materials and so forth could be used to justify not checking for all 27 metals
• If the limits are to truly be safety based, the guideline limits should be focused on the amount of metal that is absorbed by the body (as opposed to total metals)
• Target to meet total metals (PDEs) as a first step for simplicity, however if that is not achievable
• Then consider what portion of the metal(s) is absorbed by the body (bioavailable)
Q3D Workshop
Recommendations to EWG • An adequate implementation timeframe (minimally 2 years) is
required for new drugs and an additional 5 years after that
would probably be needed for existing drugs.
• The ICH Q3D EWG postpone the publication of the Step 2 guideline until the November meeting so that additional data
concerning actual metal impurity content and potential for
bioavailability can be developed and considered by the EWG
• Many other points were made concerning excipient realities
for consideration by EWG during the meetings in Japan in
June
Questions?
top related