Date post: | 18-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | bhaswat-chakraborty |
View: | 96 times |
Download: | 6 times |
BEST TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL GENOTOXIC IMPURITIES AND IMPACT OF ICH M7 GUIDELINE
Dr. Bhaswat S. Chakraborty Sr. VP & Chair, R&D Core
CommitteeCadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Presented at the CPhI's 2nd Annual Advanced API Convention, Mumbai, July 20-
23
1
CONTENTS ICH M7: Scope &General principles
ICH M7: Consideration for marketed products Reactive or a proactive approach
DS & DP GTI Risk assessment
ICH M7: Impurities classification & Control
ICH M7: Risk Characterization &Daily AIs
ICH M7: Control options
ICH M7: Documentation
Clarifying the regulatory authority expectations for retrospective application of ICH M7
Conclusions2
NOT ALL EARLY DEVELOPMENT DATA SHOW LOW RISK OF PGTI: A RATHER EXCEPTION
3
Roche
ICH M7: JUNE 23 2014 – INTENDED SCOPE
New DS & DP in clinical development & MA/NDA application
Certain post-approval products Changes to DS Changes to DP Changes in clinical use
M7 does not apply to Biologicals Radipoharmaceuticls Herbal/animal products Flavours/colours/perfumes/excipients
Drugs covered by ICHS9 (adv. cancer indication or where DS itself is genotoxic)
Appendix 1 of ICH M7 guideline gives all scope scenariosfor its application
4
ICH M7
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF M7 Focus on DNA-reactive impurities, i.e., mutagenic
+ve in bacterial mutagenicity test Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC ) concept
applies Less than lifetime (LTL) principle applies
Clinical development and marketed products with shorter treatment duration have higher acceptable levels
Evaluate actual impurities and risk based subset of PGIs
When an impurity is also a metabolite, safety evaluation is primarily on the metabolite 5
ICH M7
THRESHOLD OF TOXICOLOGICAL CONCERN (TTC) TTC for any unstudied chemical: 1.5 µg/person/day
For later stage development & marketed products Based on an exposure of 1 x 10-6 upper bound lifetime risk of
cancer (“virtually safe dose”) Confirmed by evaluations expanding the database to more than
700 carcinogens However, TTC for genotoxic impurities in API of 10-5 lifetime risk
of cancer is justified as for pharmaceuticals a benefit exists TTC methods are very conservative; uses TD50 data for the most
sensitive species and most sensitive site (several “worst case” assumptions)
Less-Than-Lifetime (LTL) exposures During development & marketing can be higher and still maintain
comparable risk levels6
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF DNA REACTIVE IMPURITIES IN APIS TO LIMIT CARCINOGENIC RISK
7Calculated daily dose of a mutagenic impurity corresponding to a theoretical 1:100,000 cancer risk as a function of duration of treatment & daily AIs ICH M7
GTI RISK ASSESSMENT
8
Identification of Potential Impurities in Drug Substance and Drug Product
Review the synthetic process - including starting materials or reagents or intermediates/known impurities + drug substance and
product degradants
Step 1
Conduct SAR evaluation
(DEREK/MCASE)
Safety Assessment
ChemistryStep 2
Step 3
Step 4
Structural Alert?
Assessment of Risk of Potential carryover of impurities – Evaluate risk of carryover at levels of concern into DS/DP
Does the impurity pose any significant risk of carryover?
No
No further action
Yes
Yes
Next Slide
Classified as non-genotoxic. Treat as a general impurity
No
Teasedale A et al. (2010) Genotoxic Impurities: Strategies for Identifi cation and Control
GTI RISK ASSESSMENT..
9
Step 5
Finalize Risk AssessmentIt the impurity genotoxic? Is the level
>TTC?
Step 6
Step 7Define strategy to achieve acceptable limits
Options:1/ Modification of synthetic process
2/ Additional genotoxicity testing (typically in-vivo)
Previous Slide
Qualification Analyze level of impurity
Safety TestingPerform appropriate
genotixicty test : Typically AMES test
OR
Non-Genotoxic
Treat as a general impurity
GenotoxicLevel >TTC
GenotoxicLevel <TTC
Suitable for Clinical use
Teasedale A et al. (2010) Genotoxic Impurities: Strategies for Identification and Control
GENOTOXIC COMPOUNDS CLASSIFIED ON THE BASIS OF REACTIVITY
10
STRUCTURAL ALERTS FOR MUTAGENICITY
11
PURGE FACTORS
12
TESTS TO INVESTIGATE THE IN VIVO RELEVANCE OF IN VITRO MUTAGENS
13
CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARKETED PRODUCTS
14
Category (Section) Guidance for Re-EvaluationChanges to Drug Substance
Post approval submissions with changes in synthesis or process conditions after the starting material
Not required for changing drug substance site of manufacture, raw materials supplier
Changes to Drug Product New or higher levels of existing mutagenic degradation products when product submission involves change e.g. composition, manufacturing process, dosage form
Not required for changing site of manufactureChanges to Clinical Use Changes in clinical dose or duration of use, change in
indication e.g. life threatening disease to non-life threatening disease or less serious condition
Other Considerations (Q) SAR alert alone does not warrant re-evaluation, unless it is a structure of ‘cohort-of-concern’ (CoC)
Cause for concern 1) New mutagenicity or carcinogenicity data for impurity 2) Newly discovered impurity that is a mutagenic carcinogen or mutagen
Lifecycle Newly identified impurities in products approved after issuance of M7 would be assessed for mutagenicity
CLASSES OF GTIS & THEIR CONTROL
15
Class Definition Proposed action for control
Class 1 Known mutagenic carcinogens ≤ compound-specific limit
Class 2 Known mutagens with unknown carcinogenic potential
≤ appropriate TTC
Class3 Alerting structure, unrelated to structure of DS, no mutagenicity data
≤ appropriate TTC or conduct Ames test (non-mutagenic = Class 5, mutagenic = Class 2)
Class4 Alerting structure, same alert in DS or compounds related to DS which have been tested and are non-mutagenic
Non-mutagenic impurity (ICH Q3A/B)
Class5 No structural alerts, or alerting structure with sufficient data to demonstrate lack of mutagenecity or carcinogenicity
Non-mutagenic impurity (ICH Q3A/B)
RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND ACCEPTABLE INTAKE (AI) Compound-specific acceptable intake for Class 1
impurities M7 addendum of AIs for common reagents (Step 2, Dec
2014)
TTC-based AI for Class 2, 3 impurities (next slide)
Alternative approach described for Phase I trials up to 14 days focus control on Class 1,2 and cohort of concern All other impurities treated as non-mutagenic
Risk approaches apply to all routes of administration and all patient populations (including pregnant women and children)
16
ICH M7
ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKES FOR AN INDIVIDUAL IMPURITY (DURING CLINICAL DEV. & MARKETING)
For intermittent dosing, AI should be based on the total number of dosing days instead dosing span
Number of dosing days should be related to the above table
e.g., for a drug administered once/week for 2 years (104 dosing days) AI per dose is 20μg 17
ICHM7
Single Impurity
ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKES FOR MULTIPLE GIS
For >3 Class 2 or Class 3 mutagenic impurities, above table applies
For combination products each active ingredient should be regulated separately
Degradation products should be controlled individually and a total limit would not apply 18
ICHM7
EXCEPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY IN APPROACHES
Higher acceptable intakes may be justified: When human exposure to the impurity is much greater
from other sources e.g. food or endogenous metabolism (e.g. formaldehyde)
Cases of severe disease, reduced life expectancy, late onset but chronic disease, or with limited therapeutic alternatives.
Based on a risk/benefit analysis when control efforts cannot reduce levels below the acceptable limit and levels are as Low as reasonably practicable (ALARP)
Lower acceptable intake may be justified for some structural classes of mutagens, i.e. aflatoxin-lie-, N-nitroso-, and alkyl-azoxy structures which display extremely high carcinogenic potency
19
ICH M7
OPTIONS FOR CONTROL OF IMPURITIES
Synthesis prior to SM will generally be managed under the applicant’s quality system
Removal of impurity can be monitored through starting material, intermediate, or drug substance specifications, or assured by the manufacturing process controls themselves
20
Starting Material
Synthetic Intermediate
B
Drug Substance
Synthetic Intermediate
B
ICH M7
ADOPTED ALLOWABLE DAILY INTAKES FOR GIS DURING CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT
21
Teasedale A et al. (2010) Genotoxic Impurities: Strategies for Identification and Control
CLASSES OF GTIS & THEIR CONTROL
22
Class Definition Proposed action for control
Class 1 Known mutagenic carcinogens ≤ compound – specific limit
Class 2 Known mutagens with unknown carcinogenic potential
≤ appropriate TTC
Class3 Alerting structure, unrelated to structure of DS, no mutagenicity data
≤ appropriate TTEC or conduct Ames test (non-mutagenic = Class 5, mutagenic = Class 2)
Class4 Alerting structure, same alert in DS or compounds related to DS which have been tested and are non-mutagenic
Non-mutagenic impurity (ICH Q3A/B)
Class5 No structural alerts, or alerting structure with sufficient data to demonstrate lack of mutagenecity or carcinogenicity
Non-mutagenic impurity (ICH Q3A/B)
CONTROL OPTIONS Option 1: Monitor the impurity in the drug
substance Acceptance criterion at or below the TTC
Option 2: Monitor the impurity in intermediate, starting material or in-process control Acceptance criterion at or below the TTC
Option 3: Monitor the impurity in intermediate, starting material or in-process control Acceptance criterion above the TTC, with demonstrated
understanding of fate and purge and associated process controls
Option 4: Design robust process controls to reduce the risk of impurity level above the TTC to negligible23
CONTROL OPTIONS.. Considerations for periodic testing (re: ICHQ6A) Control of potential degradation products
Use of accelerated stability studies or kinetically equivalent studies at higher temperatures to determine relevance of PGTIs
If results of these studies indicate levels of potential degradation products approaching the acceptable limit, then further monitoring or control is expected.
Considerations for Clinical Development Product and process knowledge increases over the course of
development Data to support control strategies in clinical phases will be less
than for marketing registration Use a risk-based approach to prioritize assays on those impurities
with the highest likelihood of being present in DS or DP Efforts associated with drug product degradants will be limited in
the earlier phases 24
ICH M7
DOCUMENTATION
25
Phase (Section)
Recommended Documentation Elements
Clinical Trial Applications (9.1)
Ph 1 <14 days: Report Class 1 and 2 impurities, and those in CoC along with control plans or chemistry arguments. Ph 1 ≥14 days, Ph 2a: Report class 1, 2 and 3 impurities that require analytical control
Ph 2b, Ph 3: Report impurities by (Q)SAR and in silico, control plans or chemistry arguments for Class 1, 2 or 3 actual and potential impurities, bacterial mutagenicity results
CTD (9.2)
(Q)SAR assessments and classifications & rationale for actual and potential impurities/degradants (all Classes): in silico systems described, supporting bacterial mutagenecity reports
Justification for proposed specifications and approaches to control ICH M7
IMPLEMENTATION OF M7 GUIDELINES Final version (Step 4) of M7 was published in July 2014
Because of the complexity of the guideline, implementation of M7 is not expected until 18 January 2016
Applicants may adopt M7 or its portions e.g., <lifetime limits, approaches to control, class-specific limits, until January ’16
Ames tests should be conducted according to M7 irrespective of the stage of development Ames tests conducted prior to publication of M7 need not be repeated
If Ph 2B/3 clinical trials started before M7, M7 does not apply If Ph 2B/3 clinical trials started after M7, implement M7
choose to follow the 18 month grace period (until January 2016)
Due to complexity of commercial manufacturing process, M7 application to new marketing applications without Ph 2B/3 is not expected until July 2017
The 36 month implementation period is also appropriate for applicable post-approved changes
26
ICH M7
CASE STUDY 1: DEFERASIROX (OPTION 1)
OH
COOH
+
OH
CONH2
O
N
O
OH
2-(2-Hydroxy-phenyl)-benzo[e][1,3]oxazin-4-one
C14H9NO3Mol. Wt.: 239.23
C7H7NO2Mol. Wt.: 137.14
C7H6O3Mol. Wt.: 138.12
O
N
O
OH
2-(2-Hydroxy-phenyl)-benzo[e][1,3]oxazin-4-one
C14H9NO3Mol. Wt.: 239.23
+
NHNH2
COOH
N
N
N COOH
OH
HO
4-[3,5-Bis-(2-hydroxy-phenyl)-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl]-benzoic acid
C21H15N3O4Mol. Wt.: 373.36
DEFERASIROX
C7H8N2O2Mol. Wt.: 152.15
4-Hydrazino-benzoic acid
ROS OF DEFERASIROX
Salicylic acid Salicylamide
[4-HBA]
DFX-1
DFX-127
CASE STUDY: DEFERASIROX..
Deferasirox is an oral iron chelator; reduces chronic iron overload from repeated blood transfusions
Genotoxicity prediction using SAR/QSAR & Toxicophore significance by ANOVA, 4-Hydrazino-Benzoic acid (4-HBA) is genotoxic based on structural alerts, literature review and QSAR models*
4-HBA has been used in final stage of the process hence possibility to get carry over in final API Deferasirox
Purification of Deferasirox is achieved by crystallization technique with the different solvent mixture (THF & Methanol mixture)
4-HBA removed from final API by acid - base purification
28
*Mutat. Res. (2008),659(3):248-61
Limit of 4-HBA in Deferasirox final API is 4.0 (µg/ml) and can be quantified using HPLC
HPLC chromatograms of 4-HBA is as below where 4.0 (µg/ml) concentration can be quantified in Deferasirox.
29
CASE STUDY 2: THIONYL CHLORIDE (OPTION 4) Thionyl chloride is a highly reactive compound
that is mutagenic This reagent is introduced in step 1 of a 5-step
synthesis At multiple points in the synthesis, significant
amounts of water are used Since thionyl chloride reacts instantaneously with
water, no residual thionyl chloride would be present in the drug substance
An Option 4 control approach is suitable without the need for any laboratory or pilot scale data
30
CONCLUDING REMARKS M7 guidelines provide recommendations on how to assess and
control genotoxic, mutagenic impurities Selection of potential impurities is based on the risk of presence at
relevant levels in the drug substance or drug product Utilizes SARs to assess and predict mutagenecity potential (Hazard
Identification) and if warranted, control or determine risk (Risk Assessment)
Applies the concept of TTC and classifies impurities into 5 classes based on mutagenecity and carcinogenicity
Applies LTL (Less-Than-Lifetime) limits based on duration of use, providing a flexible and practical approach during clinical development and marketing
Outlines flexible ways to control mutagenic impurities, and a staged approach to documentation during development
Because of the complexity of the guideline, implementation of M7 is not expected until 18 January 2016; in some other cases until July 2017
31
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
32
ACKNOWLWDGEMENT: DRS. VAIBHAV BHATT AND NIKHIL
VAIDYA
BACKUP SLIDES
33
Q3A THRESHOLDS
Any impurity at a level greater than (>) the identification threshold (characterizing the structure of actual impurities) in any batch manufactured by the proposed commercial process should be identified
The quantitation limit for the analytical procedure should be not more than (≤) the reporting threshold
Any impurity at a level greater than (>) the reporting threshold & total impurities observed in these batches of the new drug substance should be reported with the analytical procedures indicated. Below 1.0 percent, the results should be reported to two decimal places (e.g., 0.06 percent, 0.13 percent); at and above 1.0 percent, the results should be reported to one decimal place (e.g., 1.3 percent).
34