Comparison of permitted daily exposure (PDE) values for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) - Evidence of a robust approach

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105649
Claudia Sehner , Tanja Bernier , Kamila Blum , Nicole Clemann , Milica Glogovac , William A. Hawkins , Martin Kohan , Fenneke Linker , Ester Lovsin-Barle , Osahon Osadolor , Thomas Pfister , Elisa Schulze , Markus Schwind , Gregor Tuschl , Lisa Wiesner
{"title":"Comparison of permitted daily exposure (PDE) values for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) - Evidence of a robust approach","authors":"Claudia Sehner ,&nbsp;Tanja Bernier ,&nbsp;Kamila Blum ,&nbsp;Nicole Clemann ,&nbsp;Milica Glogovac ,&nbsp;William A. Hawkins ,&nbsp;Martin Kohan ,&nbsp;Fenneke Linker ,&nbsp;Ester Lovsin-Barle ,&nbsp;Osahon Osadolor ,&nbsp;Thomas Pfister ,&nbsp;Elisa Schulze ,&nbsp;Markus Schwind ,&nbsp;Gregor Tuschl ,&nbsp;Lisa Wiesner","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Permitted Daily Exposure Limits (PDEs) are set for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) to control cross-contamination when manufacturing medicinal products in shared facilities. With the lack of official PDE lists for pharmaceuticals, PDEs have to be set by each company separately. Although general rules and guidelines for the setting of PDEs exist, inter-company variations in the setting of PDEs occur and are considered acceptable within a certain range. To evaluate the robustness of the PDE approach between different pharmaceutical companies, data on PDE setting of five marketed APIs (amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, metformin, morphine, and omeprazole) were collected and compared. Findings show that the variability between PDE values is within acceptable ranges (below 10-fold) for all compounds, with the highest difference for morphine due to different Point of Departures (PODs) and Adjustment Factors (AFs). Factors of PDE variability identified and further discussed are: (1) availability of data, (2) selection of POD, (3) assignment of AFs, (4) route-to-route extrapolation, and (5) expert judgement and differences in company policies. We conclude that the investigated PDE methods and calculations are robust and scientifically defensible. Additionally, we provide further recommendations to harmonize PDE calculation approaches across the pharmaceutical industry.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024000904","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Permitted Daily Exposure Limits (PDEs) are set for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) to control cross-contamination when manufacturing medicinal products in shared facilities. With the lack of official PDE lists for pharmaceuticals, PDEs have to be set by each company separately. Although general rules and guidelines for the setting of PDEs exist, inter-company variations in the setting of PDEs occur and are considered acceptable within a certain range. To evaluate the robustness of the PDE approach between different pharmaceutical companies, data on PDE setting of five marketed APIs (amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, metformin, morphine, and omeprazole) were collected and compared. Findings show that the variability between PDE values is within acceptable ranges (below 10-fold) for all compounds, with the highest difference for morphine due to different Point of Departures (PODs) and Adjustment Factors (AFs). Factors of PDE variability identified and further discussed are: (1) availability of data, (2) selection of POD, (3) assignment of AFs, (4) route-to-route extrapolation, and (5) expert judgement and differences in company policies. We conclude that the investigated PDE methods and calculations are robust and scientifically defensible. Additionally, we provide further recommendations to harmonize PDE calculation approaches across the pharmaceutical industry.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
活性药物成分 (API) 允许日暴露量 (PDE) 值的比较 - 稳健方法的证据。
为活性药物成分 (API) 设定每日允许接触限值 (PDE),是为了在共用设施生产医药产品时控制交叉污染。由于缺乏官方的药品 PDE 列表,PDE 必须由各公司单独制定。尽管存在设定 PDE 的一般规则和指南,但公司之间在设定 PDE 时仍会出现差异,并且在一定范围内是可以接受的。为了评估不同制药公司之间 PDE 方法的稳健性,我们收集并比较了五种上市原料药(氨氯地平、氢氯噻嗪、二甲双胍、吗啡和奥美拉唑)的 PDE 设置数据。研究结果表明,所有化合物的 PDE 值之间的差异都在可接受的范围内(低于 10 倍),其中吗啡的差异最大,原因是出发点 (POD) 和调整因子 (AF) 不同。已确定并进一步讨论的 PDE 变异因素包括(1) 数据的可用性,(2) POD 的选择,(3) AF 的分配,(4) 路线间外推法,以及 (5) 专家判断和公司政策的差异。我们的结论是,所调查的 PDE 方法和计算是可靠的,在科学上是站得住脚的。此外,我们还提出了进一步的建议,以协调整个制药行业的 PDE 计算方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
期刊最新文献
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals - pesticide regulatory issues from the EU perspective. Updated assessment of the genotoxic potential of titanium dioxide based on reviews of in vitro comet, mode of action and cellular uptake studies, and recent publications. Statistical applications of virtual control groups to nonrodent animal toxicity studies: An initial evaluation. Opportunities and Challenges for Use of Minipigs in Nonclinical Pharmaceutical Development: Results of a Follow-Up IQ DruSafe Survey. Toxicological evaluation of vanadium and derivation of a parenteral tolerable intake value for medical devices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1