Chad P. Satori , Catherine D. Christensen , Stephanie M. Street , Mikaelle Giffin , Christopher M. Pohl , Whitney V. Christian
{"title":"The analytical evaluation threshold for inorganic metal extractables and leachables analysis of medical devices","authors":"Chad P. Satori , Catherine D. Christensen , Stephanie M. Street , Mikaelle Giffin , Christopher M. Pohl , Whitney V. Christian","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Chemical characterization of medical devices uses the analytical evaluation threshold (AET) to determine reportable organic extractables, as these chemicals may be of toxicological concern and should be addressed via toxicological risk assessment. The AET is not applicable to metal extractables due to the exclusion of toxicity data on inorganics from the dataset used to derive dose-based threshold (DBT) values. This results in minimal guidance for reporting metal extractables. Herein, an AET for metals, or mAET, is proposed as a reporting threshold for individual metal extractables. The mAET can ensure metals are reported that are at quantities that may present a patient safety risk. This may reduce the number of metals reported in a chemical characterization report, improving the efficiency of the overall biocompatibility evaluation by removing unneeded effort and resource time. Conversely, an analytical method's ability to report all metals at toxicologically relevant levels can be confirmed by comparing method sensitivity to mAET values. DBTs were developed for 70 metals, permitting mAET values to be determined. These mAET values were then compared to metal reporting limits from 13 previously conducted chemical characterization studies, which used varying extraction designs and analytical methods, to determine the impact of the mAET.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 105725"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","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/S0273230024001661","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
Chemical characterization of medical devices uses the analytical evaluation threshold (AET) to determine reportable organic extractables, as these chemicals may be of toxicological concern and should be addressed via toxicological risk assessment. The AET is not applicable to metal extractables due to the exclusion of toxicity data on inorganics from the dataset used to derive dose-based threshold (DBT) values. This results in minimal guidance for reporting metal extractables. Herein, an AET for metals, or mAET, is proposed as a reporting threshold for individual metal extractables. The mAET can ensure metals are reported that are at quantities that may present a patient safety risk. This may reduce the number of metals reported in a chemical characterization report, improving the efficiency of the overall biocompatibility evaluation by removing unneeded effort and resource time. Conversely, an analytical method's ability to report all metals at toxicologically relevant levels can be confirmed by comparing method sensitivity to mAET values. DBTs were developed for 70 metals, permitting mAET values to be determined. These mAET values were then compared to metal reporting limits from 13 previously conducted chemical characterization studies, which used varying extraction designs and analytical methods, to determine the impact of the mAET.
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)