Abstract
The use of novel non-testing methodologies to support the toxicological assessment of drug impurities is having a growing impact in the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical development and marketed products. For DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities specific recommendations for the use of in silico structure-based approaches (namely (Q)SAR methodologies) are provided in the ICH M7 guideline. In 2018 a draft reflection paper has been published by EMA addressing open issues in the qualification approach of non-genotoxic impurities (NGI) according to the ICH Q3A/Q3B guidelines, and proposing the use of alternative testing strategies, including TTC, (Q)SAR, read-across, and in vitro approaches, to gather impurity-specific safety information.
In the present chapter we describe a workflow to perform the safety assessment of drug impurities based on non-testing in silico methodologies. The proposed approach consists of a stepwise decision scheme including three key phases: PHASE 1: assessment of bacterial mutagenicity and consequent classification of impurities according to ICH M7; PHASE 2: risk characterization of mutagenic impurities (Classes 1, 2 or 3); PHASE 3: qualification of non-mutagenic impurities (Classes 4 or 5). The proposed decision scheme offers the possibility to acquire impurity-specific data, also if testing is not feasible, and to decide on further in vitro testing, besides meeting 3R’s principle.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ECHA—European Chemical Agency (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.6: QSARs and grouping of chemicals. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r6_en.pdf/77f49f81-b76d-40ab-8513-4f3a533b6ac9. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
ICH—International Conference on Harmonisation (2006) Impurities in new drug substances—Q3A(R2). Current Step 4 version. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
ICH—International Conference on Harmonisation (2006) Impurities in new drug products—Q3B(R2). Current Step 4 version. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (2009) Guidance on nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals—M3(R2). Current Step 4 version. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html. Accessed 6 May 2015
ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (2017) Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk—M7. Current Step 4 version. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
EMA—European Medicines Agency (2018) Reflection paper on the qualification of non-genotoxic impurities. Draft, 15 November 2018. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-qualification-non-genotoxic-impurities_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
EFSA—European Food Safety Authority and WHO—World Health Organization (2016) Review of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach and development of new TTC decision tree. EFSA Support Pub 13(3):1006E
Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL (1978) Estimation of toxic hazard—a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 16(3):255–276
Toxtree (Toxic Hazard Estimation by decision tree approach), version 3.1.0 (2018) Ideaconsult, Sofia, Bulgaria. http://toxtree.sourceforge.net/index.html
OECD (2020) (Q)SAR application toolbox, version 4.4. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Helsinki. https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/oecd-qsar-toolbox.htm
Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E et al (1996) Correlation of structural class with 271 no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of toxicological concern. Food Chem Toxicol 34:829–867
Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M et al (2004) Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 42(1):65–83
EFSA—European Food Safety Authority Scientific Committee (2012) Scientific opinion on exploring options for providing advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). EFSA J 10(7):2750
Tluczkiewicz I, Buist HE, Martin MT et al (2011) Improvement of the Cramer classification for oral exposure using the database TTC Repdose—a strategy description. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:340–350
Drew R, Frangos J (2007) The concentration of no toxicological concern (CoNTC): a risk assessment screening tool for air toxics. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 70:1584–1593
Carthew P, Clapp C, Gutsell S (2009) Exposure based waiving: the application of the toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) to inhalation exposure for aerosol ingredients in consumer products. Food Chem Toxicol 47:1287–1295
Escher SE, Tluczkiewicz I, Batke M et al (2010) Evaluation of inhalation TTC values with the database RepDose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58:259–274
Barle E, Winkler GC, Glowienke S et al (2016) Setting occupational exposure limits for genotoxic substances in the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol Sci 151:2–9
Schuurmann G, Ebert RU, Tluczkiewicz I et al (2016) Inhalation threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)—structural alerts discriminate high from low repeated-dose inhalation toxicity. Environ Int 88:123–132
Tluczkiewicz I, Kuhne R, Ebert RU et al (2016) Inhalation TTC values: a new integrative grouping approach considering structural, toxicological and mechanistic features. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 78:8–23
Chebekoue SF, Krishnan K (2017) Derivation of occupational thresholds of toxicological concern for systemically acting noncarcinogenic organic chemicals. Toxicol Sci 160:47–56
Safford RJ (2008) The dermal sensitisation threshold—a TTC approach for allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 51:195–200
Safford RJ, Aptula AO, Gilmour N (2011) Refinement of the dermal sensitisation threshold (DST) approach using a larger dataset and incorporating mechanistic chemistry domains. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 60:218–224
Williams FM, Rothe H, Barrett G et al (2016) Assessing the safety of cosmetic chemicals: consideration of a flux decision tree to predict dermally delivered systemic dose for comparison with oral TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 76:174–186
Partosch F, Mielke H, Stahlmann R et al (2015) Internal threshold of toxicological concern values: enabling route-to-route extrapolation. Arch Toxicol 89:941–948
Ellison CA, Blackburn KL, Carmichael PL et al (2019) Challenges in working towards an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC) for use in the safety assessment of cosmetics: discussions from the cosmetics Europe iTTC Working Group workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 103:63–72
Ellison CM, Sherhod R, Cronin MT et al (2011) Assessment of methods to define the applicability domain of structural alert models. Chem Inf Model 51(5):975–985
Hillebrecht A, Muster W, Brigo A et al (2011) Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations. Chem Res Toxicol 24(6):843–854
OECD—Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006) Report on the regulatory uses and applications in OECD member countries of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] models in the assessment of new and existing chemicals. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment No. 58. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)25. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2006)25&doclanguage=en. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
OECD—Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] models. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2 http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2007)2&doclanguage=en. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Serafimova R, Gatnik MF, Worth A (2010) Review of QSAR models and software tools for predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. JRC scientific and technical reports EUR 24427 EN. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC59068. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Worth AP, Lapenna S, Serafimova R (2013) QSAR and metabolic assessment tools in the assessment of genotoxicity. Methods Mol Biol 930:125–162
Roncaglioni A, Toropov AA, Toropova AP et al (2013) In silico methods to predict drug toxicity. Curr Opin Pharmacol 13(5):802–806
Fioravanzo F, Bassan A, Pavan M et al (2012) Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities. SAR QSAR Environ Res 23(3-4):257–277
Cassano A, Raitano G, Mombelli E et al (2014) Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of ames genotoxicity: a retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 32(3):273–298
ACD/Percepta, release 2018. Advanced Chemistry Development, Toronto, ON. www.acdlabs.com
Lanevskij K, Juska L, Dapkunas J et al (2012) In silico test battery for rapid evaluation of genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Poster presented at 243rd ACS National meeting, San Diego, CA, 25–29 March 2012
ChemTunes/ToxGPS. Database and knowledgebase for safety evaluation and risk assessment, version 1.2, Altamira LLC and Molecular Networks GmbH. https://www.mn-am.com/products/chemtunestoxgps
Leadscope Model Applier, version 3.0 (2020) Leadscope, Columbus, OH. http://www.leadscope.com
TopKat (TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology), release 2020 Dassault Systèmes, BIOVIA Corp., San Diego, CA. http://www.3dsbiovia.com
Ferrari T, Gini G (2010) An open source multistep model to predict mutagenicity from statistical analysis and relevant structural alerts. Chem Cent J 4(Suppl 1):S2
VegaNIC Application (Virtual Models for evaluating the properties of chemicals within a global architecture), version 1.1.5. Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology of Mario Negri Institute of Pharmacological Research, Milano, IT. http://www.vega-qsar.eu/download.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Benigni R, Bossa C, Jeliazkova N et al (2008) The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity—a module of Toxtree. JRC scientific and technical reports, EUR 23241 EN. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/benigni-bossa-rulebase-mutagenicity-and-carcinogenicity-module-toxtree. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Pavan M, Kovarich S, Bassan A et al (2016) The consultancy activity on in silico models for genotoxic prediction of pharmaceutical impurities. In: Benfenati E (ed) In silico methods for predicting drug toxicity. Humana Press, New York
ECHA—European Chemicals Agency (2012) Practical guide 6: how to report read-across and categories. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/6362380/7127661/pg_report_readacross_en.pdf/69860e5b-c669-4a0d-b868-72f5dba5b560. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
ECHA—European Chemicals Agency (2017) Read-across assessment framework (RAAF). https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/raaf_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Kovarich S, Ceriani L, Fuart Gatnik M et al (2019) Filling data gaps by read-across: a mini review on its application, developments and challenges. Mol Inf 38:1800121
Schultz TW, Amcoff P, Berggren E et al (2015) A strategy for structuring and reporting a read-across prediction of toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72(3):586–601
ToxRead, version 0.17 BETA (2019) Laboratory of environmental chemistry and toxicology of Mario Negri Institute of pharmacological research, Milano, IT. https://www.vegahub.eu/portfolio-item/toxread/. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Ambit, version 4.0.1 (2021) Ideaconsult, Sofia, Bulgaria. https://ambitlri.ideaconsult.net/tool2
Patlewicz G, Helman G, Pradeep P et al (2017) Navigating through the minefield of read-across tools: a review of in silico tools for grouping. Comp Toxicol 3:1–18
Judson P (2009) Combining predictions. In: Royal Society of Chemistry (ed) Knowledge-based expert systems in chemistry: not counting on computers. Royal Society of Chemistry, GB
Cronin MTD (2010) Prediction of harmful human health effects of chemicals from structure. In: Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, MTD C (eds) Recent advances in QSAR Studies. Challenges and advances in computational chemistry and physics, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht
Ellison CM, Madden JC, Judson P et al (2010) Using in silico tools in a weight of evidence approach to aid toxicological assessment. Mol Inf 26(1-2):97–110
ECHA—European Chemicals Agency (2016) Practical guide—how to use alternatives to animal testing to fulfil your information requirements for REACH registration. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13655/practical_guide_how_to_use_alternatives_en.pdf/148b30c7-c186-463c-a898-522a888a4404. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Sutter A, Amberg A, Boyer S et al (2013) Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67(1):39–52
Nendza M, Gabbert S, Kühne R et al (2013) A comparative survey of chemistry-driven in silico methods to identify hazardous substances under REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 66(3):301–314
Dobo KL, Greene N, Fred C et al (2012) In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 62(3):449–455
Powley MW (2014) (Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71(2):295–300
Naven RT, Greene N, Williams RV (2012) Latest advances in computational genotoxicity prediction. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 8(12):1579–1587
Williams RV, Amberg A, Brigo A et al (2016) It’s difficult, but important, to make negative predictions. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 76:79–86
Nohmi T (2018) Thresholds of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Toxicol Res 34(4):281–290
ICH—International Conference on Harmonisation (2016) Impurities: guideline for residual solvents. Q3C(R6). https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3C-R6_Guideline_ErrorCorrection_2019_0410_0.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
ICH—International Conference on Harmonisation (2019) Guideline for elemental impurities Q3D(R1). https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3D-R1EWG_Document_Step4_Guideline_2019_0322.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
EFSA Scientific Committee, More SJ, Bampidis V et al (2019) Guidance on the use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach in food safety assessment. EFSA J 17(6): 5708. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5708. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Amberg A, Beilke L, Bercu J et al (2016) Principles and procedures for implementation of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 77:13–24
Amberg A, Andaya RV, Anger LT et al (2019) Principles and procedures for handling out-of-domain and indeterminate results as part of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 102:53–64
EMA—European Medicines Agency (2020) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) assessment report—nitrosamine impurities in human medicinal products. EMA/369136/2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/nitrosamines-emea-h-a53-1490-assessment-report_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
EMA—European Medicines Agency (2021) Questions and answers for marketing authorisation holders/applicants on the CHMP Opinion for the Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 referral on nitrosamine impurities in human medicinal products. EMA/409815/2020 Rev.2. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/nitrosamines-emea-h-a53-1490-questions-answers-marketing-authorisation-holders/applicants-chmp-opinion-article-53-regulation-ec-no-726/2004-referral-nitrosamine-impurities-human-medicinal-products_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
FDA—Food and Drug Administration (2021) Control of nitrosamine impurities in human drugs—guidance for industries. Revision 1. https://www.fda.gov/media/141720/download. Accessed 31 Mar 2021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Kovarich, S., Cappelli, C.I. (2022). Use of In Silico Methods for Regulatory Toxicological Assessment of Pharmaceutical Impurities. In: Benfenati, E. (eds) In Silico Methods for Predicting Drug Toxicity. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2425. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1960-5_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1960-5_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1959-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1960-5
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols