Jordi Mark, Heise Ted
Jordi Labs, Mansfield, MA; and
MED Institute Inc., West Lafayette, IN.
PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2021 May-Jun;75(3):289-301. doi: 10.5731/pdajpst.2020.012047. Epub 2020 Nov 16.
To address patient safety, a drug product is chromatographically screened for organic leachables. Similarly, medical device and packaging system extracts are chromatographically screened for organic extractables as probable leachables. To protect patient health, the screening methods must respond to all potentially unsafe substances. To be efficient, analytes determined to be below the toxicologically relevant threshold are removed from consideration before the subsequent analytical tasks of identification and quantitation are performed. The analytical evaluation threshold (AET) was established for use as a toxicologically relevant threshold to differentiate between chromatographic peaks that are unlikely to be unsafe (and thus do not need safety assessment) and those that are possibly unsafe (and thus require safety assessment). In practice, the instrumental response associated with the AET is determined using surrogate standards. It is then assumed that the response strength for an unknown extractable is equivalent to that for the surrogate standard at the AET concentration (i.e., relative response factor = 1). It is an unfortunate reality that response factors vary for different compounds on nearly all detector systems. This complicates the application of the AET and can result in a failure to include potentially toxicologically relevant compounds in the identification phase of the analysis. To ensure protection, an uncertainty factor was built into the AET equation that adjusts the AET downward to address response variation. Although this mechanism does increase the protectiveness of the AET, it assumes that the available methodology and instrumentation is sufficiently sensitive to reach the new lowered AET value. However, in some cases, the response variation is so great and the resulting uncertainty factor so large that the revised AET is below the achievable sensitivity specifications of even state-of-the art, expertly operated instrumental technologies. The only option then remaining is to concentrate the samples, which can result in adverse effects on analysis quality-counteracting the perceived benefit of lowering the AET. This article demonstrates how an analytical strategy based on methods with multiple complementary and orthogonal detection techniques (a multidetector approach) mitigates the problem of response factor variation and thus eliminates the need for large uncertainty factors and the resulting lower AET values. The primary concept is that all analytes only need to be effectively detected by at least one of the combination of detectors applied, and it is this effective technique (combination of all detectors and chromatographic methods utilized) that is used to perform the AET assessment.
为确保患者安全,需对药品进行有机可溶出物的色谱筛选。同样,需对医疗设备和包装系统提取物进行有机可提取物的色谱筛选,以确定可能的可溶出物。为保护患者健康,筛选方法必须能检测出所有潜在的不安全物质。为提高效率,在进行后续的鉴定和定量分析任务之前,需将测定结果低于毒理学相关阈值的分析物排除在考虑范围之外。设立分析评估阈值(AET)作为毒理学相关阈值,以区分不太可能不安全的色谱峰(因此无需进行安全性评估)和可能不安全的色谱峰(因此需要进行安全性评估)。在实际操作中,使用替代标准物确定与AET相关的仪器响应。然后假设在AET浓度下未知可提取物的响应强度与替代标准物的响应强度相当(即相对响应因子 = 1)。不幸的是,几乎所有检测系统中不同化合物的响应因子都有所不同。这使得AET的应用变得复杂,并可能导致在分析的鉴定阶段未能纳入潜在的毒理学相关化合物。为确保防护,在AET方程中纳入一个不确定因子来向下调整AET,以应对响应变化。尽管这种机制确实提高了AET 的防护性,但它假定现有的方法和仪器足够灵敏,能够达到新降低后的AET值。然而,在某些情况下,响应变化非常大且由此产生的不确定因子也非常大,以至于修订后的AET甚至低于最先进的、操作熟练的仪器技术所能达到的灵敏度规格要求。那么剩下的唯一选择就是对样品进行浓缩,但这可能会对分析质量产生不利影响,抵消降低AET所带来的预期益处。本文展示了基于多种互补和正交检测技术的分析策略(多检测器方法)如何减轻响应因子变化的问题,从而消除对大的不确定因子以及由此产生较低AET值的需求。主要理念是所有分析物只需通过所应用的检测器组合中的至少一种得到有效检测,正是这种有效技术(所使用的所有检测器和色谱方法的组合)用于进行AET评估。