» Articles » PMID: 40050561

A Phase-Appropriate Risk Assessment Strategy in Support of the Safety of Peptide and Oligonucleotide-Related Impurities

Overview
Journal AAPS J
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2025 Mar 6
PMID 40050561
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There is limited regulatory guidance that outlines the globally acceptable level of individual and total impurities present in peptide and oligonucleotide drug substances that can be supported and accepted during clinical testing. In early clinical development, there is uncertainty regarding the potential toxicological and immunogenicity risk of these impurities relative to the active pharmaceutical ingredient; however, as pharmaceutical development companies move closer to marketing applications, this uncertainty lessens through knowledge gained by clinical and toxicology studies. While these peptide and oligonucleotide related impurities are predicted to be under process control and to have the same safety profile as the parent drug substance, they do not offer any inherent advantages to the patient. Thus, the safety and specification control of these impurities is frequently challenged by regulatory agencies. In support of phase-appropriate control strategies, this manuscript presents a risk-based approach to evaluate the safety of peptide and oligonucleotide impurities from a toxicology and immunogenicity perspective. In many cases, the proposed safety threshold is higher than what is accepted by regulatory bodies, but still is expected to be safe based upon sound toxicological principles which should be the focus for clinical studies. The risk assessment strategies presented here consider the stage of development, indication, potential impact of unintended cross reactivity with endogenous proteins, dose, and frequency of dosing throughout development to inform chemistry manufacturing and control of inherent safety risks associated with API-related impurities. Importantly, for the first time, this manuscript establishes a threshold of immunogenicity concern along with an experimental mitigation plan specifically for peptide impurities as a function of the development phase.

References
2.
Zushin P, Mukherjee S, Wu J . FDA Modernization Act 2.0: transitioning beyond animal models with human cells, organoids, and AI/ML-based approaches. J Clin Invest. 2023; 133(21). PMC: 10617761. DOI: 10.1172/JCI175824. View

3.
Hubrecht R, Carter E . The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(10). PMC: 6826930. DOI: 10.3390/ani9100754. View

4.
Mitra M, Datta K, Hutchinson R, Nicolette J, Pettersen J, Wegesser T . Harmonized 3Rs-based non-mutagenic impurity qualification study designs developed using the results of an IQ consortium survey. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2021; 122:104895. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104895. View

5.
Leach M, Rana P, Hu W, Mittapalli R, Pinkstaff J, Potter D . Translation of nonclinical to clinical safety findings for 27 biotherapeutics. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2024; 484:116854. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2024.116854. View

6.
Munro I, Ford R, Kennepohl E, Sprenger J . Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol. 1996; 34(9):829-67. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(96)00049-x. View