It would be useful to understand the reasoning better, but probably just pragmatism backed up by science as @Pradpharma @conudel suggest already?
The 5 ppm temporary limit we also saw for MNP in rifampin (compared to 14 ppm or 20 ppm for CPNP in rifapentine).
Possibly these âFDA does not object againstâ limits are indeed based on pragmatic proposals from applicants and round-up values linked to as is doable levels?
Reason for the other cases not being integrated now in Table 3 as well is not fully clear to me, 1-cyclopentyl-4-nitrosopiperazine hasnât been integrated in any of the tables yet (also not the CPCA one), but in general the FDA tables overly represent nitroso-API and nitroso-desmethylAPI.
Of note in the MNP case a factor 31.25 and 140 applied between the temporary and final AI reported at the time, order of magnitude wise 26.5 (in case of CPCA) to 600 is comparable (factor 22.6).
Indeed @Yosukemino
For temporary limits sometimes the 6.7 popped up in FDA temporary cases, like sitagliptin.
FDA has reported: âIn place of the LTL approach, the FDA implements a flexible approach that allows values higher than the AI as interim limits yet maintaining a 1:100,000 cancer risk. â The recent guidance updates from FDA are still not focusing on LTL too explicitly. But going from 37 to 246.7 ng/day just screams the 6.7 LTL factor doesnât it?
The reporting of 600 ng/day leads indeed to questions because if it is a rounding up thing one could think of calculations and wonder what elements FDA does not object against.
145 ng/day (NDMA) x 326.41/74 = 640 ng/day (ca. 600 ng/day)?
(although NDMA to NDSRI MW correction is less conservative than NNK to NDSRI MW correction)
100 ng/day (NNK) x 6.7 = 670 ng/day (ca. 600 ng/day)?
96 ng/day (NDMA) x 6.7 = 643 ng/day (ca. 600 ng/day)?
None of these are probably linked to the exact reasoning, but it is noteworthy 600 ng/day is higher than readacross based on ICH M7 + MW correction:
- TD50 from the most sensitive species and site for tumors from the most robust study: 145 ng/day for NDMA readacross, 182 ng/day for NNK readacross (â150 ng/dayâ sometimes for combining NNK and NDMA as category).
- N-nitroso-duloxetine (MW 326.41 g/mol): MW factor 1.58 to NNK (and 4.40 to NDMA)
182 ng/day x 1.58 = 288 ng/day
So getting to 600 ng/day could possibly be based on ALARP/Risk/benefit in combination with factor 2 or 6 not significantly impacting the LCR (as well explained by Dr. Johnson in the MfE paper), especially when temporarily applied, but thatâs then going against the earlier confirmation the LCR would be maintained (unless you donât interpret it too exactly)? Unless there is in vivo or in vitro data further supporting the WoE an alternative calculation can be done? (e.g. removal of part of the substitution upon metabolisation as an alternative way of MW correction?)
As FDA said before âyet maintaining a 1:100,000 cancer riskâ for temporary strategies it should be something LTL- or MW-based?
A little bit more out of the box:
For LTL factors, in principle one can also calculate with the exact days of application, possibly FDA or applicant assumes worst case applicability somewhere from 2022-2023 (retroactively) to August 2025 or something similar:
365 x 70/x days = y = 22.6
y = 600/26.5 = 22.6
x = 365 x 70 / 22.6 = 3.097 years (37.7 months)
This is the only calculation so far exactly yielding 600 ng/day I believe (26.5 ng/day + LTL correction for 3 years without going to the categorical factor of 6.7). So staying on the straight line of Figure 1 of ICH M7 instead of the dotted extrapolation to more conservative categorical values (motivated because true AI is likely > 26.5 ng/day? e.g. 22.6/6.7 = 3.4 => this is close to 100/26.5 or 96/26.5 = 3.6).
(FDA assumes prolonging until August 2025 could be needed, based on October 2024 assessment, so Iâm assuming this is already in the value. Considering applicants probably did report in 2022-2023 already, 3 year seems logic, calculating exactly 3 years is again 70/3 x 26.5 = 618 ng/day.)