Update of the CMDh's Q&A Document on Nitrosamine Impurities

The CMDh (Coordinating Group for the Mutual Recognition Procedure/Centralised Approval Procedure for Medicinal Products for Human Use) Questions & Answers on the implementation of the outcome of Art.31 referral on angiotensin II receptor antagonists (sartans) containing a tetrazole group provides guidance to marketing authorization holders of sartan medicinal products on submitting change requests required in the context of the “Call for Review” related to nitrosamine impurities.

This document was updated last in December 2021 and addresses the response to question 7, which explains and defines change notifications and their classification - " Which variations are necessary to lift the conditions on the MA? "

Specifically, it addresses updates related to " Condition B " and " Condition D ".

Background

Regulatory submissions for all sartan medicinal products (angiotensin II receptor antagonists) that contain a tetrazole ring as a molecular structural element must meet four conditions (A - D).

Condition A:
The marketing authorization holder must ensure that the manufacturing process of the active substances used has been reviewed with regard to the risk of formation of nitrosamine impurities and, if necessary, modified in such a way that this risk is largely minimized.

Condition B:
The marketing authorization holder shall ensure that the manufacturing process of the finished product has been reviewed with regard to the risk of formation of nitrosamine impurities and, if necessary, has been modified in such a way that this risk is substantially minimized.

Condition C:
The marketing authorization holder shall ensure that a control strategy is in place for the batches of active substance used .

Condition D:

  • The marketing authorization holder shall establish the following finished product specification for N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA): NDMA (96 ng/day); NDEA (26.5 ng/day)

  • This specification can only be omitted if the evidence is provided that the nitrosamine levels are consistently at ≤ 10% of these limits and the reason for the contamination is known and well understood.

  • Skip testing is only justified if it is demonstrated that the nitrosamine levels are consistently at ≤ 30% of these limits and the reason for the contamination is known and well understood.

  • If both nitrosamines are present at the same time, the cumulative risk must not exceed the 1:100,000 risk of developing cancer if the drug is taken for life .
    Alternative approach: The sum of both nitrosamines must not exceed the limit of the most toxic nitrosamine, NDEA . The marketing authorization holder shall plausibly justify the choice of approach.

  • The authorization holder must ensure that the control strategy for all nitrosamines is updated accordingly.

Update of "Condition B"
The marketing authorization holder has the following two options - depending on the result of the confirmatory test for nitrosamine impurities in the finished product - to fulfill or lift “Condition B”:

  • No nitrosamine impurities were detected or the test showed levels <10% of the acceptable intake (AI) : After submission of the responses according to Step 2 of the Call for Review, the result of the risk assessment must be submitted using the “No nitrosamine detected response template” as a variation of type IA C.I.11.a .

  • Nitrosamine impurities >10% of the AI have been detected: in addition to the submission of a variation concerning the manufacturing process, the introduction of a limit in the finished product specification is required. In doing so, the marketing authorization holder must follow the guidance provided in the Q&A document on Art. 5(3) Referral (Question 10).

Update of “Condition D”
This update refers to the possibility for the marketing authorization holder to waive the specification by applying for a variation of type IB C.I.11.z and submitting supporting data. However, such data may only refer to NDMA and NDEA in such an application. Data on any other nitrosamine species present must be submitted in a separate variation application, grouped if necessary.

1 Like

@AndyTeasdale @conudel anything additional to add or comment? Thx

CMDh added an option to to introduce a limit in the specification of the FP as a possibility for lifting the condition on the risk assessment (RA) for the finished product. It would be nice if we could get some guidance from CMDh on how to actually set limits, particularly for complex nitrosamines. Until now we don’t have clear guidance on how to perform acceptable QSAR/read-across analysis to set acceptable intakes (AIs); a negative Ames test is not currently accepted (even when using the modified protocols); the Comet assay is not accepted yet; the molecular weight adjustment (molar ratio) method is not yet accepted; the criteria for selection of adequate surrogates from the LCDB to read-across from to complex nitrosamines is not clear; which TD50 should be used from the LCDB, the harmonic mean TD50, the lowest Gold TD50, the lowest Lhasa TD50? The HAs themselves have done some read-across for the nitrosamines currently listed in their guidelines, but their selection of surrogates is questionable as there are better surrogates to be found. Too many issues are still unclear and the burden falls on the industry to try and guess which method will be accepted by the agencies. Setting an acceptable limit is almost like playing a game of roulette.