Mitigating nitrosamine formation has become a key concern for pharmaceutical formulators. In a recent webinar, Roquette presented a three-pronged approach: selecting low-nitrite excipients, controlling environmental and processing conditions, and performing early-stage risk assessments during formulation development. We speak with Roquette’s Senior Area Marketing Manager for Greater Asia and China Amit Chivate to learn more.
Nitrosamine formation can be mitigated using excipients, process control, and early risk assessments. Which element tends to be the most challenging to implement for manufacturers, and why?
In the context of managing nitrosamine formation risks, early risk assessment tends to be the most challenging element. The complexity here arises from several factors – effectively predicting potential formation pathways demands sophisticated analytical tools and a deep understanding of chemical interactions, which are both resource-intensive to develop and validate. This difficulty is compounded by the critical need for high-quality data on raw materials and manufacturing processes – the availability of which isn’t always assured.
In addition, staying abreast of evolving global regulatory requirements adds another layer of uncertainty. Integrating these assessments into existing drug development workflows often requires significant organizational shifts and fresh rounds of compliance training. The substantial investments in time, technology, and expertise ultimately required for a thorough early risk assessment can strain resources, particularly for smaller companies balancing multiple operational demands.
This is not to say, however, that excipients and process control do not also present challenges. In these instances, I recommend a proactive approach that includes the in-depth analyses of raw materials and manufacturing processes formulators need to plan their early risk assessments.
Can you share any examples or case studies where applying your framework led to a measurable reduction in nitrosamine levels or prevented regulatory action?
We’re currently conducting studies to assess the impact of our mitigation framework, particularly regarding APIs known for their sensitivity to nitrosamine formation. The factors under investigation include modifications to the manufacturing process, adjustments in temperature exposure, and the incorporation of excipients with different levels of water activity and water-scavenging properties. I look forward to sharing more detailed results and insights as we continue to develop and refine our framework.
How do formulators strike a balance between functionality and nitrosamine risk when selecting excipients?
Look for suppliers that guarantee low nitrite levels in their excipients. In the case of oral solid dosage forms, selecting excipient grades suitable for direct compression makes a key difference because this removes the additional steps of wetting and drying involved in wet granulation – both of which can promote nitrosamine generation.
Where direct compression isn't feasible, alternative dry granulation techniques, such as roll compaction, offer a good alternative, particularly when paired with excipients that exhibit low water activity or water-scavenging properties. At the end of the production line, innovative low-temperature tablet coating systems also help to lower nitrosamine risk, while ramping up production efficiency and quality.
Excipient suppliers have a role to play in providing low-risk solutions and tailored support on how best to implement them for safe and successful results.
Are there any particular classes of excipients that are under-scrutinized in terms of nitrosamine-forming potential?
It’s challenging to identify specific classes of ingredients that are under-scrutinized. In theory, as long as excipient suppliers implement thorough risk assessment measures, conduct quality checks, and use appropriately sensitive and validated analytical tools, it is unlikely that any particular product would be overlooked in terms of scrutiny.
It’s important to note, however, that the depth of understanding and extent of scrutiny may vary from one supplier to another. This variation stems from the resource-intensive nature of comprehensive nitrosamine risk assessment programs, which can pose challenges for suppliers based on resource allocation, time, and expertise. So, while the industry as a whole strives for rigorous evaluation, some discrepancies in scrutiny levels may occur. Ongoing diligence and collaboration among suppliers are essential to ensure consistent and complete evaluation of nitrosamine-forming potential.
What are the technical or sourcing challenges involved in manufacturing and validating low nitrite excipients?
The term "low" is relative and can be difficult to define without established benchmarks. To overcome this, we have undertaken thorough investigations to ascertain and set appropriate values.
Other major challenges lie in developing matrix-specific testing methods for nitrite levels – as no single approach works for every excipient – and in managing the sheer volume of samples that require testing as a result. Controlling the excipient manufacturing process is also paramount, as variations in synthesis can introduce amines and nitrosating compounds, paving the way for nitrosamine formation. This extends to validating all reagents, water, and cleaning processes to ensure they don't inadvertently raise risk levels.
The origin and natural variability of raw materials are critical factors, requiring careful monitoring and standardization to mitigate their impact on nitrosamine risk. The ability to closely monitor sourcing practices with a vertically integrated supply chain is valuable here, but the work to maintain high standards of traceability is tireless, nevertheless.
How well do current regulatory guidelines support risk-based approaches to nitrosamine mitigation, especially during early-stage formulation?
Regulatory bodies are actively guiding pharmaceutical manufacturers in the fight against nitrosamines. They strongly advocate for early and comprehensive risk assessments during drug development, enabling formulators to proactively identify and mitigate potential nitrosamine issues right from the start of production. Notable examples include the EMA’s detailed questions and answers documents that provide marketing authorization holders with guidance on avoiding nitrosamine impurities, as well as the FDA's Control of Nitrosamine Impurities in Human Drugs documents, outlining expectations for risk evaluation, assessment, and confirmatory testing.
Regulators also provide invaluable guidance on validated analytical methods, empowering companies to implement robust testing protocols essential for effective risk mitigation. These guidelines are designed to be dynamic – continuously evolving and adapting to our growing understanding of nitrosamine risks to ensure they remain relevant and supportive of new technologies and mitigation strategies. We can see this in action with the FDA’s introduction of its new Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach (CPCA) earlier this year, offering a comprehensive, chemistry-based framework for assessing the carcinogenic potential of and acceptable intake limits for N-nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities.
Are there inconsistencies in how global regulatory authorities respond to mitigation strategies?
While it may appear that there are inconsistencies in how global regulatory authorities approach mitigation strategies for nitrosamine risks, it’s more accurate to describe these differences as variations in specific regulatory requirements. Each authority has its own criteria for defining acceptable levels of nitrosamines for particular APIs, which are influenced by the methodologies used to assess the genotoxicity of these compounds. For example, the FDA now uses its CPCA, which is based on extrapolating data on the chemical structures of APIs, rather than relying on (often unavailable) data gathered on similar drug products. These variations can create the impression of inconsistencies, but they are largely driven by each regulatory body's framework and scientific assessments. Understanding these distinct approaches helps drug developers navigate compliance across different regions, and ensures that mitigation strategies are effectively tailored to meet the specific requirements of each authority. Maintaining an ongoing dialogue and spirit of collaboration is the best way regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders can work to harmonize standards and continue to improve patient safety in the process.
Looking ahead, what role could AI or predictive modeling play in assessing nitrosamine formation risk?
AI and predictive modeling will play an essential role in progressing our understanding of nitrosamine formation risk and how it can be mitigated. AI can process vast datasets extremely quickly to identify potential nitrosamine formation pathways, offering a comprehensive overview of risk factors to allow formulators to develop and tailor their mitigation strategies. Predictive modeling can then harness this data for the simulation of various formulation scenarios, forecasting potential risks even before physical trials begin, which facilitates early-stage intervention and optimization.
AI-driven insights can also support regulatory compliance by aligning risk assessment methodologies with standards set by regulators, and streamline the drug development process by reducing empirical testing requirements, accelerating timelines, and lowering costs. The potential of these technologies is truly vast, but it must be mentioned that they are only as accurate as the datasets they were trained on, and only accountable when overseen by knowledgeable and experienced drug development specialists.
What further research is needed — either on excipients or reaction mechanisms — to refine understanding of nitrosamine formation pathways?
Nitrosamine formation is a continuously evolving topic, and as we deepen our understanding, we refine our strategies for risk mitigation. Several areas require focused research to enhance our approach, including detailed studies on how various excipients interact with APIs to identify the properties and compositions influencing nitrosamine formation under varying environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity. The development and validation of new analytical techniques to detect and quantify trace levels of nitrites and nitrosamines are crucial, as these methods will facilitate precise monitoring and assessment of nitrosamine risks across diverse formulations and manufacturing processes.
Deepening our understanding of how different manufacturing factors, such as heat exposure, solvent use, and cleaning procedures, contribute to nitrosamine formation is another non-negotiable for optimizing production practices. Addressing these key development areas and supporting drug manufacturers to more effectively manage nitrosamine risks ultimately speaks to the industry’s number one priority – keeping patients safe.
Newsletters
Receive the latest pharmaceutical news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
