Characterization of currently marketed heparin products ... · 1 Characterization of currently...
Transcript of Characterization of currently marketed heparin products ... · 1 Characterization of currently...
1
Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: Analysis
of heparin digests by mass spectrometry.
David KeireFDA/DPA
09/13/2012
2
DisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this seminar have not been formally disseminated by the Food and Drug Administration and should not be construed to represent any Agency
determination or policy.
3
“What will really improve drug safety is for us to improve the science of safety, and we are working on that. We are working
on better ways to detect safety signals, and we’re working on the mechanistic side to figure out what causes drug safety problems
and how they could be prevented.”Dr. Janet Woodcock
Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research from an interview with Life Science Leader
Knowledge gained from CDER science and research increases the certainty and consistency of regulatory decisions, and contributes to the
development of regulatory guidance documents and best practice standards for pharmaceutical companies.
CDER Scientific Research
4
Heparin
G2OH-(1,4)-ANAc
I2S-(1,4)-ANS,6S
Epimerization andSulfation activity in ER and Golgi
~70% of heparin
Heparin starts out as
~15% of heparin~20% of heparin
Mw~17kDa
5
Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH)• Dalteparin is produced through controlled nitrous
acid depolymerization of UFH heparin• Tinzaparin is obtained by controlled enzymatic
depolymerization of UFH heparin using heparinase from Flavobacterium heparinum
• Enoxaparin is obtained by alkaline depolymerization of UFH heparin benzyl ester
6
Dalteparin
O
OCH2OH
O3SOH2C
O
O2C
HO
OSO3
OH
OH
Dalteparin: Nitrous Acid Deaminative Cleavage
2,5-anhydromannitol(AM.ol6S)
13C: C4-87.9 ppm,C2-85.9 ppmC5-82.3 ppm
245
7
Tinzaparin (Enoxaparin) Ends
O
OHO
NHSO3
O3SO
O
CO2
HO
OSO3
Tinzaparin: (beta-elimination by heparinase)
U2S: 2-O-sulfo-4-deoxy-alpha-L-threo-hex-4-enopyranosil uronic acid
ANS- -reducing end
24
3
OH
ANSred: 5.47/93.9ANAcred: 5.23/93.5
U2S: C1 C2 C3 C45.53/100.1 4.63/77.3 4.32/65.6 6.01/108.7
U2OH: C1 C45.18/103.9 5.83/110.4
8
Enoxaparin Ends
9
Marketplace Heparin Samples• 19 heparin sodium (a.k.a. unfractionated
heparin, UFH) samples from 6 DMF holders of heparin sodium and 10 samples of LMWH (dalteparin, tinzaparin and enoxaparin).
• Plus the USP Heparin Sodium and Enoxaparin identification standards.
• These samples were collected in the summer of 2009 (after the “heparin crisis”).
10
A well characterized sample set• Brustkern, A.M., Buhse, F.L., Nasr, M., Al-Hakim, A. and Keire, D.A.,
“Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: Reverse-phase Ion-pairing liquid chromatography mass spectrometry of heparin digests.” Anal. Chem., 82(23), 9865-9870 (2010).
• Keire D.A., Ye H., Trehy M.L., Ye W., Kolinski R.E., Westenberger B.J., BuhseL.F., Nasr M., and Al-Hakim A., “Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: key tests for quality assurance.” Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 399(2), 581-591(2011).
• Sommers C.D., Ye H., Kolinski R.E., Nasr M., Buhse L.F., Al-Hakim A. and KeireD.A. “Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: Analysis of molecular weight and heparinase-I digest patterns.” Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 401(8), 2445-54, (2011).
• Sommers C.D., Adam A., Montpas N. and Keire D.A., “Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: adverse event relevant bioassays.” J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 67-68, 28-35, (2012).
• Wang B., Buhse L.F., Al-Hakim A., Boyne M.T. II, and Keire D.A., “Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: Analysis of heparin digests by RPIP-UHPLC-QTOF-MS.” J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 67-68, 42-50(2012).
11
Intact heparin• We were unable to resolve mixture of
heparin sodium chains present in the drug on high resolution mass spectrometers.
– 12 Tesla FT-MS system at Wash Univ.-NCRR– Orbitrap systems in our lab.
– Issues were sulfate decomposition (loss of SO3) and the multiple acidic groups leading to adducts with metal cations.
• Thus we used a “bottom up” approach by digesting heparin to the disaccharide level.
12
Reverse phase ion paring liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (RPIP-LC-MS)
13
The heparin family of possible disaccharides:
R1 R2 R3I-S SO3
- SO3- SO3
-
I-A Ac SO3 SO3
I-H H SO3- SO3
-
II-S SO3- SO3
- H
II-A Ac SO3- H
II-H H SO3- H
III-S SO3- H SO3
-
III-A Ac H SO3-
III-H H H SO3-
IV-S SO3- H H
IV-A Ac H H
IV-H H H H
I-P COEt SO3- SO3
-
--
N-sulfated glucosamine species
Internal standard
N-Acetyl glucosamine species
Amine glucosamine species
14
UHPLC of UFH disaccharidesx106
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
0
0.2
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Retention Time (min)
I‐S
I‐A
III‐SII‐S
IV‐A III‐A
II‐AIV‐S
III‐H
II‐H
IV‐H
**
II-S and III-S are isobaric and only differ in the position of a SO4 group.
UFH digest products
Standard mixture of 12 possible disaccharides
Chromatography: Agilent 1290 system using a Waters BEH C18 column (2.1 x 100 mm). Buffer A: 30 mM HA in water at a pH of 5.3 adjusted with formic acid, Buffer B: 75% ACN, 25% water with 30 mM HA
Dynamic range: I-S vs. I-A
15
Enzymatic Digestion Optimizationx106
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
Retention Time (min)
A
B
C
D
E
FIV‐A IV‐S II‐A II‐S III‐S I‐A
III‐A
I
II
III
I + III
II + III
I + II + III
Mainly I-S, no X-A
No I-S; good for IV-A
I-S+good yield of other species
16
II-S in {+} vs. {-} modes
x105
012345
519.1923
620.3133
700.2712
418.0716 750.8327
x105
0
1
2
3
4
416.0530496.0101
m/z
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
{+}
{-}
[M+HA-SO3]+
[M+3HA-2H]+
[M+2HA-H]+[M+HA]+
[M-H]-[M-H-SO3]-
17
Response {+} vs. {-}y = 37951x + 1E+06
R2 = 0.9769
y = 13295x + 19613R2 = 0.9997
0.0E+00
1.0E+07
2.0E+07
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
I-S standard (pmol)
Ion
Peak
Are
a
{-} Better dynamic range and greater linear working range
18
Response factors• Disaccharide standard mixture solutions
containing 12 disaccharides and an internal standard (IP) ranging from 1.1 to 50 µM in 5 steps were analyzed to obtain individual response factors.– EIC chromatograms for observed disaccharide
masses were obtained, summed and divided by the EIC I-P response and plotted vs. pmol injected.
• In general, RF values are higher for species with more sulfate groups.
19
LMWH Digestsx106
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Retention Time (min)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
12
*3
*
x106
Enoxaparin or tinzaparindigests: look like UFH.
Dalteparin digest:Has other disaccharide components.
1 2 3
I-S
20
LMWH Composition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
I‐S II‐S III‐S IV‐S I‐A II‐A III‐A IV‐A
% Com
positio
n
Disaccharides from heparin digest
Dalteparin: Lots #1-4Tinzaparin: Lots #5-7Enoxaparin: Lots #8-10
21
RPIP-LC-MS Heparin Metrics
2 ± 01 ± 05 ± 02 ± 02 ± 05 ± 013 ± 170 ± 1Dalteparin(n=4)
7 ± 11 ± 05 ± 01 ± 06 ± 09 ± 012 ± 060 ± 1Tinzaparin(n=3)
5 ± 01 ± 04 ± 01 ± 05 ± 08 ± 013 ± 062 ± 1Enoxaparin(n=4)
4 ± 1
II-A
14 ± 2
II-S
7 ± 21 ± 01 ± 05 ± 18 ± 061 ± 3Heparin sodium(n=20)
IV-AIII-AI-AIV-SIII-SI-SType
• Here we use the same MS instrument and method across a large sample set to establish a set of percent relative composition values.
• Use for specification or surveillance purposes.
22
Robust?8-5-2011: After 44 samples
8-23-2011: After 35 samples
8-27-2011: Before 60 samples
8-27-2011: After 60 samples
9-8-2011: After 18 samples
23
Robust?6x10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
-ESI TIC Scan Frag=175.0V 09-08-2011-StdMix-2-negative.d
1 1 2
Counts vs. Acquisition Time (min)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
One month with a total of 157 injections.
24
Manufacturer Signature?
7.0 ± 0.30.9 ± 0.14.1 ± 0.21.0 ± 0.04.5 ± 0.27.8 ± 0.211.2 ± 0.163.6 ± 0.820 (USP Reference Standard)
4.8 ± 0.30.8 ± 0.13.4 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.04.4 ± 0.27.5 ± 0.214.8 ± 1.563.3 ± 1.5Manufacturer #6 (lots #17-19)
7.4 ± 0.31.0 ± 0.04.4 ± 0.11.0 ± 0.05.1 ± 0.38.4 ± 0.211.6 ± 0.261.2 ± 1.0Manufacturer #5 (lots #14-16)
6.5 ± 1.00.7 ± 0.15.3 ± 0.61.1 ± 0.14.8 ± 0.37.7 ± 0.416.0 ± 0.957.8 ± 1.9Manufacturer #4 (lots #11-13)
6.4 ± 0.50.8 ± 0.03.9 ± 0.21.0 ± 0.04.8 ± 0.27.8 ± 0.313.8 ± 0.361.4 ± 1.4Manufacturer #3 (lots #8-10)
9.0 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.15.3 ± 0.31.1 ± 0.05.3 ± 0.27.8 ± 0.313.9 ± 0.756.8 ± 1.2Manufacturer #3 (lots #5-7)
3.6 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.13.6 ± 0.11.0 ± 0.03.8 ± 0.07.9 ± 0.117.6 ± 0.161.7 ± 0.2Manufacturer #2 (lot #4)
6.2 ± 0.80.8 ± 0.14.5 ± 0.51.1 ± 0.04.5 ± 0.67.9 ± 0.314.0 ± 0.461.0 ± 2.0Manufacturer #1 (lots #1-3)
IV-AIII-AII-AI-AIV-SIII-SII-SI-SDisaccharides
Samples
• Lots of heparin sodium made by manufacturer #3 have more total N-acetyl content than lots from other manufacturers: mean total N-Acetyl 12.5 ± 2.3% vs. #3 16.2%
• Heparin begins as G2OH-ANAc
25
OSCS Contaminated Heparin Digests?
n.o.n.o.n.o.n.o.n.o.100 ± 0MP#1+10.0% OSCS
n.o.n.o.n.o.2.0 ±0 .33.3 ± 0 .694.6 ± 0.4MP#1+5.0% OSCS
0.2 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.02.0 ± 0.29.9 ± 0.182.8 ± 0.1MP#1+2.0% OSCS
0.2 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.00.4 ± 0.02.0 ± 0.215.2 ± 1.182.0 ± 0.9MP#1+1.0% OSCS
0.3 ± 0.00.6 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.02.1 ± 0.022.7 ± 0.673.3 ± 0.4MP#1+0.5% OSCS
0.2 ± 0.00.8 ± 0.01.4 ± 0.03.0 ± 0.227.5 ± 0.467.1 ± 0.3MP#1+0.1% OSCS
1.2 ± 0.02.3 ± 0.12.6 ± 0.12.7 ± 0.125.6 ± 0.265.6 ± 0.2MP#1
IV-AII-A/III-AI-AIV-SII-S/III-SI-SSample
Brustkern, A.M., Buhse, L.F., Nasr, M., Al-Hakim, A. and Keire, D.A., “Characterization of currently marketed heparin products: Reverse-phase Ion-pairing liquid chromatography mass spectrometry of heparin digests.” Anal. Chem., 82(23), 9865-9870 (2010).
26
• How accurate are these values?– 2D-NMR as an
orthogonal assay.
NMR of intact heparin
27
Orthogonal assay
3074132081MS-Heparin Sodium
2478 ± 2%15 ± 2%19 ± 2%81 ± 2%NMR-Heparin Sodiuma
I2OHI2SANAcANX,6OHANX,6SMonosaccharide
aKeire et al. unpublished results on the analysis of 2D-NMR data of intact heparins.
28
Conclusions1. NMR and MS are information-rich assays for surveillance of
complex drug structure and composition:• Extra peaks or intensity changes are indications of
impurities, contaminants or structure alterations.• Important to establish the normal range of variability for
each drug with a marketplace survey.• Information-rich data sets from a robust method are
amenable to pattern recognition analysis that can make non-subjective pass/fail judgments for complex drugs.
29
People that did the work!• Bo Wang (ORISE)
• Adam Brustkern (ORISE)• Supported by:
– Michael Boyne– Lucinda Buhse
– Ali Al-Hakim