What Are Extractables and Leachables?

Extractables are compounds that can be forced out of container materials using aggressive solvents under exaggerated conditions. They represent the worst-case potential for contamination.

Leachables are compounds that actually migrate into the drug product under real storage or usage conditions. They reflect the true patient exposure risk.

Both must be evaluated during container qualification and stability testing, especially for products with long shelf lives, high sensitivities, or delivered via parenteral or inhalation routes.

Why E&L Testing Is Required

• To prevent chemical contamination of the drug product
• To support toxicological safety and patient protection
• To meet global regulatory requirements (e.g., USP , , ICH Q3D)
• To qualify packaging components as part of CTD Module 3 submissions
• To comply with GMP risk-based design and lifecycle approach

Failure to provide E&L data has resulted in delayed approvals and regulatory warning letters.

Step-by-Step Guide to E&L Testing

Step 1: Risk Assessment and Material Selection

Begin with a comprehensive risk assessment based on:

• Drug dosage form (e.g., injectable, inhaled, ophthalmic = high risk)
• Contact time and conditions (e.g., long-term liquid contact)
• Packaging material composition (e.g., elastomers, plastics, adhesives)
• Patient population (e.g., pediatrics, geriatrics = more sensitive)

Materials with high extractables potential (e.g., PVC, rubber) require more stringent evaluation.

Step 2: Design of Extractables Study

• Use exaggerated conditions: high temperature, strong solvents, prolonged contact
• Solvents commonly used: water, 50% ethanol, isopropanol, acid/base buffers
• Time points: 24 hours to 1 week, depending on material and solvent
• Analytical methods: GC-MS, LC-MS, FTIR, ICP-MS, UV, TOC
• Ensure method validation for specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility

Results form the “Extractables Profile” for the component under test.

Step 3: Design of Leachables Study

Leachables studies must reflect actual conditions of drug product storage:

• Use final drug product formulation
• Use market packaging configuration (e.g., vial + stopper + seal)
• Store under ICH conditions (e.g., 25°C/60% RH, 40°C/75% RH)
• Typical time points: 1, 3, 6, 12 months
• Screen for targeted and untargeted leachables using validated methods

Compare leachables to extractables profile to understand potential migration patterns.

Step 4: Toxicological Assessment of Leachables

Every leachable compound detected must undergo a toxicological evaluation. Key considerations include:

• Structural identification: Match each peak to known chemical entities
• Safety thresholds: Compare detected levels with PDEs (Permitted Daily Exposures) per ICH Q3D
• Genotoxicity screening: For unknown or borderline compounds
• Risk characterization: Based on route of administration, patient population, and cumulative exposure

Summarize all results in a toxicological risk assessment report, ideally prepared by a qualified toxicologist.

Reporting E&L Findings in Regulatory Submissions

Results must be included in CTD Module 3, specifically:

• 3.2.P.2.4: Discussion of packaging development and rationale
• 3.2.P.7: Specifications of container closure components and E&L data
• 3.2.P.8: Stability data showing leachables over time

Attach study protocols, raw data, chromatograms, validation reports, and toxicological summaries in Module 3.3 (Regional Information).

Regulatory Guidelines Referencing E&L

Global regulatory expectations for extractables and leachables include:

• USP : Assessment of Extractables Associated with Pharmaceutical Packaging
• USP : Assessment of Drug Product Leachables
• FDA Guidance: Container Closure Systems for Packaging Human Drugs
• ICH Q3D: Guideline for Elemental Impurities
• EMA and WHO guidelines on packaging materials

Refer to regulatory compliance resources to align your studies with these expectations.

Common Mistakes in E&L Studies and How to Avoid Them

• Not conducting extractables study prior to leachables – this limits comparison
• Using placebo or water instead of real product – doesn’t reflect actual risk
• Limited timepoints – at least 3 points across the shelf life should be tested
• No toxicological justification – regulators expect risk assessments
• Using non-validated or overly sensitive analytical methods – leads to false positives

Ensure thorough planning and consultation with analytical, formulation, and toxicology teams before beginning E&L programs.

Case Study: Injectable Product E&L Deficiency

A USFDA inspection of a parenteral manufacturer revealed missing leachables data for bromobutyl stoppers used in lyophilized vials. Although extractables were provided, the company failed to submit time-based leachables data under accelerated conditions. The FDA issued a 483 observation, and product approval was delayed until complete leachables testing was conducted. The cost of re-initiating the study delayed commercialization by 9 months.

Best Practices for Successful E&L Programs

• Involve toxicologists early to define analytical thresholds
• Choose analytical methods based on expected compound types
• Conduct both targeted and untargeted screening
• Ensure extractables studies reflect container contact materials
• Incorporate leachables study into your validation protocol

These steps ensure better predictability of interactions and streamline regulatory approval.

Conclusion

Extractables and leachables testing is not just a regulatory checkbox—it is a scientific necessity to ensure packaging safety, product stability, and patient protection. By designing a robust E&L strategy grounded in risk-based principles, and presenting the findings clearly in the CTD, pharmaceutical companies can demonstrate the suitability of their container closure systems. This fosters compliance, minimizes regulatory delays, and ultimately ensures patient safety across product lifecycles.

References:

• USP and Monographs
• ICH Q3D Guideline for Elemental Impurities
• FDA Guidance for Industry – Container Closure Systems
• WHO Technical Report Series on Packaging
• EMA Quality Guidelines on Pharmaceutical Packaging

Understanding the Role of Container Closure Systems in Stability Testing

The primary function of a container closure system is to protect the drug product from environmental factors such as moisture, oxygen, light, and microbial contamination. During long-term and accelerated stability studies, inadequate packaging can compromise the product’s chemical and physical properties. That’s why a well-qualified CCS ensures that the drug product remains within specification throughout its intended shelf life.

Per ICH and WHO guidelines, the CCS should be considered during stability protocol design and validation phases.

Key Components of a Container Closure System

• Primary Container: Directly contacts the drug (e.g., vials, bottles, blister packs).
• Closure: Seals the container (e.g., rubber stopper, cap, foil).
• Secondary Packaging: Provides mechanical protection and labeling (e.g., carton, insert).

Each component must be assessed for compatibility, integrity, and protection throughout the stability duration.

Regulatory Expectations for Container Closure Selection

According to the USFDA, stability testing must be performed in the proposed marketing packaging configuration. Therefore, the CCS should be finalized before initiating pivotal stability studies.

• Ensure container-closure integrity (CCI) using methods like dye ingress, helium leak test, or microbial ingress.
• Conduct extractables and leachables (E&L) studies on closure materials.
• Perform compatibility testing between drug product and packaging material.
• Follow USP for integrity evaluation standards.

Checklist: Criteria for Selecting a Suitable Container Closure System

1. Product Compatibility: Ensure materials don’t adsorb or react with the drug.
2. Barrier Properties: Evaluate moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR), oxygen permeability, and light protection.
3. Physical Protection: Resistance to breakage, vibration, and shipping stress.
4. Closure Torque and Seal Integrity: Prevent evaporation and contamination.
5. Sterility Maintenance: Especially critical for parenteral and ophthalmic products.
6. Regulatory Compliance: CCS must comply with compendial and agency standards.

Glass vs. Plastic Containers: Making the Right Choice

Both materials have unique pros and cons. Glass (Type I borosilicate) is inert and preferred for injectable products. Plastic offers flexibility and reduced breakage risk but may have higher permeability. Selection should depend on drug sensitivity, storage conditions, and container performance during stability trials.

Evaluating Closure System Types: Stoppers, Seals, and Caps

Closures should not compromise sterility or introduce contamination. Factors to evaluate include:

• Penetrability and resealability for rubber stoppers (especially in multi-dose vials)
• Chemical inertness and extractables
• Ease of application and removal
• Seal compatibility with container rim geometry

It’s essential to validate sealing parameters and ensure no CCI failures during the stability period.

Common Issues in Container Closure Selection and How to Avoid Them

Failure to evaluate packaging systems thoroughly can result in data integrity issues or batch rejection. Some common problems include:

• Moisture ingress in blister packs due to incorrect foil selection
• Leachables migrating into solution from plasticizers in stoppers
• Container breakage under accelerated storage due to thermal expansion mismatch

These issues can be prevented through upfront risk assessments and early CCS development.

Internal References for Best Practices

• GMP compliance
• Pharma SOPs

Case Study: Packaging Failure During Accelerated Stability

A pharmaceutical firm submitted a parenteral product to accelerated stability at 40°C/75% RH in a plastic vial with a screw cap. After 2 months, high degradation was observed. Investigation revealed oxygen permeability of the cap seal as the root cause. This led to reformulation of packaging using a fluoropolymer-lined crimp seal with demonstrated oxygen barrier integrity.

This highlights the importance of robust CCS evaluation and simulation of worst-case scenarios.

Testing Protocols to Qualify Your CCS

Before selecting a CCS, conduct rigorous qualification testing:

• Container Closure Integrity Testing (CCIT): Dye ingress, vacuum decay, and pressure decay are common methods.
• Extractables & Leachables: Use LC-MS, GC-MS, and ICP-MS to identify trace elements from packaging components.
• Stability Simulations: Run short-term trials under ICH Zone IVb (30°C/75% RH) conditions.
• Headspace Analysis: Evaluate oxygen levels using NIR or tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy.

Step-by-Step Process for Selecting and Validating a CCS

1. List the product’s sensitivity attributes (e.g., hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis).
2. Shortlist compatible container options based on material and format.
3. Evaluate closure systems for sterility, compatibility, and sealing strength.
4. Conduct extractables and leachables studies per EMA and USP guidelines.
5. Perform CCIT on multiple lots and stress conditions.
6. Initiate mock stability studies to verify the packaging’s performance.
7. Document all findings in a Packaging Development Report (PDR).

Packaging Development Timeline in Relation to Stability Protocol

Stability testing cannot begin until the final market configuration is locked in. Therefore, packaging development should run parallel to formulation development. A typical timeline might include:

• Month 0–3: Container material screening and E&L studies
• Month 4–6: Sealing process optimization and CCI testing
• Month 7–9: Stability simulation with pilot lots
• Month 10: Launch of ICH stability protocol

Documenting CCS Selection for Regulatory Submissions

Health authorities expect detailed justification for the selected CCS in Module 3 of the CTD. This includes:

• Description of materials and dimensions
• Validation reports for sealing and integrity
• Extractables and leachables data
• Stability data supporting shelf life in proposed packaging

Conclusion

Selecting the correct container closure system is foundational to the success of a stability program. It impacts shelf life, product safety, regulatory acceptance, and market success. By following a risk-based, data-driven approach, pharmaceutical professionals can ensure their CCS provides adequate protection, maintains compliance, and supports global regulatory expectations.

References:

• ICH Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products
• USP General Chapter Package Integrity Evaluation
• USFDA Guidance for Industry – Container Closure Systems
• WHO Technical Report Series on Pharmaceutical Packaging
• CDSCO Packaging Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Products