Transfluthrin: Comparative efficacy and toxicity of reference and generic versions

Stringent requirements are in place for the evaluation and registration of new compounds with biocidal or pesticidal activities. However, the registration requirements for established compounds from new suppliers or for established compounds produced by a different manufacturing process have been less clear and ambiguity exists as to how 'equivalence of health hazards' can unequivocally be demonstrated analytically and by toxicological assays. The case presented in this analysis focuses on the chiral pyrethroid transfluthrin (TFL) synthesized by esterification of an acid chloride and alcoholic moiety. According to any modifications of the process of synthesis and purification, new potentially highly toxic and yet chemically reactive impurities in low concentrations (<0.1%) may be formed. Amongst these, that with the structural alert 'organic acid anhydride' was given heightened concern as the most potent putative toxicologically significant impurity. The course taken in this analysis focused on the comparison of reference TFL with commercialized generic TFL from two alternative manufacturing sources in India and China. Despite their apparent high racemic purity, TFLs from generic sources were biologically less effective, genotoxic in the Ames' assay, demonstrated sensory lung irritation and lung/skin sensitization in specialized bioassays. While the off-patent reference TFL was unequivocally negative in all assays (anhydride content not detectable, LOQ<0.01%), positive results with high batch-to-batch variability were a frequent outcome in generic TFLs. Tier I analytical assays failed to detect this relevant impurity in the absence of impurity-specific optimized analytical procedures. This finding suggests that a well-balanced combined approach of analytical and toxicological assays provides the best means to assure that all critical impurities are identified and accounted for. Similarly, putative 'structural alert'-based toxicity tests proved to be more predictive than any indiscriminant battery of standard bioassays commonly applied to demonstrate equivalence, such as acute oral/dermal toxicity and/or eye/skin irritation assays. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.