Nonclinical precedent Request an invite

What flexibility did FDA and EMA accept for approved monoclonal antibodies?

From the FDA and EMA reviews of all 117 approved monoclonal antibodies. Each answer links to the regulator's own sentence.

Check my plan against these
Short answer
98 of 117 approved monoclonal antibodies had at least one departure from the guideline that regulators accepted; reviewers questioned at least one departure in 14.
Carcinogenicity47/117
DART41/117
Other18/117
Juvenile tox12/117
Species12/117
Efficacy model9/117
Safety margin9/117
GLP7/117
Safety pharmacology7/117
Study length6/117
Biodistribution1/117

Precedent by precedent

117 approved monoclonal antibodies, with the reviewers' own words.

Briumvi

ublituximab · CD20
RecoveryVerdict not stated
26-week monkey study tested a single dose level with no recovery period
Why: Antidrug antibodies caused loss of pharmacological activity at low and mid doses in the 13-week study · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In the 26-week study (0 or 30 mg/kg QW), only one dose level was tested, based on the development of antidrug antibodies, resulting in loss of pharmacological activity, at the low and mid doses in the 13-week study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Monkey ePPND confounded by immunogenicity; embryo-fetal development reassessed in huCD20 transgenic mice
Why: Monkey findings secondary to immunogenicity and not relevant to humans; transgenic mouse is a pharmacologically relevant model · No relevant species · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The findings in cynomolgus monkey were considered secondary to an immunogenic reaction and are not considered relevant to humans. In a subsequent study conducted in pregnant CD20 (huCD20) transgenic mice, a pharmacologically relevant animal model, intravenous administration of ublituximab-xiiy (0, 5, 20, or 50 mg/kg) during organogenesis (gestation day 6 and 12) resulted in no adverse effects on embryofetal development.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Effects on developing immune function not adequately assessed; postnatal immune function study required postmarketing
Why: Immunogenic effects in dams prevented assessment; study needed to support future paediatric development
“Potential adverse effects of ublituximab exposure during organogenesis on immune function could not be adequately assessed because of the immunogenic effects in dams.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Monkey-only programme without characterising CD20 binding in other animal species
Why: Single-species justification submitted under the IND was found acceptable
“The sponsor proposed conducting nonclinical studies of ublituximab only in monkey but did not conduct studies to characterize binding to CD20 in other animal species. Justification for this approach was submitted to the Division of Hematology and Oncology Toxicology (DHOT); DHOT found it acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rabbit local tolerance study and Ames assay not entirely GLP-compliant
Why: Studies not pivotal for the marketing authorisation application · Other reason
“Local tolerance study in rabbit and the bacterial reverse mutation assay, were not (entirely) performed under GLP as stated by the applicant; however, since they are not considered pivotal for the marketing authorisation application, this is considerable acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗

Campath

alemtuzumab · CD52
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No long-term repeat-dose toxicity study in cynomolgus monkey
Why: 10-fold exposure margin not feasible due to immunosuppression and severe infections requiring antibiotics · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In their advice, the CHMP had acknowledged that evaluating doses corresponding to a 10-fold exposure margin when compared to the exposure in the MS patients would not be feasible due to immunosuppression and severe infections.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity testing for a repeated-course immunosuppressive therapy
Why: No appropriate animal model; indirect tumorigenicity risk from prolonged immunosuppression already well established; prior CHMP scientific advice · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“The CHMP also considered acceptable that no carcinogenicity testing was performed, taking into account the lack of an appropriate animal model, the well-established risk of indirect tumorigenicity caused by prolonged immunosuppression and the previous scientific advice provided by the CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studied in huCD52 transgenic mice instead of monkeys
Why: Neutralising anti-drug antibodies in a proportion of monkeys · No relevant species
“Cynomolgus monkey was not considered an appropriate species for reasons of anti-alemtuzumab antibodies developing in proportion of monkeys, which in some cases could exert a neutralizing activity. The CHMP also considered that the studies were conducted in compliance with the CHMP scientific advice.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Developmental toxicity NOAEL in transgenic mice below clinical exposure by Cmax; 0.6- to 4.4-fold by AUC
“Based on Cmax values, the exposures were significantly below those observed in the clinical setting, following administration of the recommended therapeutic dose. Higher exposure margins were established by the applicant based on AUC values obtained in a PK study. The use of these AUC data yielded exposure margins of 0.6- to 4.4-fold.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No proof-of-concept studies in the EAE model of multiple sclerosis
Why: Clinical experience with alemtuzumab in MS already available · Human data
“No proof-of-concept studies in this model were conducted by the applicant. However, as clinical experience with alemtuzumab in the treatment of MS was already available at the time huCD52 transgenic mice were developed and characterised, the lack of these studies was considered acceptable by the CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗

Adbry

tralokinumab · IL-13
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No 2-year carcinogenicity study for a chronic dermatology indication; literature weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee judged a 2-year study not needed, provided trial subjects are monitored for tumours · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant was advised that “A 2-year carcinogenicity study with tralokinumab is not needed. However, subjects enrolled in clinical trials with tralokinumab should be monitored for potential development of tumors” on 08/12/2011 under the IND.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 135Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Subcutaneous (clinical route) toxicity limited to 13-week bridging study; 26-week chronic study used IV dosing
Why: Similar toxicity profiles after repeat-dose SC and IV administration · Pharmacology or kinetics
“It was determined that this 13-week subcutaneous toxicity study conducted with tralokinumab in cynomolgus monkeys provided an adequate bridge to the 13-week and 26-week intravenous toxicity studies conducted with tralokinumab in cynomolgus monkeys due to the similar toxicity profiles noted after repeat-dose SC versus IV administration.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 134Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Earlier 4-week SC bridging study had no control group and used males only
Why: Supplemented by a 13-week SC bridging study conducted at the Agency's recommendation
“The 4-week SC study did have an increased incidence and severity of liver and kidney fat staining, however, there were significant deficiencies in this bridging study since no control groups were utilised and the study was only performed using male animals.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated juvenile toxicity study; ePPND study in monkeys used to assess toxicity in juvenile animals
Why: ePPND study judged adequate and supports treatment of paediatric subjects · Other reason
“An adequate ePPND study in cynomolgus monkeys was conducted with tralokinumab to evaluate the potential toxicity in juvenile animals.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 116Source ↗

Keytruda

pembrolizumab · PD-1
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No embryo-fetal study in monkey; literature assessment of pregnancy outcomes in PD-1 knockout mice instead
Why: Known link between PD-1 deficiency and abortion; antibody active only in nonhuman primate · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“On the basis of the known association between PD-1 deficiency and increased rates of abortion, FDA agreed with the Applicant’s request to provide a literature assessment of the scientific data of pregnancy outcomes in PD-1 -/- mice in lieu of conducting an embryofetal study in the monkey with MK-3475.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 78Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Too few sexually mature males dosed for at least 3 months to assess male fertility
“Pembrolizumab is not expected to cause adverse effects in the male and female reproductive system, however as the number of sexually mature male treated with pembrolizumab for a sufficiently long duration (≥ 3 months according to ICH S6(R1) was too low to draw any conclusions about the effect of pembrolizumab on male fertility, a statement has been included in the SmPC section 5.3.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Potential for exaggerated recall response to antigens not investigated; additional pharmacology study requested postmarketing
“The Applicant did not, however, investigate the potential for an exaggerated recall response to an antigen in either the presence or absence of pembrolizumab following a primary response in the presence of anti-PD-1.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo antitumour activity shown only with a surrogate anti-mouse PD-1 antibody; no proof-of-concept at the clinical dose
Why: Clinical data from humans available · Human data
“Given the availability of clinical data from humans, the lack of a non-clinical proof-of-concept at the 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks dose is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Lucentis

ranibizumab · VEGF-A
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicology studies
Why: Low systemic exposure, well-characterised mechanism, median AMD patient age over 70; segment II study needed for a younger population · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“No reproduction toxicology studies were performed. This was justified by the low systemic exposure of a compound for which the mechanism of action is well characterised during development, and the median age of the AMD-population (over 70 years).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No formal safety pharmacology studies; endpoints incorporated into repeat-dose toxicity studies
Why: Endpoints in repeat-dose studies; human systemic exposure below levels with meaningful VEGF-related effect; no systemic toxicity at high exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“This was justified by the incorporation of safety pharmacology endpoints in repeat-dose toxicity studies, and the human systemic exposure being below levels where any meaningful effect of a VEGF-related activity is expected.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standard systemic toxicology studies; single-dose ocular studies not to current guidelines and MTD not determined
Why: Knowledge of VEGF inhibition plus repeat-dose ocular studies; sufficient systemic safety margins · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“The single dose studies were not according to present guidelines, and the maximum tolerated systemic dose was not determined. It is considered that with the present knowledge of the effects of VEGF-inhibition together with the information from repeat dose ocular toxicity studies, additional studies would not add to the safety evaluation of ranibizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 10Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No ocular NOAEL: all doses tested (0.25-2 mg) caused ocular inflammation
Why: Ocular inflammation in the clinic appears non-serious and easily manageable · Human data
“The NOEL or NOAEL were not identified in any of the studies, since all doses tested (0.25-2 mg) resulted in an ocular inflammation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗

Nucala

mepolizumab · IL-5
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity study waived for a chronic asthma indication
Why: No related findings in 6-month monkey study; rodent study not technically feasible · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“The need for a carcinogenicity study was discussed with the Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee and it was concluded that a carcinogenicity study was not required given the lack of related findings in the 6-month toxicology study in monkeys and since conduct of a study in rodents did not appear to be technically feasible.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal development studied in mice with a surrogate antibody, not in monkeys; teratogenicity not assessed in monkey PPND study
Why: Masking of embryo-foetal toxicity by insufficient drug exposure considered unlikely · Other reason
“However, mepolizumab crosses the placental barrier and the teratogenic potential of mepolizumab was not studied in the monkey pre and post-natal study. An embryofoetal development study was conducted in mice and not in monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 22Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Small monkey PPND study (8-9 infants per group) without skeletal or visceral malformation examinations
“Infants were not examined for skeletal or visceral malformations and variations. The results of this study should be judged with caution given the limitations in study design and resources.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 129Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Abbreviated toxicity programme: one species and two dose levels in pivotal studies
Why: Other standard laboratory species not suitable; chosen doses adequate · No relevant species
“The applicant conducted an abbreviated toxicity programme with mepolizumab, in only one species, the cynomolgus monkey, and at two doses in the pivotal studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗

Stelara

ustekinumab · IL-12/23 p40
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity or rodent tumour immune surveillance studies; ustekinumab does not bind mouse or rat IL-12/IL-23
Why: No rodent cross-reactivity; malignancy to be monitored under the Risk Management Plan · No relevant species
“Direct evaluation of carcinogenic potential of CNTO 1275 (STELARA, ustekinumab) in carcinogenicity studies or rodent tumour immune surveillance models is precluded by the limited species reactivity of CNTO 1275 (STELARA, ustekinumab) which does not bind to or neutralise IL-12 or IL-23 from mice or rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 17Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Female fertility tested only in mice with a surrogate anti-mouse IL-12/23p40 antibody
Why: Monkey has less robust reproductive characteristics; outcome limited to hazard identification · Other reason
“The choice of this model was justified on the basis of the less robust reproductive characteristics of the monkey; it is accepted that the outcome is limited to the identification of potential female fertility hazards through blocking IL12/23 and not as a definitive estimate of risk for ustekinumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 17Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Only two dose levels studied and mostly one species for toxicology
Why: Considered acceptable for this type of product · Low-risk modality
“Only two dose levels of ustekinumab were studied and mostly only one species for the toxicology, but this was considered acceptable for this type of product.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 18Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Anti-drug antibody response in monkey toxicity studies could not be determined
Why: Pharmacokinetic indices showed adequate exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“A general finding in the toxicity studies was that it was not possible to discern whether there had been an anti-antibody response to ustekinumab, although some animals were noted to have greater clearance than others.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 18Source ↗

Entyvio

vedolizumab · α4β7-integrin
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No rodent carcinogenicity bioassay for a chronic IBD therapy; in vitro tumour-cell study with murine homologue Act-1 instead
Why: No pharmacological activity in mice and rats (ICH S6(R1)); weight of evidence indicates no significant carcinogenic potential · Within the guideline · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“In accordance with ICH Guideline S6(R1), conventional carcinogenicity studies (i.e., rodent bioassays) have not been conducted with MLN0002 to assess its carcinogenic potential as it lacks pharmacological activity in mice and rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 129Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fertility studies; 26-week monkey study insufficient to exclude effects on male reproductive organs
Why: Effect on male fertility unlikely; uncertainty stated in the SmPC
“Concerning fertility, the 26 week general toxicity study in monkeys given vedolizumab is judged insufficient to conclude an absence of an effect, although an effect on male fertility is unlikely.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Juvenile toxVerdict not stated
No juvenile animal toxicity studies; β7 integrin knockout mouse data used instead
Why: α4β7 integrin plays no role in growth and development; β7 knockout mice suffice to study developmental effects · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Toxicology studies in juvenile animals have not been conducted. The Applicant argued that α4β7 integrin does not play a role in mammalian growth and development (literature references have been provided) and that the developmental effects of inhibiting the α4β7 integrin can be studied sufficiently in mice with genetic ablation of the β7 integrin gene (Itgb7)”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No animal model of PML; CNS immune surveillance tested in a rhesus EAE model instead
Why: PML handled as a potential risk in the RMP with postmarketing monitoring
“However, since EAE is not an animal model of PML; the results of this study do not directly demonstrate that MLN0002 has no potential to cause PML.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No stand-alone gastrointestinal, urinary, pulmonary or CNS safety pharmacology; endpoints in repeat-dose toxicology studies
“The effects of vedolizumab on the gastrointestinal, urinary, pulmonary and central nervous systems were evaluated for functional and structural changes in GLP-compliant repeat-dose toxicology studies of up to 26 weeks in pharmacologically responsive species. This is acceptable to the CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Erbitux

cetuximab · EGFR
DARTAccepted
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies; menstrual cyclicity evaluated within the 39-week monkey study
Why: Reproduction toxicity studies not required for anticancer agents; only possible finding was impaired menstrual cyclicity · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Reproductive and developmental toxicity No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies were performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin in the 39-week monkey study: low dose (12 then 7.5 mg/kg) equals the human therapeutic dose
“The dosage was based on the human therapeutic starting dose of 400 mg/m2 and subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2 , which translates to 12 and 7.5 mg/kg for a human ofbody surface area of 1.8 m2 and 60 kg body weight.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗
SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Cynomolgus monkey used without data on cetuximab binding affinity to monkey versus human EGFR
Why: Similarity of adverse reactions in monkeys and humans supports the species · Human data
“However, information about the binding affinity of cetuximab to monkey EGFR relative to human EGFR is lacking, and this makes the evaluation of the toxicology findings difficult.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No nonclinical toxicity studies of co-administration with irinotecan
Why: Commitment to submit clinical combination data from ongoing and planned studies · Human data
“No toxicological studies have investigated the the co-administration of cetuximab and irinotecan. The applicant has committed to submit further clinical data on the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan generated in the ongoing/planned phase III studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No specific CNS safety pharmacology studies
Why: Nature of the product, specific receptor targeting and toxicology findings · Low-risk modality · Weight of evidence
“The applicant has submitted a justification for not conducting specific studies on the effects of cetuximab on the CNS. Taking into consideration the nature of the product, the specific receptor targeting, and the findings from the toxicology studies, the justification provided by the applicant is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗

Beyfortus

nirsevimab · RSV F protein
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study despite an infant indication
Why: Nature of the target and modality, and existing nonclinical knowledge · No relevant species · Low-risk modality · Weight of evidence
“Although the current indication includes very young children, the nature of the target and therapeutic modality and knowledge from conducted non-clinical studies, a juvenile study is not expected to provide any added value.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility, embryo-fetal or pre/postnatal development studies
Why: Viral target not expressed endogenously; infant population excludes women of childbearing potential; no reproductive tissue effects or cross-reactivity · Within the guideline · No relevant species
“In accordance with ICH guideline S6(R1), no dedicated studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of nirsevimab on fertility, embryo-foetal, and prenatal and postnatal development.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal monkey toxicity study partly non-GLP: nasal wash analysis, formulation analysis and clinical pathology report
“However, it was also noted that the formulation analysis and clinical pathology report were not conducted according to GLP. Apart from these discrepancies, the study was considered to be in compliance with GLP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No lung histopathology in cotton rats to assess antibody-dependent enhancement of disease
Why: Weight of evidence indicates low risk of ADE; risk monitored clinically after authorisation and included in the RMP · Weight of evidence
“Though histopathological evaluations of lung tissue were not conducted in cotton rats, which could have provided further information on the potential occurrence of alveolitis with (neutrophilic) infiltrates, which is an acknowledged marker of ADE in the cotton rat model, the overall weight of evidence presented by the Applicant indicates a low risk of ADE of disease for nirsevimab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Enspryng

satralizumab · IL-6R
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic NMOSD indication; no rodent IL-6R binding and mouse homolog not feasible
Why: No binding to rodent IL-6R; mouse homolog antibody not feasible because of immunogenicity · No relevant species · Other reason
“Carcinogenicity studies of satralizumab were not conducted because satralizumab does not bind to rat or mouse IL-6R, and the use of a mouse homolog antibody was determined not to be feasible because of immunogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 41Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No safety margin established for reduced T-cell-dependent antibody responses in infants in the monkey ePPND study
“In summary, no safety margin was established for the reductions in TDAR observed in infants in the ePPND study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 56Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No stand-alone juvenile toxicity study; monkey ePPND study used instead
Why: ePPND study conducted in compliance with the agreed paediatric investigation plan · Other reason
“However, the ePPND study performed was conducted in compliance with the agreed PIP, why no further studies were considered needed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No tissue distribution study and no justification provided for its omission
Why: Limited tissue distribution from volume of distribution; no target organs in monkey toxicity studies · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“A justification why no standard tissue distribution study, which might have revealed valuable information (e.g. potential for passage over the blood-brain-barrier to CNS), have been performed was not provided.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Fasenra

benralizumab · IL-5Rα
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies or mouse surrogate for chronic asthma therapy; carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: Rodents not pharmacologically relevant; Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee agreed rodent studies and a mouse surrogate were not required · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Carcinogenicity studies were not conducted since rodents are not pharmacologically relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity studies
Why: Adult indication; no nonclinical studies in the agreed paediatric investigation plan; enhanced pre- and postnatal study results · Weight of evidence · Other reason
“The lack of studies with dosing of juvenile animals is also accepted, considering that the medicine is intended for adults, the lack of non-clinical studies in the agreed paediatric investigation plan, and the results from the enhanced pre- and post-natal development study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Single-dose toxicity limited to a non-GLP study in three monkeys without control group or terminal necropsy
Why: Repeat-dose GLP-compliant studies available · Weight of evidence
“Single dose toxicity studies were limited to a non-GLP study in three monkeys only with no control group or terminal necropsy: the primary objective was to evaluate toxicokinetics and immunogenicity of benralizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No dedicated fertility studies; fertility endpoints assessed in the 39-week monkey study in sexually mature animals
“No dedicated fertility studies have been conducted however assessment of specific fertility endpoints (menstrual cycle lengths, testicular volume/size, sperm analysis for sperm count, morphology and motility and analysis of reproductive hormones), in addition to the reproductive organ weights and histopathology analysis at necropsy, were carried out in the 39-week repeat dose toxicity study, in which all monkeys were sexually mature.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗

Hympavzi

marstacimab · TFPI
Study lengthAccepted
No 6-month repeat-dose toxicity study in the non-rodent (cynomolgus monkey)
Why: ICH S6(R1) allows deviation when scientifically justified; justification agreed in EMA scientific advice · Within the guideline
“Even though ICH M3(S2) specifies that in the EU/EEA 6-months studies in rodents and non-rodents are required, ICH S6(R1) specifies that there might also be derivations from this principle when scientifically justified. Justification on this aspect was provided in the scientific advice procedure EMA/H/SA/3363/1/2016/I, 21 July 2016.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No female reproduction studies; male fertility and early embryonic development study only
Why: Hemophilia A and B occur almost exclusively in males · Other reason
“Marstacimab was not tested in reproduction studies in female animals because hemophilia A and B occur almost exclusively in males.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 79Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic prophylaxis; weight-of-evidence assessment with 26-week repeat-dose data
Why: Weight of evidence indicates low carcinogenic risk · Weight of evidence
“However, a thorough weight of evidence evaluation, in combination with data from the repeat dose toxicity studies, which included exposure to marstacimab up to 26 weeks, does not suggest any carcinogenic potential.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal study; adolescent-age monkeys in the 3-month study cited instead
Why: Some monkeys in the 3-month study were of age aligned with adolescent patients · Weight of evidence
“However, the Applicant argued that in the 3-month repeat-dose toxicity Study 20062114 in Cynomolgus monkeys, the age of some of the animals aligned with the age of adolescent patients (monkeys were 3.7 to 7.2 years at dosing initiation).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Imaavy

nipocalimab · FcRn
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
No binding-affinity screen in non-rodent species other than monkey to select the toxicology species
Why: Cynomolgus monkey shown relevant by binding and functional data; addressed in scientific advice · No relevant species · Other reason
“Apparently, binding affinity studies for another non-rodent species than non-human primates (NHP) were not conducted, which would normally be expected in order to include/exclude relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic autoimmune therapy; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: No cross-reactivity with rodent FcRn; WoE per ICH S6(R1) shows no increased carcinogenic risk · Within the guideline · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Nipocalimab is a mAb which does not cross-react with rodent FcRn, precluding the conduct of traditional carcinogenicity studies. In line with ICH guideline S6(R1) and based on a WoE approach it was concluded that nipocalimab does not pose an increased carcinogenic risk.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility assessed in 26-week monkey study using sexually immature animals; no specialised fertility assessments
Why: Overall evidence does not indicate concerns regarding effects on fertility · Weight of evidence
“The used strategy is supported, but the monkeys used in the 26-week study were sexually immature (2-3 years of age) at study start which is not in line with the guideline.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Monkey ePPND dosing started on GD45, missing early organogenesis
Why: IgG transfer is limited during organogenesis and increases in the foetal period in monkeys and humans · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The late start of nipocalimab dosing on GD45 is not in accordance with current guidance and limits the opportunity to evaluate potential effects on early organogenesis.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗

Kisunla

donanemab · Amyloid-β (N3pG)
SpeciesVerdict not stated
No pharmacologically active species; off-target toxicity in monkeys (6-week only) and on-target effects with a murine surrogate in transgenic PDAPP mice
Why: Donanemab not pharmacologically active in normal rodents or nonrodents · No relevant species
“Donanemab is not pharmacologically active in normal rodent or nonrodent; therefore, toxicity studies were conducted in cynomolgus monkey (6-week IV donanemab) to assess for any off-target toxicity, and in the PDAPP transgenic mouse model (6-week and 6- month SC mE8c, a murine surrogate) to assess for relevant on-target effects (toxicity and pharmacology).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 1Source ↗
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
GLP six-month surrogate study in aged PDAPP mice terminated early, giving about five months of dosing
Why: Early termination due to age-related mortality in aged transgenic mice · Other reason
“groups were terminated early due to age-related mortality (primarily associated with lymphoma and murine progressive cardiomyopathy) on Day 140/141 (F) or Day 151/152 (M). The dosing period was approximately 5 months.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 16Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for long-term therapy; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Target absent in wild-type rodents; transgenic rodent studies not feasible · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Carcinogenicity studies of donanemab were not conducted because its target, human AβN3pE-x peptide, is not present in wild-type rodents, and carcinogenicity studies in transgenic rodents are not feasible.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 17Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Age of the Alzheimer’s disease population · Other reason
“The sponsor was informed that reproductive and developmental toxicology studies are generally not required to support clinical development or marketing approval for products intended for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, based on the age of the population with that condition”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 17Source ↗

Remicade

infliximab · TNF-α
SpeciesAccepted
Chimpanzee the only relevant species; only a small, limited single/short repeat-dose chimpanzee study, rat studies not relevant
Why: Lack of relevant animal models · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“A small number of chimpanzees, the only relevant species identified for safety testing, were given single or up to 5 once daily repeated doses of infliximab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standard reproductive toxicity studies with infliximab; mouse studies with surrogate anti-mouse TNFα antibody cV1q instead
Why: No relevant animal models; surrogate and genetically modified animal data gave some reassurance · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Standard reproductive/developmental toxicity studies have not been performed with infliximab due to lack of relevant animal models. In an attempt to mimic the clinical situation of TNFα inhibition, studies were conducted in mice using a monoclonal antibody against mouse TNFα (cV1q).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standard carcinogenicity studies; TNFα knockout mice and anti-murine TNFα antibody data used to address tumour risk
Why: TNFα knockout and anti-murine TNFα antibody data gave no support for enhanced tumour risk · Weight of evidence
“Standard carcinogenicity studies have not been performed with infliximab. A concern was expressed regarding the consequences of long-term inhibition of TNFα in relation to proliferative changes and a potential risk of tumour development.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Limited preclinical pharmacokinetic documentation
Why: Animal pharmacokinetic data of marginal relevance for safety assessment · No relevant species
“The preclinical pharmacokinetic documentation is limited. Since the relevance of animal pharmacokinetic data on infliximab is marginal for the safety assessment, this was considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 7Source ↗

Spevigo

spesolimab · IL-36R
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pharmacologically relevant species; repeat-dose and DART toxicology done only with a mouse-specific surrogate antibody (BI674304)
Why: Surrogate shows binding and functional activity comparable to spesolimab · No relevant species · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Given that spesolimab and its surrogate BI674304 show comparable binding and functional activity, the use of BI674304 as a suitable surrogate to evaluate potential effects of IL36 antagonism in toxicology studies mice is agreed. This strategy was also endorsed by CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margins to clinical exposure calculable for the surrogate; NOAEL exposures compared with in vitro IC90 values instead
Why: Toxicology study exposures exceeded the surrogate's IC90 values in primary mouse cells · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Further, based on IC90-values of BI674304 to inhibit mouse IL36α, β or γ-induced IL-2 and IFNγ cytokine production or NFκB phosphorylation in primary mouse cells (3.8-18 nM corresponding to 0.57-2.68 µg/mL), the exposures in the toxicology studies were higher. Thus, sufficient exposures have been reached in the studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Not active in rodents; 6-month surrogate study, literature on IL36R and clinical data give no reason for concern · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Spesolimab is not pharmacologically active in rodents (or any other relevant species) why no meaningful data would be generated in long-term carcinogenicity studies. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity risk of spesolimab has been performed using a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No stand-alone safety pharmacology studies and no safety pharmacology endpoints embedded in repeat-dose studies
Why: No respiratory or neurobehavioral signs in mouse toxicity studies
“Stand-alone safety pharmacology studies were not conducted. Safety pharmacology studies were not embedded in the repeat-dose toxicity studies. However, no treatment-related organ toxicities or clinical signs indicative of respiratory or neurobehavioral effects were observed in mice”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗

Cinqair

reslizumab · IL-5
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Mouse and rabbit embryo-fetal studies without toxicokinetic data or demonstrated pharmacological effect
Why: Systemic exposure assumed after IV dosing; mouse maternal exposure extrapolated from other studies · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In the embryo-foetal development studies in CD-1 mouse and NZW rabbit, toxicokinetic data were not collected, and a pharmacological effect has not been demonstrated.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Dedicated safety pharmacology studies done in rats, a species not shown to be pharmacologically relevant
Why: No findings of concern in behaviour, cardiovascular or respiratory parameters in pivotal mouse and monkey toxicity studies · Weight of evidence
“Although no significant drug-related effects were observed, the biological significance of these data is limited as the rat was not tested in”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 94Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity study exposure margin extrapolated from a different toxicology study rather than measured in the study
Why: Margin of at least 50 over the clinical dose extrapolated from another study · Pharmacology or kinetics
“At the high dose level a safety margin of at least 50 compared to the clinical dose (3 mg/kg) can be extrapolated from a different toxicology study, which is considered acceptable by CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Exdensur

depemokimab · IL-5
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence assessment using mepolizumab and literature data
Why: Carcinogenicity information available from the mepolizumab program; updated weight of evidence agreed · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“After reviewing the nonclinical data, it was decided that conducting a carcinogenicity study in monkeys for depemokimab would not be necessary. Carcinogenicity information can be taken from the mepolizumab program.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 75Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No DART studies, including no monkey enhanced pre- and postnatal development study; mepolizumab reproductive data used instead
Why: Monkey ePPND study provides hazard identification only; postmarketing pregnancy safety study (DPSS) required · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“After reviewing the nonclinical data, it was decided that conducting an enhanced pre- and postnatal development (PPND) study in monkeys would not be necessary as the study only provides hazard identification.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 74Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In silico placental-transfer model, calibrated on a mepolizumab ePPND study, used to replace an in vivo study for the YTE-modified antibody
Why: Margins of safety adequate even if fetal concentrations exceed maternal maximal levels up to twofold · Class precedent · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The presented in silico model is intended to replace an in vivo study, it is therefore essential that all underlying assumptions are transparently described, thoroughly justified, and any potential concerns adequately addressed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 57Source ↗

Humira

adalimumab · TNF-α
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic immune-mediated indications; no conventional or alternative model available
Why: Low or no affinity for rodent TNFα and anti-drug antibodies after single doses; risk from immunosuppression reflected in SPC · No relevant species · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The lack of such studies is justified because there is no conventional or alternative model available, (i.e adalimumab has low/no affinity for mouse/rat TNFα, and MAHA developed after single doses).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No male fertility study; in females, no study beyond the monkey developmental toxicity study
Why: Rat and mouse not relevant models; monkey reproductive organ histopathology and human tissue cross-reactivity showed no concern · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Effects on male fertility have not been studied. In females, no study beyond the developmental toxicity study in cynomolgus monkey has been performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Adalimumab detected in control monkeys in the 4- and 39-week studies; anti-drug antibodies in treated animals could not be determined
Why: High adalimumab levels throughout indicate anti-drug antibodies did not markedly neutralise activity · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In both the 4 and 39 weeks primate studies, low levels of adalimumab were detected in control monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 7Source ↗

Ilumya

tildrakizumab · IL-23 p19
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic psoriasis use; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Weight of evidence indicates increased carcinogenic risk unlikely; malignancies monitored clinically and post marketing · Weight of evidence
“Classical carcinogenicity animal studies were not conducted; instead the risk of carcinogenicity was assessed based on a weight of evidence approach.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Male fertility assessed by histopathology in repeat-dose monkey studies with few sexually mature males
Why: No findings in repeat-dose studies; normal fertility in IL-23 or IL-23R deficient mice · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“While almost all females were sexually mature, the number of sexually mature males was limited.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo efficacy shown with mouse surrogate antibody SCH-900598 in colitis models, not tildrakizumab
“Two different models of colitis, a T-cell dependent and an anti-CD40 model, were used and where efficacy of SCH-900598 was assessed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗

Vyepti

eptinezumab · CGRP
SpeciesAccepted
Chronic toxicity in cynomolgus monkey only; no chronic rat study because rat anti-drug antibodies precluded meaningful long-term studies
Why: Anti-drug antibodies in rats precluded meaningful long-term studies; acceptable per ICH S6(R1) · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“(A chronic toxicity study in a second species (rat) and rodent carcinogenicity studies were not required, primarily because of data demonstrating development of anti-drug antibodies in rat that precluded conduct of meaningful long-term studies.)”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies; product-specific carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: CGRP effects would support tumour growth, so CGRP blockade gives low carcinogenic risk · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Division accepted the justification from the sponsor not to conduct carcinogenicity studies (DARRTs IND 114,647; January 27, 2016).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Planned juvenile animal toxicity study not submitted before approval; required postmarketing
Why: Supports later pediatric clinical studies under PREA · Other reason
“To support clinical studies under PREA, the sponsor planned to conduct a juvenile animal toxicology study (Agreed iPSP Agreement letter, December 21, 2018); however, the study report has not been submitted. The study should be completed as a post-marketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 4Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
Safety pharmacology within toxicity studies lacked a functional observational battery; only respiratory rate evaluated
“vascular (Studies ALD403-003-TOX, ALD403-015-TOX, and ALD403-055-TOX), and respiratory (ALD403-015-TOX) endpoints were evaluated in single and repeat dose toxicology studies, although an FOB, or equivalent was not conducted and only respiratory rate evaluated.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 14Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal studies collected only 5-minute post-dose concentrations; labeled margins based on mg/kg dose, not exposure
“Plasma exposure data at 150 mg/kg (collected in the pivotal EFD studies) were limited to mean concentrations at 5 min postdose: 4473 and 4116 µg/mL in rat and rabbit, respectively. Therefore, safety margins for labeling must rely on interspecies comparisons based on dose (mg/kg).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗

Beovu

brolucizumab · VEGF-A
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Low systemic exposure after intravitreal dosing and the age of the wet AMD population · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“Nevertheless, the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity studies is considered as acceptable in view of the low systemic exposure levels after IVT dosing, and the age of the patient population undergoing treatment for neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No dedicated safety pharmacology studies; endpoints incorporated into repeat-dose toxicity studies
Why: Endpoints in repeat-dose studies; human systemic exposure below levels with meaningful VEGF-related effect
“Lack of dedicated safety pharmacology studies was justified by the incorporation of safety pharmacology endpoints in repeat-dose toxicity studies, and the human systemic exposure being below levels where any meaningful effect of a VEGF-related activity is expected.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
No secondary pharmacodynamic or tissue cross-reactivity studies
Why: Humanized antibody fragment with specific target engagement; low systemic concentrations after intravitreal dosing
“No dedicated studies, including tissue cross-reactivity, have been conducted with brolucizumab. The justification for the absence of the aforementioned studies relies on the nature of the product (a humanized antibody fragment) and the route of administration (IVT), resulting in specific target engagement and lower systemic concentrations after treatment, respectively.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated local tolerance studies; endpoint covered in intravitreal repeat-dose studies
Why: Local tolerance investigated in intravitreal repeat-dose toxicity studies · Weight of evidence
“The lack of dedicated local tolerance studies is accepted since this endpoint has been investigated during repeated-dose toxicity studies after IVT administration.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Crysvita

burosumab · FGF23
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Monkey NOAELs at 0.3-0.9x human AUC; no exposure margin at the NOAEL
Why: Normal animals more sensitive to mineralization than XLH patients; effects linked to serum phosphate, monitorable in the clinic · Pharmacology or kinetics · Human data
“The animal NOAELs were low (0.3Ͳ0.9x human AUC exposure) due to the sensitivity of normal animals to mineralization. However, this has limited significance, since, like Hyp mice, XLH patients are expected to be at a reduced risk of ectopic mineralization compared to normal animals or humans.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 45Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic therapy; weight-of-evidence assessment instead of two-year rodent studies
Why: Burosumab does not bind rodent FGF23; weight-of-evidence assessment; Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee concurred · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Standard 2Ͳyear rodent carcinogenicity studies with burosumab are not feasible since burosumab does not bind rodent FGF23.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 70Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No dedicated fertility or separate embryo-fetal studies; single monkey ePPND study
“EmbryoǦFetal Development Separate EFD studies were not performed. However, an ePPND study was conducted in cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 71Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
Hyp versus wild-type mouse mineralization study lacked toxicokinetic data
“However, a deficiency of this study is the lack of toxicokinetic data.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗

Tepezza

teprotumumab · IGF-1R
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive GLP embryofetal study; only a preliminary non-GLP monkey EFD study, GLP study waived
Why: Results of the preliminary non-GLP study · Weight of evidence
“This non-GLP study was intended as a preliminary EFD assay prior to the definitive GLP EFD study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 122Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study
Why: Mechanism-based teratogen with possible fetal loss; PPND study in monkeys not practical or feasible · Pharmacology or kinetics
“A PPND study was not performed. This is justified, because teprotumumab is a mechanism-based teratogen and potential increased foetal loss could not be ruled out, therefore studies evaluating PPND in cynomolgus monkeys would not be practical or feasible.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No stand-alone fertility study; fertility assessed by reproductive organ histopathology in monkey repeat-dose studies
Why: Mating studies not practical in non-human primates · Within the guideline
“A formal fertility study with teprotumumab has not been performed, since mating studies are not practical for NHPs.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in juvenile monkeys; lowest dose (3 mg/kg/week IV) was the LOAEL
“For juveniles, the low-dose (3 mg/kg/week IV) is the lowest adverse effect level (LOAEL), and no NOAEL was identified.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 22Source ↗

Tevimbra

tislelizumab · PD-1
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal 13-week monkey toxicology study failed GLP inspection; a new GLP-compliant 13-week study was run during the procedure
Why: New GLP study confirmed the 30 mg/kg NOAEL; target well known; primate studies poorly predict checkpoint-inhibitor toxicity · Weight of evidence · Class precedent
“Importantly, despite the Applicant declared the pivotal toxicology study as GLP-compliant, the outcome of the triggered GLP inspection was negative.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Tissue cross-reactivity studies not GLP-compliant; replaced by a Retrogenix cell-microarray binding assay
Why: Retrogenix results cleared doubts about insufficient binding · Other reason
“The GLP TCR studies submitted in the original application were not considered GLP compliant therefore the study results were replaced with Retrogenix assay”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies; pregnancy risk assessed by weight of evidence
Why: In line with ICH S9; weight-of-evidence approach per ICH S6(R1) for pregnancy risk · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have not been conducted with tislelizumab. In line with ICH S9, omission of fertility/early embryonic development studies and of pre-/post-natal development studies is accepted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No in vivo comparison with nivolumab or pembrolizumab to confirm lack of Fc effector function
“Therefore, a comparative study with Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab in an animal model to determine the lack of antibody effector function in vivo would have been supportive of the non-clinical proof of concept of tislelizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Tzield

teplizumab · CD3
SpeciesAccepted
Teplizumab tested only in a single-dose chimpanzee study; repeat-dose and DART studies used a mouse surrogate anti-CD3 antibody
Why: No cross-reactivity except human, gorilla, chimpanzee and gibbon; no other relevant species · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“Lack of cross-reactivity with other species than human, gorilla, chimpanzee and gibbon was confirmed in silico, and it is therefore agreed that, in addition to chimpanzee, no relevant species for further non-clinical testing of teplizumab are available.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No chronic toxicity study with the surrogate; the study that would have covered it was interrupted
Why: No target organ of toxicity in either species; comparable PD of teplizumab and surrogate · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No chronic studies with the surrogate were conducted in accordance with the ICH S6 (R1) guideline. The interrupted study 8233170 would have covered this requirement.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a non-oncology immunomodulator; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Weight of evidence from literature, animal and clinical data; short-term treatment schedule · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline · Human data
“Carcinogenicity The absence of carcinogenicity studies is justified by the weight of evidence approach in line with the ICH S1B (R1) and ICH S6 (R1) guidelines.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study
Why: No relevant species; a rodent juvenile study with the surrogate would not add value · No relevant species
“The applicant justifies the absence of an animal juvenile study based on that there is no relevant animals’ species for teplizumab for this type of study and that a rodent juvenile toxicity study with the surrogate antibody would not add any value, which is agreed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Unituxin

dinutuximab · GD2
Study lengthAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Only a 28-day rat repeat-dose study; chronic toxicity and peripheral neuropathy to be investigated after approval
Why: Chronic toxicity concern addressed as a postmarketing requirement; further peripheral nerve investigations post-authorisation
“However, to date, only a study of 28 days duration has been conducted. Given that this is the first molecule of its class, the CHMP was of the view that the incidence and extent of this peripheral neuropathy following repeated administration, the underlying pathophysiology, and the potential for reversibility would benefit from further investigation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL identified in the 28-day rat study
“The CHMP notes that a NOAEL has not been identified for the 28-day study in the rat.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Paediatric patient population (high-risk neuroblastoma) · Other reason
“Based on the age of the proposed patient population, FDA agreed that traditional reproductive toxicology studies were not warranted to support the use of this product in the treatment of patients with maintenance phase of high risk neuroblastoma.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 48Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
No formal pharmacokinetic, distribution or single-dose toxicity studies; published data on ch14.18 and murine predecessors used instead
“Formal pharmacokinetic studies with ch14.18 have not been conducted, and instead data has been obtained and summarized from the public literature.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗

Aduhelm

aducanumab · Aggregated amyloid-β
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fully relevant standard species; chronic toxicity assessed in Tg2576 transgenic disease-model mouse instead
Why: Target (aggregated amyloid) absent in rodent and non-aged monkey · No relevant species
“Neither rat nor monkey is a particularly relevant species for general toxicity because of the lack of aggregated amyloid in rodent or non-aged monkey.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication
Why: Rat and mouse are not pharmacologically relevant species · No relevant species
“Carcinogenicity studies of aducanumab were not conducted because rat and mouse are not pharmacologically relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 48Source ↗
DARTAccepted
Reproductive and developmental toxicity tested only in rat, which is not a pharmacologically relevant species
Why: DART generally not required for Alzheimer's dementia because of the age of the intended population · Within the guideline · Other reason
“Therefore, rat does not appear to be a pharmacologically relevant species. Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies are generally not required by FDA for products indicated for the treatment of patients with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type because of the age of the intended population.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 48Source ↗

Aimovig

erenumab · CGRP receptor
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic migraine therapy; waiver granted
Why: Erenumab not active in rodents; literature and toxicity studies indicate low carcinogenic potential · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“A carcinogenicity study waiver was granted because erenumab is not active in rodents and the literature and submitted toxicity studies indicate that erenumab has a low potential for carcinogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 13Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study before approval; recommended as a postmarketing requirement
Why: Needed to support expanded clinical trials in pediatric patients
“A PMR for a juvenile animal toxicology study to support expanded clinical trials in pediatric patients is recommended.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyQuestioned
Monkey telemetry respiratory assessment limited to respiratory rate, without tidal volume or oxygen saturation
“The respiratory assessment was inadequate because the assessment of respiratory rate was not supported by other measures of respiratory function, such as tidal volume or hemoglobin oxygen saturation.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 18Source ↗

Avastin

bevacizumab · VEGF-A
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study; rabbit embryo-fetal study only
Why: Most important parts of reproductive toxicology examined in the segment II study · Weight of evidence
“The omission of prenatal and postnatal development, including maternal function studies can be accepted, because the most important parts of reproductive toxicology were examined in the segment II study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 22Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Physeal dysplasia in monkeys at exposures about 1.5- to 2.0-fold below expected human exposure
“Based on weekly dose, this effect occurred at dose levels slightly below (>0.8-fold) the proposed clinical dose, and exposure levels were approximately 1.5- to 2.0-fold below the expected human clinical exposure, based on average serum concentrations.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
Most pharmacology studies used the murine parent antibody A4.6.1 rather than bevacizumab
Why: Equivalence to bevacizumab documented for VEGF affinity and anti-proliferative effect · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Most submitted pharmacological studies are performed with A4.6.1 but equivalence between bevacizumab and A4.6.1 has been adequately documented with regard to VEGF affinity and anti-proliferative effect.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗

Cablivi

caplacizumab · von Willebrand factor (A1 domain)
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study; only guinea pig embryo-fetal development and placental transfer studies
Why: No concern from the guinea pig embryo-fetal development study · Weight of evidence
“the lack of effects in the conducted embryo-foetal development study in guinea pigs, which did not cause concern on caplacizumab treatment during embryo- and organogenesis and later development, no pre- and postnatal development study were performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Functional fertility assessments in the 13-week monkey study (spermiogram, testicular ultrasound, oestrus cycles) conducted non-GLP
Why: Well performed by qualified experts and therefore reliable · Other reason
“The functional assessments on male and female fertility parameters, although conducted non-GLP, are considered well performed by qualified experts and therefore considered reliable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL or exposure margin definable: dose-dependent bleeding at all doses tested
“Increased bleeding (dose dependent and reversible) was observed at all doses tested and a NOAEL and exposure margin to the clinic is therefore not possible to define.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗

Cimzia

certolizumab pegol · TNF-α
SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicology in cynomolgus monkey, a species in which certolizumab pegol is far less potent against TNFα than in human
Why: Clinical safety profile adequately established from experience with other anti-TNFα agents · Class precedent · Human data
“Thus, certolizumab pegol was considerably less potent in binding monkey TNFα than human, and the excess of the plasma levels above IC90 for TNFα is 10,000-fold higher in patients than in the monkey studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Reproductive toxicity tested in rats with the homologous rodent surrogate cTN3 PF instead of certolizumab pegol
Why: Certolizumab pegol does not recognise rodent TNF and is immunogenic in rats · No relevant species
“Reproductive studies with certolizumab pegol have not been undertaken due to the lack of recognition of rodent TNF and immunogenicity in rats. Instead, the homologous agent cTN3 PF, which is a chimeric Fab’ fragment conjugated to 40 kDa PEG, was tested in the reproductive and developmental toxicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic inflammatory indication
Why: Nature of the compound; no pharmacological activity and immunogenicity in species normally used · No relevant species · Low-risk modality
“No conventional carcinogenicity testing was performed with certolizumab pegol, which was acceptable considering the nature of the compound and the lack of pharmacological activity and immunogenicity of certolizumab pegol in species normally used for such testing.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗

Dupixent

dupilumab · IL-4Ra
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
All toxicology conducted with homologous surrogate antibodies (REGN646 in cynomolgus monkey, REGN1103 in mouse), not with dupilumab
Why: Dupilumab does not cross-react with IL-4Rα from nonclinical species · No relevant species
“Because dupilumab does not cross-react with species used to evaluate nonclinical safety, the toxicology studies were conducted with homologous anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies REGN646 and REGN1103 in cynomolgus monkeys and CD-1 mice, respectively, to identify potential hazards associated with inhibition of IL-4 and IL-13.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 17Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence assessment from IL-4/IL-13 literature and surrogate toxicity data
Why: Weight-of-evidence approach in accordance with ICH S6(R1); IL-4/IL-13 pathway literature · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No carcinogenicity studies were conducted. However, an assessment of the carcinogenic potential of dupilumab was made based on literature data on the role of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway in tumour development and on non-clinical data for both REGN646 and REGN1103.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No meaningful exposure multiples to human dupilumab exposure because toxicity studies used a surrogate antibody
Why: Chronic study Ctrough was 52x the in vitro IC90, showing sufficiently high exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Given that the toxicity studies were conducted with a surrogate antibody a direct comparison of exposure multiples in the toxicity studies with exposure of dupilumab in humans is not considered meaningful.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 22Source ↗

Evenity

romosozumab · Sclerostin
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Bioanalytical method validations for pivotal toxicity studies not formally GLP
Why: Some studies followed GLP principles such as QA audit; no impact on results · Other reason
“None of the method validations applied in pivotal toxicity studies were formally performed under GLP. It is acknowledged that some of the studies are performed according to GLP principles, e.g. QA audit of different steps of the study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
Rodent surrogate antibodies (r13c7, m13c7) used in some studies instead of romosozumab
Why: Romosozumab causes anti-drug antibody formation in rodents
“In some studies, rodent versions of the humanized antibody AMG785 (rat 13c7 (r13c7) and mouse 13c7 (m13c7)) were used because AMG785 causes anti-drug antibody (ADA) formation in those species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 561Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No initial data on prolonged treatment and vascular calcification or atherosclerosis; mechanistic studies added during review
Why: Weight of evidence shows no mechanistic link between sclerostin inhibition and vascular calcification or atherosclerosis · Weight of evidence
“The applicant did not provide data on the effect of prolonged romosozumab treatment on vascular calcification in normal and diseased vasculature such as in the atherosclerosis mouse model. As such, it is not clear, if a sclerostin specific antibody would possibly amplify the atherosclerotic effects.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗

Evkeeza

evinacumab · ANGPTL3
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo carcinogenicity studies; weight-of-evidence assessment from literature and toxicology studies
Why: Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee consulted; no animal studies requested and sponsor's assessment adequate · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant submitted a weight of evidence assessment to address the carcinogenic potential of evinacumab, which was based on information available from relevant literature and animal toxicology studies completed under the IND.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 10Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rabbit fetal malformations (internal hydrocephaly, flexed paws) at exposures below clinical; no margin, mechanism unknown
Why: Unknown mechanism, severity and low exposure margins mean a potential human risk; addressed in Warning and Precaution labeling
“These fetal malformations occur at doses that resulted in less than the clinical exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 77Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat chronic SC NOAEL gives 0.4-fold the MRHD exposure (no margin)
“100 mg/kg/week in both species by the SC route (0.4 and 3-fold the MRHD in rats and monkeys, respectively, based on AUC).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗

Jemperli

dostarlimab · PD-1
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies; literature-based assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade risk instead
Why: PD-1/PD-L1 blockade expected to disrupt fetomaternal immune tolerance; literature-based assessment judged acceptable · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No reproductive and developmental studies were conducted because of potential adverse effects of the blockade of PD‐1/programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) pathway on the immune tolerance at the fetomaternal interface.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 50Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
No fertility studies; monkey reproductive organ data from sexually immature animals, so fertility risk unknown
“While fertility studies were not submitted, no notable effects on the male and female reproductive organs were observed in monkeys in the 1 month and 3 month repeat dose toxicology studies; however, these results may not be representative at all of the potential clinical risk because of the immaturity of the reproductive system of animals used in the studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No NOAEL established in the 13-week monkey study (finding in one low-dose 10 mg/kg animal)
Why: Dostarlimab well tolerated; no special hazard identified in monkey studies up to 3 months · Weight of evidence
“However, in the 13-week repeat dose study, the NOAEL could not be established, due to the finding described above occurring in one animal in the low dose group (10 mg/kg).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗

Leqembi

lecanemab · Amyloid-β protofibrils
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No rodent carcinogenicity studies for long-term use; weight-of-evidence carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: Option afforded by ICH S6 and S1; neutralizing anti-drug antibodies in rodents to lecanemab and its mouse surrogate · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“A weight-of-evidence assessment of carcinogenicity risk was conducted considering this possibility afforded by ICH S6 and S1 guidelines instead of conducting 2-years carcinogenicity study in rodents and 6-month Tg Ras study to support long-term human use of lecanemab. The whole approach is supported.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Patients aged 50 years and older; target soluble Aβ aggregates not detectable in standard reproductive toxicology species · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“This was justified by the applicant according to a weight of evidence approach considering notably that the age of the intended patient population (50 years of age and older). In addition, it was pointed out that standard preclinical models used for the conduct of reproductive and developmental studies are not relevant since the soluble aggregates of Aβ targeted by lecanemab are not detectable in these species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
On-target cerebral microhaemorrhage risk assessed only in non-GLP pharmacology studies in transgenic mice with the murine surrogate mAb158
Why: On-target microhaemorrhage evaluable only in transgenic mice with the surrogate; FDA later no longer required the assessment · No relevant species
“The particularity of the toxicological programme is on-target toxicity evaluation of cerebral microhaemorrhage potential can be conducted only as part of the non-GLP repeated-dose pharmacology studies in transgenic mice (Tg2576 and Tg-APPArcSwe) using the murine monoclonal antibody surrogate.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Ocrevus

ocrelizumab · CD20
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal chronic toxicity and embryo-fetal studies used early drug substance not shown comparable to the marketed product
Why: Available clinical data make a repeat chronic toxicity study unnecessary · Human data
“The adequacy of the nonclinical program has been called into question by a lack of sufficient comparability between the drug material used in the nonclinical studies and the to-be-marketed drug product.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Pre-/postnatal development study lacked adequate T-cell-dependent antibody response evaluation of offspring immune function
“The lack of an adequate TDAR evaluation in the pre- and postnatal development (PPND) study precluded an evaluation of potential adverse effects on immune function.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 19Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity assessment waived for a chronic multiple sclerosis indication
Why: Carcinogenicity assessment deemed not feasible · Other reason
“Genetic toxicology studies were not required or conducted. Assessment of carcinogenic potential was deemed not feasible and the sponsor’s waiver request was granted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 19Source ↗

Repatha

evolocumab · PCSK9
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Combination toxicity study used a rosuvastatin dose without pharmacological activity in monkeys
Why: Study adequately characterised the potential for combinatorial toxicity despite caveats
“The low dose (5 mg/kg) may explain the lack of pharmacological activity of rosuvastatin but does not justify the dose selection for the study; according to the publically available data, the therapeutic range seems to be higher than the 5 mg/kg used in the toxicological study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
TDAR immunotoxicity re-analysis not accepted as justified; concern about impaired T-cell-dependent antibody response remained
“The re-analysis of available TDAR data was not considered however appropriately justified, and since the full data set had to be taken into consideration, the concern of potential risk of impairment of T cell dependent antibody response at least after long term treatment (3 months) remained.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Effects on infant humoral immunity not evaluated in developmental studies despite a class signal with alirocumab
“Of note, humoral immune suppression was observed in infant monkeys exposed in utero to another drug in this class (alirocumab); effects on humoral immunity were not evaluated in the developmental studies for the evolocumab program.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗

Rituxan

rituximab · CD20
Study lengthCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No long-term animal studies; observation limited to 90 days although B-cell recovery was incomplete
Why: Additional animal studies not indicated
“The major concerns were the low level of exposure in Cynomolgus as compared to human level of exposure (1:1) and the lack of long-term animal studies, since B-cell recovery was not complete 90 days post dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 5Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: monkey toxicity study exposures similar to human exposure, based on Cmax only
“Only Cmax data are available suggesting that the exposure levels in the toxicity studies were similar to those attained in humans.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 5Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicity studies (nor genotoxicity or carcinogenicity)
“The lack of reproductive, mutagenic, genotoxic and carcinogenic studies is justified, and SPC has been amended appropriately.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 6Source ↗

Simponi

golimumab · TNF-α
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Nominal monkey margins of 50 and above uncertain: golimumab has 34-fold lower affinity and 72-fold lower potency for cynomolgus TNFα
Why: Clinical safety profile of anti-TNFα agents is fairly well established · Class precedent · Human data
“The margins to human exposure, when comparing Cmax and AUC values are in general large, from 50 and above, however it has to be taken into account that golimumab was shown to have 34-fold less affinity and to be 72-fold less potent in neutralizing cynomolgus TNFα”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 16Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study; rodent studies not meaningful; lymphoma or other malignancy risk cannot be excluded
Why: No pharmacologic activity in rodents; gap reflected in SPC and risk management plan · No relevant species
“No carcinogenicity study was performed with golimumab as standard rodent studies are not meaningful due to lack of pharmacologic activity in this species. However, with the current knowledge, a possible risk for the development of lymphomas or other malignancies in patients treated with a TNF-antagonist cannot be excluded.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
Mouse studies used the analogous anti-mouse TNFα antibody cV1q, developed for infliximab, instead of golimumab
Why: Golimumab shows little or no neutralization of mouse TNFα
“The cynomolgus monkey was chosen as the most relevant non-clinical species, since golimumab showed little or no neutralization of dog, rabbit, mouse or rat TNFα. For the studies in mice, an analogous anti-mouse TNFα monoclonal antibody designated cV1q, developed during the non-clinical testing of another TNFα inhibitor, infliximab (Remicade), was used.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗

Tezspire

tezepelumab · TSLP
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies; weight-of-evidence risk assessment from chronic monkey data and TSLP literature
Why: No binding to rodent TSLP; weight of evidence shows no product-specific carcinogenicity concern · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“The conduct of carcinogenicity studies in rodents was not feasible as tezepelumab does not bind to rodents’ TSLP. Therefore, a carcinogenicity risk assessment was conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 34Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility/early embryonic development study; fertility assessed only via reproductive organs in the 6-month monkey study
Why: Mating studies not practical in cynomolgus monkeys; no adverse effects in 6-month study · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“No development toxicity studies with tezepelumab were conducted to evaluate early embryonic development to implantation as it is not practical to do mating studies in cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No surrogate (M702) studies on TSLP role in early pregnancy and placentation
Why: Published mouse results strain-dependent · Other reason
“However, the applicant clarified that studies were not carried out using M702 due to strain-dependence of the results described in the published literature. The lack of studies is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Ultomiris

ravulizumab · Complement C5
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
No toxicity studies with ravulizumab (no relevant species); reliance on surrogate BB5.1 mouse studies from the eculizumab application
Why: No anti-C5 activity in nonhuman species; surrogate studies already assessed in the Soliris application · No relevant species · Class precedent
“No repeat dose toxicity studies were performed with ALXN1210 because it does not display detectable anti-C5 activity in nonhuman serum and therefore no relevant species for toxicity testing exist. Instead, a repeat-dose toxicity study in mice was performed using BB5.1, a murine anti-mouse C5 surrogate antibody.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic indication despite haematopoietic neoplasms in one high-dose female in the 26-week surrogate mouse study
Why: ICH S6(R1): carcinogenicity studies not generally relevant to biotechnology products; no anti-C5 activity in rodents · Within the guideline · No relevant species
“The carcinogenic potential of ALXN1210 in animals is unknown. However, in the 26‐week repeat dose toxicology study in mice with BB5.1, multiple hematopoietic neoplasms (lymphoma/lung/salivary glands/thymus) occurred in 1 high dose female (60 mg/kg/week), lymphoid or lymphoreticular hyperplasia in mandibular lymph node and thymus occurred in another high dose female.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Nonclinical PK data limited and largely unusable (unvalidated assays); PK characterisation left to human studies
Why: Lack of cross-reactivity with non-human tissues; PK to be assessed in humans per EMA scientific advice · No relevant species · Human data
“However, since the analytical method used in this study was not validated, the PK results from this study cannot be regarded as usable for the evaluation of ravulizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Xolair

omalizumab · IgE
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for chronic asthma use; carcinogenic potential to be judged from clinical safety data
Why: Omalizumab does not bind rodent IgE; clinical safety data to inform carcinogenic potential · No relevant species · Human data
“No carcinogenicity study with omalizumab was performed since omalizumab does not bind rodent IgE.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 10Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No animal disease model; only skin test reactivity in ragweed-sensitised monkeys
Why: Clinical experience with the product makes developing new animal models unjustified · Human data
“Except for skin test reactivity studies in Cynomolgus monkeys sensitised to ragweed, no animal model of disease was used.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Late-gestation monkey study without further dosing or evaluation of offspring, e.g. immunotoxicity
“There was no evidence of late gestational maternal or offspring toxicity. However, further dosing and evaluation of the offspring were not performed, for example with regard to immunotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗

Emgality

galcanezumab · CGRP
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic migraine indication; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: CGRP biology, target specificity, no structural alerts, and toxicity and clinical data indicate low carcinogenic potential · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics · Human data
“Carcinogenicity studies were not required, based on the potential for galcanezumab to counter CGRP associated angiogenesis and immunosuppression, specificity of galcanezumab for CGRP, lack of structural alerts on galcanezumab, and submitted toxicity and clinical studies, which indicated that galcanezumab has a low potential for carcinogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated nonclinical study of the theoretical cardiovascular risk of CGRP inhibition, before or after approval
Why: Nonclinical studies unlikely to provide useful information given limited understanding of CGRP's role · Other reason
“Without a better understanding of the role of CGRP, it is unlikely that nonclinical studies of galcanezumab could be designed and conducted that would provide useful information; therefore, no post-marketing study to further assess the cardiovascular safety of galcanezumab is recommended.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗

Gamifant

emapalumab · IFN-γ
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal development tested in mice with the rodent surrogate antibody XMG1.2 instead of emapalumab
“Embryo-fetal developmental toxicology studies were conducted in mice, with XMG1.2 used as surrogate for emapalumab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 24Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standalone fertility studies; reproductive organs assessed in repeat-dose monkey studies
Why: Not needed for the intended treatment indication; no reproductive organ effects in repeat-dose monkey studies · Other reason
“Standalone fertility assessments were not conducted as they are not needed to support the marketing of this product for the intended treatment indication. No adverse effects on male or female reproductive organs were observed in the repeat-dose toxicity studies in cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 24Source ↗

Libtayo

cemiplimab · PD-1
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No embryo-fetal development studies; literature review of PD-1/PD-L1 pathway reproductive risk instead
Why: Literature-based assessment of reproductive toxicity potential; FDA agreed the approach appeared reasonable · Weight of evidence
“Embryo-fetal development studies were not conducted with cemiplimab. Rather, the Applicant provided a scientific literature review and assessment of the reproductive toxicity potential of cemiplimab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development or juvenile studies
Why: Other checkpoint inhibitors already shown to induce abortion and premature delivery in monkeys; agreed at scientific advice · Class precedent
“Since other checkpoint inhibitors have shown to induce abortion and premature delivery in monkeys, the risk is already identified,hence it is acceptable that no studies have been performed to test the potential of cemiplimab for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, pre and postnatal development and juvenile studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗

Niktimvo

axatilimab · CSF-1R
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive or developmental toxicity studies; weight-of-evidence literature risk assessment (CSF-1/CSF-1R deficiency models) instead
Why: Weight-of-evidence risk assessment submitted in place of animal studies · Weight of evidence
“While no animal studies were conducted to assess the reproductive and developmental risks of axatilimab, a WoE-based risk assessment report was submitted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies; rodent bioassays not relevant
Why: Axatilimab not pharmacologically active in rodents · No relevant species
“Because axatilimab is not active pharmacologically in rodents, conventional carcinogenicity studies in mice or rats are not relevant for axatilimab. The FDA’s Assessment: The FDA concurs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 52Source ↗

Omvoh

mirikizumab · IL-23 p19
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity study; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Rodents not pharmacologically relevant; no proliferative or immunotoxicity signals; CDER carcinogenicity committee concurred · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“Conventional rodent carcinogenicity studies were not conducted for the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of mirikizumab as rodents are not a pharmacologically relevant species. Concurrence has been received from the Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee of CDER that a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study is not needed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 74Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Higher ePPND embryo/fetal loss 26.7% vs 6.7% in concurrent controls
Why: Atypically low concurrent control loss; treated incidence within historical control range · Weight of evidence
“The applicant has argued that the study is confounded by the atypically low level of embryo/fetal loss in the control group and that the levels seen in the mirikizumab treated group are within the bounds of historical control data and hence are not mirikizumab related.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Saphnelo

anifrolumab · IFNAR1
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic SLE therapy; literature weight of evidence suggests increased malignancy risk from IFNAR blockade
Why: No binding to murine IFNAR1; likely increased carcinogenicity risk followed clinically and addressed in the RMP · No relevant species · Weight of evidence · Human data
“Carcinogenicity studies with anifrolumab were not conducted. Anifrolumab does not bind to murine IFNAR1 and does not inhibit the biological activity of murine IFN-α.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated embryo-foetal development study, and no justification provided for omitting it
Why: Limitations of the NHP model, no other pharmacologically responsive species and confounding SLE disease background · No relevant species
“A justification for not performing embryo-foetal developmental toxicity evaluation with anifrolumab was not provided.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗

Skyrizi

risankizumab · IL-23 p19
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for chronic inflammatory indications; weight-of-evidence assessment with ECAC concurrence
Why: Rodents not pharmacologically relevant; low malignancy risk by weight of evidence; labeling and postmarketing malignancy monitoring · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“A carcinogenicity study with long-term antagonism of IL23p19 in rodents will not be informative because rodents are not a pharmacologically relevant species. Concurrence has been received from the Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee of CDER that a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study is not needed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 54Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated juvenile toxicity study; infants in the monkey ePPND study followed for six months instead
Why: No risankizumab-related effects in infant monkeys up to six months of age in the ePPND study · Weight of evidence
“In the ePPND study infants were observed for six months post-partum, no dedicated juvenile toxicology studies were carried out and this is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗

Sylvant

siltuximab · IL-6
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity study; carcinogenic risk assessed by weight of evidence including murine tumour surveillance studies with surrogate
Why: Data with siltuximab and other IL-6 inhibitors suggest low carcinogenic potential; weight of evidence does not indicate a human risk · Weight of evidence · Class precedent
“Rodent carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted with siltuximab. Evidence from studies conducted with siltuximab and other IL-6 inhibitors suggest that the potential for siltuximab to cause carcinogenicity is low.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility tested in mice with a rat anti-mouse IL-6 surrogate; ePPND in monkeys with a humanized siltuximab variant
Why: Binding, inhibition and epitope mapping showed the surrogates were suitable surrogates for siltuximab · Pharmacology or kinetics
“A fertility study was conducted with a rat anti-mouse IL6 mAb (CNTO 345) in mice and an enhanced pre- and post-natal development (ePPND) study was conducted with a humanized version of siltuximab (CNTO 136) in cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 16Source ↗

Takhzyro

lanadelumab · Plasma kallikrein
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity study for chronic HAE prophylaxis (neutralising ADA in rats); weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: ADA in rats made rodent studies infeasible; 39-week monkey study and literature indicate low carcinogenic risk · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The conduct of carcinogenicity studies in rodents was not feasible based on the development of ADA in SD rats after repeated dosing. Based on the results of the 39-week study in monkeys as well as evidence from the available scientific literature, chronic inhibition of bradykinin production via DX-2930 treatment is unlikely to affect carcinogenic risk in HAE patients.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 26Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal 6-month toxicity in cynomolgus monkey only; rat dropped because of high immunogenicity and loss of exposure
Why: High immunogenicity in rats caused loss of exposure on repeated dosing · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In rats, lanadelumab was highly immunogenic, which resulted in the loss of exposure following repeated administration, limiting the utility of using rats for further toxicology studies, while immunogenicity was generally low in cynomolgus monkeys with both SC and IV routes of administration.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗

Gazyva

obinutuzumab · CD20
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Hypersensitivity reactions in the 26-week monkey study at all doses, at 0.7-6 times clinical exposure
Why: Attributed to foreign recognition of the humanised antibody in monkeys · No relevant species
“In a 26 week cynomolgus monkey study, hypersensitivity reactions were noted and attributed to the foreign recognition of the humanised antibody in cynomolgus monkeys (0.7-6 times the clinical exposure based on Cmax and AUC at steady state after weekly administration of 5, 25, and 50 mg/kg).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
GLPAccepted
Bioanalytical method validation for monkey serum not performed under GLP
Why: Method validated per FDA bioanalytical guidance and best industry practice valid at the time · Within the guideline
“The validations of the bioanalysis methods used for quantification of obinutuzumab in Cynomolgus monkey serum were not performed according to GLP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
BiodistributionAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo distribution of obinutuzumab not studied
Why: CD20 tissue expression characterised; limited distribution beyond plasma; no off-target binding in human tissue cross-reactivity · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The in vivo distribution of obinutuzumab has not been studied. This is deemed acceptable due to 1) the fact that obinutuzumab is specific for CD20 whose tissue expression is characterized 2) the fact that pharmacokinetic data indicate limited distribution beyond the plasma compartment and 3) the human cross-reactivity study indicates no potential for off-target binding.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
OtherAccepted
No dedicated single-dose toxicity studies; acute effects assessed after the first dose in repeat-dose monkey studies
Why: Repeat-dose study results address acute toxicity per ICH M3(R2) · Within the guideline
“According to ICH guidance M3(R2), the results of these studies are considered appropriate to address acute toxicity aspects. Therefore, the lack of dedicated single-dose toxicity studies was considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
In vitro cytokine release assay did not test immobilized antibody
“Reviewer’s comment: This assay did not include a set of experiments using immobilized antibodies. By not doing, the assay may not adequately mimic the in vivo conditions that may give rise to cytokine release.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 112Source ↗

Alhemo

concizumab · TFPI
DARTVerdict not stated
No dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicity studies (no embryo-fetal or pre/postnatal studies)
Why: Indicated primarily for male hemophilia patients; clinical program conducted exclusively in males · Other reason
“Dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicology studies were not conducted as concizumab is primarily indicated for use in male patients with hemophilia and the clinical development program was conducted exclusively in males.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 119Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Not functional in rodents; weight-of-evidence of mode of action, literature, nonclinical and clinical data · Weight of evidence · No relevant species · Human data
“Instead, the Applicant conducted a carcinogenicity risk assessment of concizumab using a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach that considered the mode of action (MOA), a review of relevant literature and an evaluation of the nonclinical and clinical data.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 120Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted
No dedicated juvenile animal studies
Why: Neonatal and infant monkey studies technically challenging and unlikely to identify new reactions · Within the guideline · Other reason
“Dedicated juvenile animal studies have not been conducted with concizumab as studies in neonatal and infant monkeys are technically challenging and are unlikely to identify potential reactions that were not identified from studies in fully developed (adult) animals.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 119Source ↗
RecoveryVerdict not stated
Reversibility of vascular findings not assessed in the 52-week monkey study
“The reversibility of the findings in cynomolgus monkeys was not assessed and the NOAEL (0.5 mg/kg/day, 1660 µg.hr/mL AUC0-24, Week 52) represents a 74x exposure margin to the anticipated clinical dose (0.20 mg/kg, 22.4 µg.hr/mL AUC0-24).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 235Source ↗

Benlysta

belimumab · BLyS (BAFF)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for a chronic autoimmune indication; malignancy risk deferred to a clinical post-marketing safety study
Why: Rodent studies limited by anti-drug antibodies; malignancy risk can only be evaluated clinically · Pharmacology or kinetics · Human data
“A traditional rodent carcinogenicity study would be limited due to rapid formation of anti-drug-antibodies to both belimumab and a homologous hamster anti-mouse BLyS antibody.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No fertility and early embryonic development study; reproductive organs assessed in the 6-month monkey study
Why: No adverse effects on reproductive organs in the 6-month monkey study
“No specific studies on the effects of belimumab on fertility and early embryonic development were conducted. The reproductive organ/tissues were assessed in the 6 months repeat dose toxicology study and there were no indications that belimumab had an adverse effect on reproductive organs.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Monkey embryo-fetal/postnatal study lacked functional assessment of the developing immune system
“Your embryo-fetal development/postnatal development study does not appear to have functional characterization of the impact of your product on the developing immune system. Exposure to this product during development can alter the offspring's immune system.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 171Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted
No stand-alone safety pharmacology studies; assessments included in three GLP monkey toxicity studies
Why: High target specificity; no abnormalities in the monkey studies · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No specific safety pharmacology studies were conducted due to the high specificity of belimumab for its target. In accordance with the Guideline CHMP/ICH/539/00, the Applicant included safety pharmacology assessments in three GLP studies in cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 16Source ↗

Darzalex

daratumumab · CD38
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Chimpanzee the only relevant species; exploratory studies in cynomolgus monkey used surrogate antibody HuMab-CD38
Why: Daratumumab does not bind CD38 of species typically used for toxicology testing · No relevant species
“Daratumumab binds to human and chimpanzee CD38, but not to CD38 of species typically used for nonclinical toxicology testing, ie, mouse, rat, rabbit, pig, and cynomolgus and rhesus monkey. Therefore, another anti-CD38 mAb, HuMab-CD38, that binds human and cynomolgus monkey CD38 was also characterized and used in some exploratory studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗
Study lengthVerdict not stated
No chronic toxicity study conducted
“No chronic toxicity testing has been conducted with daratumumab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No developmental and reproductive toxicity studies; testing not feasible in chimpanzee and surrogate monkey studies limited by anaemia and ADAs
Why: No feasible relevant species; majority of patients beyond reproductive age; included as missing information in the RMP · No relevant species · Other reason
“Developmental and reproductive toxicity testing is not feasible in chimpanzees. The use of a surrogate antibody in cynomolgus monkeys was considered, but anaemia and formation of ADAs limit the dosages and duration of any additional studies in this species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL established in the surrogate HuMab-CD38 cynomolgus monkey study
“A NOAEL was not established in this study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Portrazza

necitumumab · EGFR
DARTAccepted
No reproductive toxicity studies; EGFR knockout literature and cetuximab embryo-fetal data used instead
Why: Surrogate data from cetuximab reproductive study; ICH S9 basis for not requiring additional DART studies · Class precedent · Within the guideline
“In order to investigate the potential effects of incomplete blockade of EGFR signaling with an antibody, the Applicant was able to provide surrogate data by right of reference to the reproductive toxicology study conducted as a post-marketing requirement for the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 61Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the 26-week monkey study; 5-week NOAEL exposure about equal to human exposure at maximum dose
“In the 5-week study, exposure at the NOAEL dose level (40 mg/kg) was approximately the same as the median exposure expected at the maximum clinical dose level”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicokinetic and immunogenicity analyses in the repeat-dose toxicity studies not GLP-compliant
Why: Exposure values not critical for the safety evaluation · Other reason
“Lack of GLP status for the TK part is a deficiency that may impact on the conclusions drawn from the toxicity study. However, in this case the exposure values are not considered critical for the safety evaluation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
Tissue cross-reactivity study evaluated each tissue in only one species, preventing human-monkey comparison
“While the purpose of tissue-cross-reactivity studies is typically to demonstrate comparability of binding between nonclinical and clinical species, and to potentially identify patterns of drug-related toxicity, in this study, the Applicant chose to evaluate each tissue in only one species, and therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the binding pattern was similar between the two species”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 40Source ↗

Prolia

denosumab · RANKL
CarcinogenicityCriticised but accepted
No carcinogenicity studies; ovariectomized monkeys treated up to 16 months without preneoplastic lesions
Why: Regulatory guidance; no preneoplastic lesions in monkeys, though RANKL/OPG pathway dysregulation could matter for tumour development · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“No carcinogenicity studies were conducted in accordance with available regulatory guidance. Ovariectomized monkey treated for up to 16 months with denosumab showed no evidence of pre neoplastic lesions.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 16Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
No dedicated immunotoxicity studies; immune effects inferred from monkey studies and OPG-Fc/OPG-transgenic rodent literature
Why: Literature indicates RANKL has no significant role in functional immune responses of adults with an intact immune system
“The relevance of using these models instead of denosumab in studies on immunomodulatory effects is uncertain and considering the mechanism of action of denosumab, potential effects on immunomodulation and immunosuppression cannot be ruled out.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Respiratory function assessed only by clinical observation within monkey studies
Why: No indication of an effect on respiratory function · Weight of evidence
“According to the guideline, clinical observation of animals is generally not adequate to assess respiratory function. However, since no indication of denosumab to affect respiratory function were noted, the current study is considered sufficient.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Monkey embryofetal study covered only the first trimester and did not examine fetal lymph nodes
“However, this study only assessed fetal toxicity during the first trimester, and fetal lymph nodes were not examined.”
✓ VerifiedFDA review, p. 17Source ↗

Uplizna

inebilizumab · CD19
SpeciesAccepted
No cross-reactive animal species; all toxicology in human CD19 transgenic mice
Why: huCD19 transgenic mouse the only relevant species; use supported by ICH S6(R1) · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“Therefore, the species selected for nonclinical testing was the human CD19 transgenic mouse model (huCD19 Tg), which was considered the only relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic NMOSD use; weight-of-evidence waiver
Why: Two-year study in huCD19 transgenic mice would add little given limited interpretability and no historical data · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“Carcinogenicity In accordance with the weight of evidence approach outlined in ICH S6 (R1), the applicant has presented argumentation for waiving of carcinogenicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Neurobehavioral testing in the transgenic mouse PPND study inadequate (too few animals, maze test done improperly)
Why: Concerns manageable with labeling · Other reason
“The neurobehavioral testing conducted as part of the pre- and postnatal development study was not considered adequate for the following 2 reasons: 1) Insufficient number of animals per group was tested, 2) the learning and memory assessment with the Biel maze was not conducted appropriately.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No no-effect dose identified for adverse effects on fertility in transgenic mice
“A no-effect dose for adverse effects on fertility was not identified.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Actemra

tocilizumab · IL-6R
GLPVerdict not stated
Safety pharmacology studies, including monkey cardiovascular studies, not conducted under formal GLP
“Safety pharmacology studies, including cardiovascular safety studies in the cynomolgus monkey, conducted during preclinical development were not done under formal GLP requirements.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 13Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated fertility study; fertility risk inferred from chronic monkey toxicity and IL-6 deficient mice
Why: No reproductive organ effects in chronic monkey study; reproductive performance unaffected in IL-6 deficient mice · Weight of evidence
“Nonclinical data do not suggest an effect on fertility under treatment with tocilizumab as effects on endocrine active organs or on organs of the reproductive system were not seen in a chronic primate toxicity study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 17Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Pre- and postnatal development assessed only with a murine analogue in mice, not tocilizumab
“Testing of a murine analogue of tocilizumab in mice did not yield any evidence of harm to offspring during the pre- and postnatal development phase when dosed at 50 mg/kg intravenously with treatment every three days from implantation (GD 6) until post-partum day 21 (weaning).”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Arzerra

ofatumumab · CD20
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility or pre-/postnatal development studies; embryo-fetal study in monkey only
Why: No off-target binding and no CD20 expression in reproductive tissues · Pharmacology or kinetics
“However, it was considered acceptable that fertility and pre- and post natal development studies were not submitted due to 1) the lack of ofatumumab off-target binding, 2) the lack of CD20 expression in reproductive tissues”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
Anti-drug antibody assays inadequately validated; drug interference with ADA detection unresolved
“For both assays several concerns were raised regarding the design and the validation of the methods, especially since the presence of ofatumumab seems to interfere with the detection of anti-ofatumumab antibodies even at low concentrations. The applicant did not provide adequate answers to these concerns.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
OtherAccepted
No single-dose toxicity studies
Why: In line with the EMA concept paper on single dose/acute toxicity · Within the guideline
“The lack of single-dose toxicity studies is acceptable in accordance with the concept paper on single dose/acute toxicity (EMEA/CHMP/SWP/302413/2008).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗

Danyelza

naxitamab · GD2
SpeciesAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Repeat-dose toxicity only in immunodeficient nude rats, judged an inadequate toxicology model; juvenile study in a relevant species required postmarketing
Why: Additional juvenile toxicology study in a relevant species needed to characterize nerve risk in the pediatric population
“Literature cited by the Applicant using other antibodies targeting GD2 in fully immunocompetent rat or mouse models demonstrates the ability of these rodents to model the allodynia observed clinically, further suggesting that though some immune-competent rodent models may adequately predict the toxicity of the antibody the nude rat is does not, making it an inadequate toxicology model for this product.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 63Source ↗
First doseVerdict not stated
Initial clinical trials supported by prior clinical data with the murine parent antibody, not by toxicology data with naxitamab
Why: Prior clinical data with the murine parent antibody
“The initial clinical trials investigating the activity and dosing of naxitamab were conducted on the basis of previous clinical data with the murine parent antibody rather than supported by toxicology data with the clinical candidate.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility or embryo-fetal development studies
Why: Patient population primarily 5 years old or younger; fertility studies not warranted for advanced cancer · Within the guideline · Other reason
“In addition, because the age of the proposed patient population is primarily ≤5 years old, FDA did not request an embryo-fetal development study to support the use of naxitamab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗

Empliciti

elotuzumab · SLAMF7
SpeciesVerdict not stated
No pharmacologically relevant species or valid transgenic mouse; no repeat-dose toxicity studies; safety program mainly in vitro with human cells and tissues
Why: No species-specific cross-reactivity · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“Due to the lack of species-specific cross-reactivity, no relevant animal species or valid transgenic mouse models were identified in which to conduct the nonclinical toxicology studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 16Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No safety pharmacology studies
Why: SLAMF7 binding not expected to affect CNS or cardiovascular function · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Binding to SLAMF7 by elotuzumab is therefore not expected to have effects on CNS parameters or cardiovascular functioning. The absence of specific safety pharmacology studies is therefore acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 22Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies; risk assessment based on SLAMF7 tissue distribution and published literature instead
Why: Lack of a pharmacologically relevant animal species · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Safety pharmacology, repeat dose toxicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity studies were not conducted due to the lack of a pharmacologically-relevant animal species. The Applicant submitted a risk assessment for the potential for reproductive and developmental toxicity for elotuzumab based on the tissue distribution of SLAMF7 and published literature.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗

Ilaris

canakinumab · IL-1β
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Marmoset is the only cross-reactive species (no binding to mouse, rat, rabbit or cynomolgus IL-1β), so canakinumab toxicology was run in marmoset
Why: Marmoset is the only nonhuman species recognized by canakinumab · No relevant species
“Canakinumab does not bind to IL-1β from mouse, rat, rabbit, or cynomolgus monkey. The only nonhuman species specifically recognized by canakinumab is the marmoset monkey.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Marmoset reproductive testing limited to male fertility and EFD; full reproductive panel run with the mouse surrogate antibody
Why: Late placental IgG transfer meant little fetal exposure during organogenesis in marmoset, so surrogate studies were added · Pharmacology or kinetics
“However, given that transfer of IgG across the placenta starts late during gestation, it is unlikely that the fetus was exposed to canakinumab during the period of organogenesis. In addition a full panel of reproductive toxicity studies was performed with the surrogate mAb 01BSUR in mice.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile surrogate study lacked immune function testing; juvenile immunotoxicity study committed
Why: To exclude effects of IL-1β neutralization on the developing immune system
“To exclude possible effects of neutralization of IL-1β on the developing immune system, the applicant committed to perform a juvenile immunotoxicity study, assessing the effect of the canakinumab surrogate on immune function in juvenile animals.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗

Sarclisa

isatuximab · CD38
SpeciesAccepted
No pharmacologically relevant toxicology species (only chimpanzee binds); monkey toxicity study in a non-relevant species
Why: Only chimpanzee binds CD38, not appropriate for toxicity studies; no adequate transgenic mouse model available · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“The used species for toxicity testing, cynomolgous monkey, was not regarded a pharmacological relevant species as the antibody does not recognise the target in this species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No reproductive toxicity studies; literature weight-of-evidence on CD38 in reproduction and development instead
Why: No pharmacologically relevant species for an embryo-fetal study · No relevant species · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“The FDA's Assessment: Due to the lack of an appropriate pharmacologically relevant animal species, the evaluation of embryofetal development of isatuximab is based on a weight of evidence (WOE) assessment in lieu of conducting studies in animals.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 60Source ↗
Efficacy modelCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo proof of concept only in a subcutaneous non-Hodgkin lymphoma xenograft, not a myeloma model
Why: Model still provides evidence of anti-tumour effect towards CD38 · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Notwithstanding the limitations of the model: whether the use of an NHL cell line is representative for the proposed indication (MM), the model not fully simulating a systemic tumour, the extent of mediated cytotoxicity as this model lacks T and B cells, this study provides evidence for the anti-tumour effect of isatuximab towards CD38.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗

Yervoy

ipilimumab · CTLA-4
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicity data at approval; monkey combined embryo-fetal/pre-postnatal study still ongoing
Why: Final results to be submitted post-authorisation under the Risk Management Plan
“a combined embryofoetal, pre/post-natal development study is ongoing. As indicated in the Risk Management Plan, final results of this study will be submitted when available.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
Safety marginQuestioned
No safety margin determined for serious immune-related colitis and dermatitis in monkeys
“Conclusion on the non-clinical aspects The most notable concern identified during non-clinical testing was a low incidence of serious irAEs, manifested as colitis or dermatitis, for which no safety margin could be determined.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
Mouse tumour models dosed at tumour inoculation, of limited relevance to established melanoma
“For the current application the relevance of this study, and other cited anti-tumour studies using homologous mouse tumour models is limited because in all these studies the (blocking) CTLA-4 antibody was administered at the time or shortly after tumour inoculation”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗

Zinplava

bezlotoxumab · C. difficile toxin B
SpeciesAccepted
Foreign bacterial toxin target: no species for target-mediated toxicity; only short-term mouse toxicity studies
Why: Antibody against a foreign target; no species allows target-mediated toxicity assessment · Within the guideline · No relevant species
“This is acceptable as there is no species in which target-mediated toxicity can be investigated.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No reproductive or developmental toxicity studies
Why: ICH S6(R1) provision for antibodies against foreign targets · Within the guideline
““A short-term safety study in one species can be considered; no additional toxicity studies, including reproductive toxicity studies, are appropriate.” Therefore animal reproduction or developmental toxicity studies have not been conducted with bezlotoxumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗
Efficacy modelCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Animal efficacy shown only for the actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab combination, not bezlotoxumab alone
Why: Clinical results suggest toxin B neutralisation alone is sufficient · Human data
“Although clinical study results suggest that neutralization of toxin B is sufficient to reduce the risk of recurrent disease in humans, the preclinical efficacy data rely on the combination of actoxumab and bezlotoxumab instead of bezlotoxumab alone.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗

Cosentyx

secukinumab · IL-17A
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for chronic psoriasis use; literature-based weight-of-evidence assessment plus clinical malignancy monitoring
Why: Species-specific binding precludes a rodent study; literature indicates no increased carcinogenic potential from IL-17A inhibition · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Since secukinumab cannot be tested in a traditional 2-year rodent study to evaluate carcinogenic potential due to its species specific binding, the sponsor will monitor malignancy in psoriasis patients administered secukinumab as a part of a comprehensive Risk Management Plan.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 27Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Fertility and pre-/postnatal development studies in mice used a murine surrogate anti-IL-17A antibody (BZN035)
Why: Surrogate has appropriate neutralizing activity and specificity for mouse IL-17A
“The sponsor has generated a mouse IgG1/k monoclonal antibody (BZN035) with appropriate neutralizing activity and specificity for mouse IL-17A for use as a murine surrogate for AIN457.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 28Source ↗

Ebanga

ansuvimab · Zaire ebolavirus glycoprotein
DARTAccepted with a condition
No dedicated reproductive toxicology studies; tissue cross-reactivity study in human fetal/neonatal tissues requested postmarketing
Why: ICH S6(R1): generally not required for biologics to exogenous targets; no reproductive findings in monkey study or off-target binding · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Dedicated reproductive toxicology studies have not been conducted with ansuvimab-zykl. In accordance with ICH S6(R1), reproductive toxicology studies are generally not required for biologics to exogenous targets.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 89Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
Nonhuman primate efficacy program, begun for the Animal Rule, was incomplete when the outbreak occurred
Why: Available NHP data sufficient for proof-of-concept and to support the single 50 mg/kg IV clinical dose · Serious disease
“When the 2018 Eastern DRC outbreak occurred, the nonclinical program was progressing but was incomplete. However, the NHP data were sufficient to support the proof-of-concept and use of a single 50 mg/kg IV dose of ansuvimab-zykl in the PALM Trial and expanded access program.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 46Source ↗

Enjaymo

sutimlimab · Complement C1s
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic therapy; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Weight-of-evidence assessment per ICH S6(R1) showed low risk; approved complement inhibitors had no carcinogenicity studies · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“The applicant’s claim that the weight-of-evidence assessment of carcinogenic potential was done in line with the ICH S6 (R1) and that it showed a low cancerogenic risk of sutimlimab is accepted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fertility study; male spermatogenic cycle not examined in sexually immature monkeys, so male fertility effects unknown
Why: Reproductive organs evaluated in repeat-dose studies; gap reflected in the SmPC · Weight of evidence
“Due to sexual immaturity of male animals, examination of the spermatogenic cycle was not conducted. Therefore, effects on male fertility remain unknown for sutimlimab. This has been adequately reflected in the SmPC.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Herceptin

trastuzumab · HER2
OtherAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No animal model of trastuzumab-anthracycline cardiotoxicity; only a rat surrogate antibody study in a doxorubicin model
Why: Species specificity and immunogenicity in mice and dogs; ill-defined cardiotoxic dosing in monkeys; mechanistic studies ongoing · No relevant species
“Potential models of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in mice and dogs using trastuzamab were unsuitable due to species specificity of trastuzumab and in consideration of potential immunogenic responses to a humanised protein. Possible anthracycline models in the monkey were considered unsuitable based on ill-defined dose requirements to produce cardiotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Animal species used do not express human HER2 receptor on normal tissues, limiting extrapolation to humans
“Extrapolation of these results to humans is compromised by the fact that the animals used do not express human p185HER2 on normal tissues.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 7Source ↗

Kevzara

sarilumab · IL-6R
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic rheumatoid arthritis use; carcinogenicity risk assessment accepted by ECAC, with risk managed in labeling
Why: Carcinogenicity risk assessment accepted; immune-suppression tumour risk managed through labeling · Weight of evidence
“The sponsor submitted a carcinogenicity risk assessment for sarilumab and the Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee agreed with the Division that no additional studies were required to address the carcinogenic potential of sarilumab and that it was reasonable to manage risk for immune suppression mediated tumor initiation and/or tumor promotion by appropriate labeling.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Fertility and juvenile toxicity studied only in mice with an analogous anti-mouse IL-6R antibody (REGN844)
Why: Only monkeys are a relevant species for sarilumab · No relevant species
“Pivotal nonclinical studies of sarilumab were conducted in Cynomolgus monkeys by intravenous and SC dosing since only monkeys were identified as a relevant species for sarilumab in a series of pharmacology studies. Fertility and juvenile toxicity studies were also conducted in mice with an analogous monoclonal antibody (REGN844).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗

Margenza

margetuximab · HER2
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated fertility studies; embryo-fetal and postnatal effects assessed in a monkey ePPND study only
Why: Not needed for the current (metastatic breast cancer) indication · Serious disease
“Dedicated fertility studies were not needed or conducted to support marketing of Margenza for the current indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
Mouse xenograft models cannot fully evaluate the engineered Fc domain because of species differences in Fc receptor binding
Why: Modified Fc binds mouse Fc gamma receptors differently from human receptors
“Due to these differences, results from mouse xenograft models with human tumor cells may be limited in evaluating the anti-tumor effects of the modified Fc domain of margetuximab (Study RND MGAH22-09-1013).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗

Monjuvi

tafasitamab · CD19
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies, including none in the pharmacologically relevant monkey; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Given in combination with lenalidomide, a known teratogen; waiver supported by prior FDA agreement and CHMP scientific advice · Other reason
“Based on a prior agreement with the FDA, the Applicant did not conduct reproductive and developmental toxicity studies with tafasitamab since tafasitamab is administered in combination with lenalidomide, a known teratogen and embryo-fetal toxicant.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies; carcinogenic potential, raised by secondary malignancies in the pivotal trial, addressed by comparison with rituximab
Why: Similar B-cell-depleting mode of action to rituximab; rituximab data show no increased risk of secondary malignancies · Class precedent · Within the guideline
“A comparison with rituximab was provided, which is considered acceptable due to the similar mode of action to deplete B-cells via ADCC and ADCP. Based on available rituximab data, no increased risk for SPMs induced by tafasitamab was expected.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗

Nemluvio

nemolizumab · IL-31RA
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic prurigo nodularis and atopic dermatitis use; literature weight-of-evidence instead
Why: Literature on IL-31 inhibition raises no significant carcinogenicity concern · Weight of evidence
“A weight-of-evidence analysis does not raise significant safety concerns for carcinogenicity based on the evaluation of available literature related to IL￾31 inhibition.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 107Source ↗
DARTAccepted
Monkey enhanced pre- and postnatal development study in place of a separate embryo-fetal development study
Why: ePPND may replace an EFD study in accordance with ICH S5 · Within the guideline
“While the ePPND study, where Non-Human Primates (NHPs) are generally selected by ultrasound scanning at GD 18–20 to start on study, gives no information regarding effects of exposure during implantation and earliest stages of embryogenesis, an ePPND study can be conducted instead of an EFD study in accordance with ICH S5.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗

Pasatru

garetosmab · Activin A
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No NOAEL in the repeat-dose rat study; adverse male reproductive tract toxicity at exposures below clinical exposure
Why: Testicular toxicity consistent with on-target blockade of activin A signalling; potential human risk communicated through labeling · Pharmacology or kinetics
“A no observed adverse effect level was not established in the study due to the adverse testicular effects, with rat testicular findings occurring at exposure below clinical exposures at the recommended clinical doses (by area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] comparison).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 59Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a condition
No dedicated male or female fertility studies; reproductive organs assessed in the 26-week monkey study
Why: Fertility studies generally not practical in monkeys · Within the guideline
“No dedicated standalone male or female fertility studies were conducted and are generally not practical in monkeys; however, garetosmab may potentially reduce fertility.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 59Source ↗

Perjeta

pertuzumab · HER2
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the 26-week monkey study: severe diarrhoea and increased urea nitrogen at all doses
“Due to the severe diarrhoea and increased urea nitrogen values at all dose levels, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) could not be determined.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fetal NOAEL in the monkey embryo-fetal study; fetal toxicity may occur at therapeutic concentrations
Why: Pertuzumab to be avoided during pregnancy, as with trastuzumab · Class precedent
“However, as no NOAEL for foetal toxicity was established in this study, it cannot be excluded that the observed foetal toxicity may occur at therapeutic pertuzumab concentrations in human. Hence, as with trastuzumab, pertuzumab should be avoided during pregnancy.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗

Piasky

crovalimab · Complement C5
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic PNH use; weight-of-evidence assessment as crovalimab is not active in rodents
Why: Mechanism, literature, drug class and no preneoplastic lesions in 26-week monkey studies; not active in rodents · Weight of evidence · No relevant species · Class precedent
“Based on the mechanism of action, review of the literature, drug class, and the lack of drug-related preneoplastic lesions in monkeys administered crovalimab for up to 26 weeks, the risk of carcinogenicity of crovalimab is low. Crovalimab is not active in rodents; therefore, carcinogenicity studies are not feasible.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 188Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No pharmacology study in an animal model of PNH; complement inhibition assessed in monkey PK/PD and toxicology studies and patients
Why: Complement inhibition assessed in monkey studies and in patients with PNH · Human data
“A pharmacology study in an animal model of PNH was not conducted; however, the Applicant assessed complement inhibition in a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study and in repeat-dose toxicology studies in monkeys as well as in patients with PNH.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 171Source ↗

Rystiggo

rozanolixizumab · FcRn
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: Carcinogenicity risk assessment in line with ICH S6(R1) supports omitting conventional studies · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“In line with ICH S6(R1) a carcinogenicity risk assessment has been provided, discussing the relevance and need for in vivo carcinogenicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal 26-week monkey study with a single treated dose group, so no dose-response for fertility endpoints
Why: Menstrual cycle changes linked to clinical or group-dynamic causes; no direct effect on female fertility expected · Other reason
“It should however also be noted that only 1 treated group was included in the 26-week study, hence the number of animals exposed was limited, and any dose relationship would not be possible to ascertain.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗

Synagis

palivizumab · RSV F protein
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No repeat-dose toxicity studies (including reproductive toxicity); single-dose studies only
Why: Immunogenicity of the humanised antibody in animals; no tissue binding; clinical studies showed no repeat-dosing toxicity problems · Pharmacology or kinetics · Human data
“The lack of repeated dose toxicity studies (including reproductive toxicity) was justified by the company by the immunogenicity of the human compound in animals and the lack of binding of the compound to a range of tissues.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 5Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No reproductive toxicity evaluation
Why: Indicated only for infants · Other reason
“The applicant stated in the preclinical expert report that since the product is indicated only for use in infants there is no need to evaluate the potential toxicity of palivizumab on the reproduction.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 6Source ↗

Tysabri

natalizumab · α4-integrin
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No standard carcinogenicity studies; in vitro and SCID/nude mouse xenograft studies with human alpha-4 expressing tumour cells instead
Why: Proteinous nature of the test article
“Standard short or long term carcinogenicity studies were not performed due to the proteinous nature of the test article. Two in vitro and three in vivo studies were performed to study the effects the natalizumab on human α 4 expressing tumour cell lines in vitro and in vivo (as transplants into SCID and nude mice).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 10Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility and early embryonic development studied in guinea pigs; standard rodent species not used
Why: Rodents pharmacologically irrelevant; guinea pig suitability as a reproductive model shown with a negative control · No relevant species
“Standard but pharmacologically irrelevant, rodent species were not evaluated. Fertility and early embryonic development Studies addressing fertility and early embryonic development were performed in guinea pigs.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗

Zinbryta

daclizumab · IL-2Rα (CD25)
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
Carcinogenic potential not assessed at all (no studies, no weight-of-evidence assessment) for a chronic MS immunomodulator
Why: Pharmacologically active only in monkey, so carcinogenicity studies not feasible · No relevant species
“Because DAC HYP is pharmacologically active only in monkey, carcinogenicity studies are not feasible; therefore, the carcinogenic potential of DAC HYP was not assessed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 15Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
Juvenile animal toxicology study waived
Why: Serious toxicities in adults preclude paediatric use · Human data
“The general requirement for a juvenile animal toxicology study is waived because the clinical team has concluded that the serious toxicities observed in adults administered DAC HYP preclude its use in the pediatric population.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 16Source ↗

Zynyz

retifanlimab · PD-1
DARTAccepted
No animal reproductive or developmental toxicity studies; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Weight-of-evidence approach per ICH S6(R1) and ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Embryo-fetal developmental toxicology studies were not conducted with retifanlimab. Rather, consistent with the alternative approach to providing information on the potential for reproductive toxicity described in ICH S6(R1) and ICH S9, the Applicant provided a weight-of-evidence assessment of the potential reproductive toxicity of retifanlimab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 29Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo proof-of-concept models; mode of action supported in vitro only
Why: Not needed given experience with PD-1 inhibitors · Class precedent
“The mode of action of retifanlimab was supported by in vitro studies. No in vivo models were presented to demonstrate proof of concept.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗

Adakveo

crizanlizumab · P-selectin
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; comprehensive carcinogenic risk assessment instead
Why: No binding or pharmacologic activity in rodents; weight-of-evidence risk assessment · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“Carcinogenicity studies with crizanlizumab have not been conducted. Instead, a comprehensive risk assessment including feasibility assessment of available animal models for carcinogenicity testing was performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Andembry

garadacimab · Factor XIIa
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for a chronic prophylaxis indication; rodent study judged not technically feasible, weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Rodent study not technically feasible; 26-week monkey study and literature on chronic FXIIa inhibition indicate low or negligible potential · Weight of evidence
“Based on the weight of evidence, the Division agreed with the Applicant that a rodent carcinogenicity study was not technically feasible. Further, there appears to be a low or negligible carcinogenic potential based on the results of the 26-week monkey study and review of the published literature regarding chronic inhibition of FXIIa.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 127Source ↗

Bimzelx

bimekizumab · IL-17A/IL-17F
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic psoriasis therapy; rodent studies waived and a literature weight-of-evidence assessment submitted instead
Why: Not pharmacologically active in rodents and no surrogate available; literature review of IL-17A/F inhibition substituted · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Bimekizumab is not pharmacologically active in rodents and no anti-rodent IL-17 A/F surrogate is available. Thus, conventional rodent carcinogenicity studies were not conducted for evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of bimekizumab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 208Source ↗

Ebglyss

lebrikizumab · IL-13
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic atopic dermatitis indication; weight-of-evidence risk assessment instead
Why: Overall data suggest low carcinogenic potential · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant used weight-of-evidence - based approach to assess the carcinogenicity risk of lebrikizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗

Imfinzi

durvalumab · PD-L1
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility and early embryonic development study; fertility assessed by reproductive organ weights and histopathology in the 13-week monkey study
Why: No adverse findings in sex organs of sexually mature monkeys; omission considered well justified · Weight of evidence
“The potential effects of durvalumab on reproduction and fertility were evaluated by the organ weights and histopathology of the male and female reproductive systems in the 13-week repeat-dose toxicity study in monkeys (sexually mature). No adverse durvalumab-related findings were reported in sex organs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 66Source ↗

Penpulimab

penpulimab · PD-1
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No embryo-fetal development study; weight-of-evidence literature assessment of reproductive toxicity instead
Why: Dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicity studies not needed for this BLA; weight-of-evidence approach reasonable · Weight of evidence
“To address the potential effects of penpulimab on embryo-fetal development, the Applicant submitted an assessment of the potential reproductive toxicity of penpulimab using a weight-of-evidence approach. FDA agreed in January 2021 that this approach appeared reasonable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 58Source ↗

Praxbind

idarucizumab · Dabigatran
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Use on single days in emergency situations · Other reason
“It was also agreed that reproductive and developmental toxicity studies are not warranted taking into consideration the proposed used of idarucizumab on single days in emergency situations.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗

Siliq

brodalumab · IL-17RA
CarcinogenicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; literature-based weight-of-evidence assessment of IL-17RA inhibition, judged inconclusive
Why: Literature not definitive but majority suggests no increased carcinogenic potential; postmarketing malignancy surveillance suggested · Weight of evidence
“Therefore, it is impossible to know the carcinogenicity risk of brodalumab. Postmarketing surveillance of malignancy report frequency compared to background rates may provide the most accurate determination of cancer risk for brodalumab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 25Source ↗

Taltz

ixekizumab · IL-17A
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic psoriasis use; weight-of-evidence review of nonclinical data and IL-17A literature instead
Why: Carcinogenic potential considered low; malignancy kept as an important potential risk in the RMP · Weight of evidence
“Animal studies to assess the carcinogenic potential of ixekizumab were not submitted. Instead, a critical evaluation of the nonclinical ixekizumab data and published literature on IL-17A function was conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗

Tremfya

guselkumab · IL-23 p19
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic psoriasis use; literature and monkey-data weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Species-specific binding precludes a rodent study; malignancy risk considered low and listed as an important potential risk in the RMP · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“Guselkumab cannot be tested in a traditional 2-year rodent study to evaluate its carcinogenic potential due to its species specific binding in monkeys and/or guinea pigs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 66Source ↗

Trogarzo

ibalizumab · CD4
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic HIV therapy; risk addressed by clinical monitoring and post-marketing surveillance
Why: No binding to rodent CD4; clinical monitoring and post-marketing surveillance judged the most clinically meaningful approach · No relevant species · Human data
“Standard 2-year carcinogenicity studies in rodents or 6-month studies in transgenic mice were not possible, because ibalizumab does not bind rodent CD4.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Veopoz

pozelimab · Complement C5
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for chronic use; weight-of-evidence risk assessment reviewed by ECAC
Why: Low carcinogenic potential by risk assessment; not pharmacologically active in rat or mouse · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“Carcinogenicity Carcinogenicity studies with pozelimab have not been conducted. The Applicant conducted a carcinogenicity risk assessment for pozelimab and concluded that the carcinogenic potential is low.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗

Voyxact

sibeprenlimab · APRIL
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity studies for a chronic IgA nephropathy indication; carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: Carcinogenicity risk assessment reviewed under the IND · Weight of evidence
“A carcinogenicity risk assessment was submitted by the applicant, which was reviewed under the IND. Rodent carcinogenicity studies were deemed not to be warranted to establish an adequate assessment of carcinogenicity risk for sibeprenlimab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 106Source ↗

Imjudo

tremelimumab · CTLA-4
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the chronic monkey study; lowest dose gave an exposure margin of only 1-2
“No NOAEL was found in this study with animals treated with the lowest dose of 5 mg/kg/week requiring supportive care. This dose provided an exposure-based safety margin of 1-2 to clinically relevant exposure (taking species difference in potency into account).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
No proof of principle in the indicated tumour type (unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma)
“A proof of principle specific for the tumour type included in the indication was not demonstrated. Thus, the relevance for the current proposed indication, uHCC, was not provided.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted
No stand-alone safety pharmacology studies; endpoints in monkey toxicity studies; no dedicated CNS study
Why: Per guideline when non-human primate is the only relevant species · Within the guideline · No relevant species
“No stand-alone safety pharmacology studies were conducted for tremelimumab. This is acceptable and according to guideline, especially when non-human primate is the only relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No pre- and postnatal development or juvenile studies; embryo-fetal study in monkeys only
Why: In line with ICH S9; indication limited to adults · Within the guideline
“Pre- and postnatal development studies were not performed, and this is acceptable and in line with ICH S9. No studies in juvenile animals were performed, and this is acceptable since the sought indication is only including adult patents.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Soliris

eculizumab · Complement C5
SpeciesQuestioned
No relevant species for eculizumab; all toxicology in mice with surrogate anti-mouse C5 antibody BB5.1, cross-reactivity profile not compared
Why: Surrogate antibody specifically binds mouse C5
“Toxicological studies were performed in mice using a surrogate murine anti-mouse C5 antibody (BB5.1 mAb). BB5.1 mAb specifically binds to mouse C5 but there was no information on whether the cross-reactivity profile of BB5.1 mAb with normal mouse tissues is similar to the cross-reactivity profile of eculizumab with normal human tissues.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted
No safety pharmacology studies; pharmacodynamics characterised in vitro only
Why: Species specificity; in vitro approach acceptable per CHMP scientific advice and ICH S7 · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“No specific nonclinical safety pharmacology studies have been conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic indication; reliance on absence of proliferative findings in the 26-week surrogate mouse study
Why: No proliferative activity in the 26-week surrogate study
“Carcinogenicity studies have not been performed with eculizumab or any surrogate anti-C5 antibodies. The 26-week repeat dose toxicity study with a murine anti-mouse C5 antibody (BB5.1mAb) showed no cytotoxic or proliferative activities suggestive of carcinogenic risk at dose levels up to 60 mg/kg/week, i.e. a dose level showing significant inhibition of C5 activation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗
GLPVerdict not stated
Mouse plasma clearance study with an eculizumab variant run non-GLP with unvalidated methods
“Methods used in the plasma clearance study were not validated. The plasma clearance study was performed as a non-GLP research study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 8Source ↗

Anthim

obiltoxaximab · B. anthracis PA
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rabbit embryo-fetal NOEL (highest dose) gave AUC 0.62 times human exposure at the maximum recommended dose
“In those rabbits, mean maternal maximum plasma concentration (C max = 1180 mcg/mL) and mean maternal AUC inf (3220 mcg•day/mL) were approximately 3 times and 0.62 times the respective values for C max and AUC reported in clinical trial subjects at the maximum recommended adult dose of 16 mg/kg.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗
SpeciesQuestioned
Rabbit used for embryo-fetal toxicity without tissue cross-reactivity data supporting its suitability
“It should be noted that tissue cross-reactivity (TCR) studies have not been performed in rabbit tissues to assess the suitability of that species for toxicity testing of ETI-204.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 71Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No fertility study conducted
“Carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and fertility studies have not been conducted with obiltoxaximab.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Enflonsia

clesrovimab · RSV F protein (site IV)
SpeciesAccepted
No relevant toxicology species; short-term toxicity study in rat rather than NHP
Why: Viral target; no relevant toxicological species; no off-target effects expected; avoids unnecessary NHP use · No relevant species · Within the guideline · Other reason
“It was therefore agreed that, as no relevant toxicological species exists and no off-target effects were expected in neither NHPs nor in rats, the use of the rat is supported from a 3R perspective in order to avoid unnecessary use of NHPs.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: ICH S6(R1): exogenous (viral) target; not indicated for females of reproductive potential · Within the guideline · Other reason
“In accordance with ICH S6(R1), DART studies are generally not needed for biologics to exogenous targets.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 179Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted
No juvenile animal studies despite a neonatal and infant indication
Why: Extensive paediatric clinical data; ICH S11 · Human data · Within the guideline
“Additionally, at the current timepoint extensive clinical data exists from the paediatric population and juvenile animal study is therefore not expected to provide any added safety value in accordance with ICH S11.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗

Praluent

alirocumab · PCSK9
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity study for a chronic lipid-lowering antibody; waiver granted on weight of evidence
Why: No evidence of carcinogenic concern from sponsor data and published literature; ICH S6(R1) weight of evidence · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“Although the conduct of a carcinogenicity study in rats was likely feasible, the sponsor’s request for a waiver was granted based on lack of evidence for carcinogenic concern based on data provided by the sponsor and published literature.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No dedicated fertility study; fertility endpoints assessed in the 26-week monkey toxicity study
Why: ICH S6(R1): primate is the most relevant species, fertility endpoints can be collected in repeat-dose toxicity study · Within the guideline
“A full assessment of endpoints related to fertility was conducted during a 26-week chronic toxicology study in sexually-mature monkeys (see the chronic monkey study in Section 6.2.2) per ICH-S6(R1).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 102Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No standalone safety pharmacology studies; endpoints integrated into rat and monkey toxicity studies
“Safety pharmacology endpoints were integrated in toxicology studies in both rats and Cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗

Bavencio

avelumab · PD-L1
DARTVerdict not stated
No reproductive or developmental toxicity studies; non-product-specific literature assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 role in pregnancy instead
Why: Literature: the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway preserves pregnancy by maintaining maternal immune tolerance to the fetus · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Instead, the Applicant submitted a non-product specific literature based assessment of the potential for avelumab to affect reproduction. Based on the literature, a central function of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is to preserve pregnancy by maintaining maternal immune tolerance to the fetus.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 51Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the 13-week monkey study (CNS perivascular infiltrates at all doses); LOAEL only 1.5-fold human exposure
“Due to the finding of perivascular mononuclear cell infiltrates in the brain and spinal cord at all dose levels in the 13-week monkey study, there was no NOAEL in this study and accordingly only a LOAEL, which was 1.5-fold above the human therapeutic exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Cyramza

ramucirumab · VEGFR2
DARTAccepted
No embryo-fetal, fertility or pre/postnatal studies; reproductive risk assessed from non-product-specific literature on VEGFR2 inhibition
Why: Non-human primates the only relevant species; ICH S9 and S6 principles · Within the guideline · No relevant species · Weight of evidence
“As non-human primates were the only relevant species for toxicological assessment of ramucirumab, in accordance with principles outlined in ICH guidances S9 and S6, the Agency agreed that an assessment of reproductive toxicology based on non-product specific literature might be acceptable in the case of ramucirumab.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No dedicated safety pharmacology studies; endpoints included in 5- and 39-week monkey toxicity studies
“No dedicated safety pharmacology studies have been performed with ramucirumab but safety pharmacology parameters were assessed as part of the GLP-compliant 5-and 39-week toxicology studies in Cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗

Loqtorzi

toripalimab · PD-1
DARTAccepted
No reproductive or embryo-fetal toxicity studies; weight-of-evidence assessment from published PD-1 pathway data instead
Why: Reproductive and embryofetal risks adequately characterized in accordance with applicable guidance · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“After discussion between the FDA and Top Alliance, a weight-of-evidence (WOE) based assessment of the potential for toripalimab to cause reproductive and embryofetal toxicity was provided.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 94Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No fertility studies; reproductive organs assessed only in repeat-dose monkey studies with animals unlikely sexually mature
“Fertility studies have not been conducted with toripalimab. In 4-week and 26-week repeat-dose toxicology studies in cynomolgus monkeys, there were no adverse or notable effects in the male and female reproductive organs. However, those animals were unlikely sexually mature.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗

Opdivo

nivolumab · PD-1
DARTAccepted
No fertility and early embryonic development study
Why: Not required under ICH S6(R1) and ICH S9 for therapeutics for advanced cancer · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“The applicant did not submit studies for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity as well as fertility and early embryonic development.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
In vivo anti-tumour efficacy shown only with a surrogate anti-mouse PD-1 antibody (4H2) in syngeneic mouse models
Why: Nivolumab does not recognise mouse PD-1 · No relevant species
“Since nivolumab does not recognize mouse PD-1, a surrogate anti-mouse PD-1 antibody (4H2) was derived to assess the efficacy of PD-1 blockade on tumor growth in syngenic tumor models.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 91Source ↗

Poteligeo

mogamulizumab · CCR4
DARTAccepted
No fertility/early embryonic or pre/postnatal development studies; monkey embryo-fetal study only
Why: Not required for products treating patients with advanced cancer · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Fertility/early embryonic development and pre/postnatal development studies were not conducted as these studies are not required to support a marketing application for products intended to treat patients with advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 24Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No antitumour studies in NK-cell-deficient mice to confirm the ADCC mechanism in vivo
“Studies evaluating the antitumor activity of mogamulizumab in mice lacking natural killer (NK) cells were not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 23Source ↗

Raxibacumab

raxibacumab · B. anthracis protective antigen
Efficacy modelAccepted
Efficacy established in rabbit and monkey inhalational anthrax models under the Animal Rule instead of human efficacy trials
Why: Positive placebo-controlled rabbit and non-human primate trials plus safety in healthy animals and volunteers · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Raxibacumab is the first monoclonal antibody antitoxin against anthrax to seek licensure under Animal Rule (21 CFR 601, Subpart H, 2002).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 44Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Reproductive toxicity limited to a single rabbit embryo-fetal development study with two IV doses
“A single embryonic-fetal development study was conducted in pregnant, healthy New Zealand White rabbits administered two intravenous doses of raxibacumab up to 120 mg/kg (three times the human dose on a mg/kg basis) on gestation days 7 and 14.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗

Tecentriq

atezolizumab · PD-L1
DARTAccepted
No reproductive and developmental toxicity studies; non-product-specific literature-based assessment of pregnancy risk instead
Why: Immunogenicity in mice reduced exposure; ICH S6(R1) weight-of-evidence approach used to describe pregnancy risk · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Applicant did not conduct reproductive and developmental toxicology studies with atezolizumab. Atezolizumab was immunogenic in mice after three weekly doses, resulting in reduced exposures by Week 3.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 55Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Toxicity studies provide no exposure margin over the proposed clinical dose
“The toxicity studies provide no margin to the exposure at the proposed clinical dose of atezolizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗

Vyloy

zolbetuximab · Claudin 18.2
DARTAccepted
Embryo-fetal development studied in one species only (mouse)
Why: ICH S9 allows one species for biopharmaceuticals · Within the guideline
“EFD studies were conducted in one species only. According to ICH S9, this is acceptable for biopharmaceuticals.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
GLPVerdict not stated
Toxicokinetics of pivotal 4-week monkey study analysed non-GLP; complementary GLP single-dose TK study conducted
“Since toxicokinetic analysis in the 4-week repeat dose toxicity study in cynomolgus monkeys [Study 22337] was conducted under non-GLP conditions, a complementary single dose toxicokinetic study in cynomolgus monkeys [Study 8951-TX-0001] was conducted in compliance with GLP.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 65Source ↗

Ajovy

fremanezumab · CGRP
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic migraine therapy; weight-of-evidence assessment (CGRP knockout data, CGRP biology, tox findings) instead
Why: CGRP knockout data, CGRP biology and own tox results; carcinogenic risk of CGRP inhibition considered low, in line with ICH S6(R1) · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“The sponsor was asked to provide a weight-of-evidence evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of fremanezumab. Based on published studies in CGRP knockout animals and on the biological activity of CGRP (e.g., promotion of angiogenesis) and on the results from the sponsor’s studies of fremanezumab, it was concluded that standard carcinogenicity studies of fremanezumab were not needed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 6Source ↗

Lartruvo

olaratumab · PDGFRα
DARTAccepted
No reproductive toxicity studies with olaratumab; literature assessment plus mouse embryo-fetal study with surrogate antibody IMC-1E10
Why: Alternative approach described in ICH S6(R1); FDA agreed the dual literature-plus-surrogate approach was reasonable · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Rather, consistent with the alternative approach to providing information on the potential for reproductive toxicity described in ICH S6(R1), the Applicant provided a scientific literature review and assessment of the potential reproductive toxicity of olaratumab in conjunction with an embryo-fetal development study in mice using a chimeric surrogate antibody, IMC-1E10.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 30Source ↗

Simulect

basiliximab · IL-2Rα (CD25)
DARTVerdict not stated
Monkey embryo-fetal study without immunotoxicology assessment of the offspring
“Immunotoxicology studies have not been performed in the offspring.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Unloxcyt

cosibelimab · PD-L1
DARTVerdict not stated
No developmental and reproductive toxicity studies; literature-based risk assessment instead
“A literature-based risk assessment of developmental and reproductive risk was conducted in lieu of performing developmental and reproductive toxicology studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 176Source ↗

Vectibix

panitumumab · EGFR
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the monkey embryo-fetal study: abortions or fetal death and maternal toxicity at the lowest dose
“There was no NOAEL in this study, as even the lowest dose was associated with foetal abortions or death and with significant maternal toxicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗

Yartemlea

narsoplimab · MASP-2
No departure named in the public reviews.