Nonclinical precedent Request an invite

What flexibility did FDA and EMA accept for approved small molecules?

From the FDA and EMA reviews of all 211 approved small molecules. Each answer links to the regulator's own sentence.

Check my plan against these
Short answer
166 of 211 approved small molecules had at least one departure from the guideline that regulators accepted; reviewers questioned at least one departure in 32.
DART54/211
Carcinogenicity48/211
Safety margin42/211
Impurity or metabolite36/211
Genotoxicity35/211
Juvenile tox28/211
Other25/211
Safety pharmacology20/211
GLP11/211
Study length11/211
Species9/211
Efficacy model7/211
First dose1/211
Recovery1/211

Precedent by precedent

211 approved small molecules, with the reviewers' own words.

Aqneursa

levacetylleucine · Neuronal metabolism (proposed)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; 26-week rasH2 mouse and 2-year rat required postmarketing
Why: Lifelong use from infancy and leucine tumour-promotion concern make studies necessary; deferred to PMR
“Carcinogenicity studies with levacetylleucine have not been conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 131Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study despite paediatric use from infancy
Why: Clinical safety and efficacy data adequate to support paediatric approval, but data limited; juvenile study required as PMR · Human data
“A juvenile toxicity study with levacetylleucine has not been conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 130Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fertility/early embryonic development or pre- and postnatal development studies
Why: Absence stated in labeling; fertility studies required as PMRs to support risk communication
“Information was described in the impairment of fertility subsection of labeling (Table 89; Section 13.1) to indicate that studies of fertility and early embryonic development and pre-and postnatal toxicology were not conducted with the drug.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 130Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Only dose-range-finding rat and rabbit EFD studies submitted; definitive EFD reports outstanding
Why: Final reports required as PMR; EFD Warning and Precaution with contraception advice in labeling
“However, final study reports for EFD toxicity studies in rats and rabbits have not been submitted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 129Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo micronucleus assay lacked toxicokinetic data, a deviation from OECD 474 and ICH S2
Why: Rats exposed to the maximum ethically acceptable dose (2000 mg/kg/day) in toxicology studies · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although there is a deviation from OECD guideline 474 and ICH guideline S2 on genotoxicity study due to the absence of specific toxicokinetic in vivo data in the micronucleus assay, it is known that the rats were exposed to the maximum ethically acceptable dose toxicology studies (2000 mg/kg/day).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Kygevvi

doxecitine and doxribtimine · Pyrimidine nucleoside replacement (TK2 deficiency)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No 2-year rat carcinogenicity study; weight-of-evidence assessment instead, with 26-week Tg-rasH2 mouse study postapproval
Why: Endogenous compounds, years of clinical experience, no tumorigenicity in 26-week rat and 13-week dog studies · Weight of evidence · Human data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Applicant submitted a weight-of-evidence assessment in lieu of a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. The Agency agreed with the Applicant’s weight-of-evidence assessment that a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study would not add value”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 159Source ↗
Study lengthAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No 9-month chronic dog study before approval (dog studies up to 13 weeks); deferred to postmarketing
“The Applicant did not conduct a 9-month dog toxicity study, carcinogenicity studies, and a rat PPND study with doxecitine and doxribtimine.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 82Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rat pre- and postnatal development study
Why: Negative embryofetal and juvenile rat studies at high exposure margins · Weight of evidence
“Based on the negative findings in the EFD and juvenile toxicity studies in rats at high exposure margins, a rat PPND study is considered unwarranted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 82Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated safety pharmacology studies; cardiovascular endpoints in 13-week dog study and functional assessments in toxicity studies
Why: Endogenous nature of the nucleosides; no findings in toxicity studies at 25-fold or higher exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“No dedicated in vitro and in vivo safety pharmacology studies were conducted due to the endogenous nature of doxecitine and doxribtimine.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Genotoxic impurity alpha-hydroxythymidine above the ICH M7 TTC; mutagenic/clastogenic characterization required postmarketing
“This exposure level represents approximately -fold exceedance of the 1.5 μg TTC for genotoxic impurities established in ICH M7(R2) guidance.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 82Source ↗

Ogsiveo

nirogacestat · Gamma secretase
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No 2-year rat carcinogenicity study; only 26-week Tg rasH2 mouse study plus weight-of-evidence assessment
Why: Skin cancers already reported in humans; achievable rat exposures below human exposure due to poor tolerance · Human data · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“A rat 2-year carcinogenicity study was not conducted given that non-melanoma skin cancers have been reported in humans treated with nirogacestat and the fact that human systemic exposures exceed those that can be achieved in animal toxicology studies due to low tolerance in the rat and excess of toxicological findings.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive rat or rabbit embryo-fetal studies and no pre- and postnatal study; preliminary rat EFD study plus weight of evidence
Why: Severe embryo-fetal toxicity in the preliminary rat study; Notch required for embryonic development · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Based on the severity of the embryo‐fetal toxicities, and the known requirement for the Notch pathway for normal embryo implantation and development, the weight of evidence provides justification for not conducting the definitive embryo‐fetal toxicity studies in rats and in rabbits, as well as not conducting the rat peri‐ and post‐natal development study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 81Source ↗
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No chronic studies: 6-month rat and 9-month dog studies not conducted
Why: Very low animal exposures versus clinical exposure; longer studies would not add to the clinical safety assessment · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Conduct of additional general toxicology studies were not required based on FDA feedback received at the end‐of‐Phase 1 meeting; therefore, the 6‐month rat and 9‐month dog studies with nirogacestat were not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 62Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margins: NOAEL/LOAEL exposures in all repeat-dose, reproductive and carcinogenicity studies well below 1
Why: Relevant findings already identified for human risk assessment; human safety endpoints rather than more animal studies · Human data
“The exposure margins based on NOAEL/LOAEL observed in all repeat-dose studies performed in the rat, dog and mouse, reproductive toxicity studies performed in the rat, as well as the carcinogenicity study performed in the TgRasH2 mouse are considerable below 1, indicating a lack of safety margins to the adverse effects observed in the non-clinical studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Nitrosamine impurities above the M3 acceptable intake; product-specific higher intake limit accepted
Why: Unmet need in a severe condition; long-term treatment unlikely; low mutagenic potential; excess cancer risk near or below acceptable · Rare disease / unmet need · Serious disease · Weight of evidence
“Considering the clinical context (unmet medical need for a severe condition with a beneficial clinical profile), the clinical judgement that long term treatment is unlikely, that both impurities are considered to have relatively low mutagenic potential, a product specific acceptable intake limit of 20 μg/day (corresponding to 66,667 ppb/day based on a maximum daily dose of 300 mg) for the sum of ASYM-136911 and ASYM-136912 was proposed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗

Ongentys

opicapone · COMT
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rabbit embryofetal study: no exposure margin for maternal or developmental toxicity (<1 to 1 times human AUC)
Why: Adjunct only to levodopa preparations restricted in pregnancy, or for women without childbearing potential · Other reason
“In pregnant rabbits maternal toxicity was evident already at exposure levels far below the human exposure at the recommended daily dose of 50 mg (AUC), while embryo-fetal development was not negatively influenced up to an AUC in the range of the human exposure, resulting in no safety margin either for the does (<1 time) or for the offspring (<1 to 1 time).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat PPND study did not assess neurobehavioral development with a complex learning and memory task
“In the PPND study, effects on neurobehavioral development were not assessed using a complex learning and memory task, such as the Biel or Cincinnati water maze, and were, therefore, marginally acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No embryofetal study of opicapone combined with levodopa/carbidopa; known levodopa/carbidopa teratogenicity addressed in labeling
Why: Levodopa/carbidopa teratogenicity already known · Class precedent
“Adverse development effects of opicapone given in combination with levodopa/carbidopa (LD/CD) were not assessed; however, LD/CD is known to cause visceral and skeletal malformations in rabbits. This information should be included in labeling because opicapone is to be indicated as an adjunct to LD/CD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile, local tolerance, immunotoxicity or dependence studies
“No juvenile, local tolerance, immunotoxicology or dependence studies have been conducted with Opicapone. The absence of these studies has been adequately justified.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite BIA 9-1103 not measured in rodent toxicity studies; exposure extrapolated from other toxicokinetic studies
Why: Rat exposure gives adequate margin of safety over expected human metabolite AUC; mouse exposure on the low side · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although no sampling of BIA 9-1103 was undertaken, the applicant has sought to address this by extrapolating the expected level of BIA 9-1103 in mice and rats using metabolite exposures observed in other completed TK studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗

Pizensy

lactitol · Osmotic laxative
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No GLP chronic toxicity studies by the applicant; chronic toxicity supported by published literature
Why: GRAS food additive status and extensive ex-US clinical experience; published studies adequate · Human data · Low-risk modality · Weight of evidence
“GLP compliant chronic toxicity studies with lactitol were not required because of the Generally Recognized as Safe food additive status of lactitol and extensive ex-US experience with the drug.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 36Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No genotoxicity studies by the applicant; published Ames, chromosome aberration and mouse micronucleus data relied on
Why: Agreed with FDA; published studies considered adequate · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant did not conduct genotoxicity studies with lactitol and relied on the published literature. Lactitol was examined for potential mutagenicity in the Ames test, chromosome aberration test with cultured mammalian cells, and in vivo mouse micronucleus test.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility and early embryonic development study by the applicant; published rat data relied on
Why: Published literature showed no fertility effects in rats; published studies considered adequate · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant did not conduct any fertility and early embryonic development study. The Applicant relied on published literature, which indicated that lactitol did not cause any adverse effect on fertility and early embryonic development in rats at doses up to 10000 mg/kg/day (about 4.6 times the recommended daily human dose based on body surface area).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 30Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study report deferred until after approval; only 26-week Tg.rasH2 mouse study submitted
Why: Prior agreement with FDA
“The 104-week oral carcinogenicity study in rats was initiated in February 2017, and the study report will be submitted post approval, as per agreement with the Agency.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 30Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat toxicity study deferred to a postmarketing requirement to support paediatric trials
“An oral (gavage) toxicity study with lactitol in juvenile rats from postnatal day (PND) 14 through PND 91 to support clinical trials in patients 6 months to less than 6 years of age.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 117Source ↗

Alyftrek

vanzacaftor, tezacaftor and deutivacaftor · CFTR
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Vanzacaftor 2-year rat carcinogenicity study not completed before approval; deferred to postmarketing
Why: 2-year rat study to be conducted as a postmarketing requirement
“A 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats will be conducted as a postmarketing requirement (see Section 24).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 97Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No full toxicology program for deutivacaftor; bridged to ivacaftor data via a 13-week rat comparison study
Why: No toxicologically significant differences between D-IVA and IVA at the same doses · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“There were no toxicologically significant differences in findings between the same doses of D-IVA and IVA. Therefore, a bridge to the ivacaftor nonclinical program was justified and no further toxicology studies with D-IVA alone were recommended.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 97Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicity studies with deutivacaftor; ivacaftor data used instead
Why: Bridge to ivacaftor established in the 13-week rat toxicity study · Class precedent
“No reproductive toxicity studies have been conducted with D-IVA. A bridge between the toxicity profiles of D-IVA and IVA has been adequately established in the 13-week rat toxicity study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 52Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Tezacaftor tested only at one dose in the combination study; exposure multiple 1.2 (males) and 2.7 (females)
Why: Tezacaftor well studied and approved in a previous MAA · Class precedent
“TEZ was only assessed in combination studies with an exposure multiple of 1.2 for males and 2.7 for females at a dose where no toxicity was observed (only 1 dose tested). Since TEZ has been well studied and approved in a previous MAA, this limited amount of data is deemed acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 54Source ↗
Juvenile toxQuestioned
Juvenile rat study (PND 7 to PND 70) too short to exclude liver toxicity with chronic treatment
“While the current juvenile study (PND 7–PND 70) did not identify the liver as a target organ, its limited duration raises uncertainty regarding potential effects with chronic treatment. Thus, the possibility of liver toxicity in juvenile animals cannot be completely ruled out.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 62Source ↗

Artesunate

artesunate · Plasmodium (antimalarial)
GenotoxicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No adequate in vivo genotoxicity characterisation of IV artesunate at approval; GLP in vivo micronucleus test deferred
Why: Severity of severe malaria and unmet need for treatments · Serious disease · Rare disease / unmet need
“The submitted nonclinical safety information on IV artesunate lacks adequate characterization of the in vivo genotoxic potential and the potential risks on female fertility. However, given the severity of the disease and the unmet need for drugs intended to treat severe malaria the current nonclinical package supports approval for marketing in the U.S.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No formal fertility study; female fertility study with IV artesunate deferred to postmarketing
Why: Severity of disease and unmet need; female fertility study required postmarketing · Serious disease · Rare disease / unmet need
“Given the conflicting findings in animals and lack of any formal fertility study(ies), the risk that IV artesunate administration poses to human fertility is uncertain.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study; judged uninformative given embryolethality and malformations in oral embryo-fetal studies
Why: Embryolethality and malformations in oral embryo-fetal studies mean a PPND study would add no clinically meaningful information · Weight of evidence
“The extent of embryolethality and fetal malformations observed in the oral embryo-fetal development studies indicate that pre-and postnatal development study(ies) conducted with artesunate, by any route of administration route, would not yield any clinically meaningful information.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No GLP hERG study with artesunate
Why: No significant QTc prolongation detected in the clinical QT assessment · Human data
“Artesunate has not been evaluated in GLP studies for effects on human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) tail currents. The Applicant was not requested to conduct a hERG study using artesunate as no significant QTc prolongation of artesunate was detected in the QT assessment (see Section 10.4.9).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat NOAEL 3 mg/kg/day equals 0.2 times the clinical dose (body surface area)
“The NOAEL was 3 mg/kg/day, a dose equivalent to 0.2 that of the clinical dose based on body surface area comparisons.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 38Source ↗

Azstarys

serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate · Dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
Abbreviated program for an NME: 28-day repeat-dose studies in rat and dog only; no chronic adult toxicity studies
Why: No unique adverse findings for SDX compared to d-MPH in the 28-day rat and dog studies · Weight of evidence
“The Division agreed to review 28-day repeat-dose toxicology data in two species, an embryo-fetal development study in the rabbit, and 6- month juvenile rabbit study to support this position.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies for an NME with a chronic indication; relies on referenced d-MPH labeling
Why: Prodrug of approved d-MPH releasing MPH and endogenous or dietary products; weight of evidence · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Typically, an NME for a chronic indication would require carcinogenicity studies in two species. However, SDX is a prodrug for an approved product (d-MPH) that predominantly releases MPH and other products that are either found endogenously and/or obtained in diet at levels greater than what will be released at the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 61Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility/early embryonic or pre- and postnatal development studies; embryo-fetal study in rabbit only
Why: No unique toxicities in embryo-fetal and chronic juvenile studies; referenced d-MPH labeling · Weight of evidence
“Fertility and early embryonic development studies were not conducted with SDX. The Applicant is relying upon the developmental toxicity data in the referenced product labeling.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 62Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal chronic juvenile toxicity study conducted in rabbit, a non-conventional juvenile species
Why: Testing in a species that minimizes d-MPH exposure allows adequate SDX doses with high margins · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although rabbit is not a conventional species for a juvenile animal study, we agree that it is the most appropriate species for the two pivotal studies (rabbit is typically used for embryo-fetal development).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 62Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat NOAEL exposure below human exposure at the MRHD; dog NOAEL not established
“For rats, the exposures at the no adverse effect level (NOAEL) for stimulant-related findings (25 mg/kg) was less than the human exposure at the MRHD. For dogs, the NOAEL for stimulant-related findings was not established because the NOAEL is less than the lowest dose tested.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 45Source ↗

Fetroja

cefiderocol · Penicillin-binding proteins
SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Cynomolgus monkey used as non-rodent species for general toxicology without species justification
Why: Studies already completed in the monkey · Other reason
“While this is true, the use of Cynomolgus monkey should be reserved to situations where this species is the only relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Mouse subcutaneous embryo-fetal study used instead of intravenous rabbit study
Why: Mouse is a well-characterised, relevant species for embryo-fetal studies · Other reason
“The Applicant decided to use an additional rodent model (CD-1 mouse) and subcutaneous administration instead of intravenously administered rabbits, because repeated-dosing with intravenous administration in mice is not feasible.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
3-month monkey NOAEL gives only 0.3-fold human AUC and 3-fold Cmax
“It should however be noted that the margins to clinical exposure from NOAEL (100mg/kg/day in the 3- month monkey study) is only 3-fold and 0.3-fold of the Cmax and AUC-values in humans respectively.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicokinetic bioanalytical assays not run with GLP-validated methods
Why: High-quality standards of the bioanalytical methods · Other reason
“Even though the Guideline on bioanalytical method validation (EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009) states that all the bioassays should be conducted with GLP validated methods, CHMP agreed that the high-quality standards of the bioanalytical methods used here can be considered adequate for the non-clinical analyses.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Secondary pharmacology screen run at a low concentration despite convulsions in rat repeat-dose studies
Why: No secondary targets identified in the screen; clinical safety profile to date · Human data · Weight of evidence
“However, this statement was not fully supported by CHMP, considering the low concentration tested and the applicant was asked to justify the concentration of cefiderocol used for the secondary pharmacology screen, also in the context of the convulsions seen in the repeat dose toxicity studies in rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗

Gomekli

mirdametinib · MEK1/2
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study ongoing at approval; final report required postmarketing (rasH2 mouse study completed)
“The Applicant is currently conducting a 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats and a post-marketing requirement (PMR) will be issued for the submission of the final study report.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Only dose-range-finding EFD studies in rat and rabbit; no definitive EFD or PPND studies
Why: Embryofoetal lethality already shown in dose-range-finding studies; pharmacology-related MEK-inhibitor class effect · Pharmacology or kinetics · Class precedent
“In addition, it is agreed with the applicant that definitive embryofoetal development and pre/postnatal development studies are not needed in view of this pharmacology-related developmental toxicity as mentioned in section 4.6 of the SmPC containing warnings related to the use of mirdametinib during pregnancy and breastfeeding.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No chronic toxicity studies beyond three months for a long-term paediatric and adult therapy
Why: Clinical experience with mirdametinib and its metabolite sufficient to waive long-term animal studies · Human data
“The non-clinical programme conducted according to ICH M3 recommendations could be considered sufficient as clinical experience with mirdametinib and its metabolite PD 0315209 is demonstrated to be sufficient to waive the need for long-term animal studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal study despite use from age two years
Why: In line with the agreed paediatric investigation plan · Other reason
“A marketing authorisation is currently sought for patients aged 2 years and older. No juvenile animal study (JAS) was conducted with mirdametinib. This is in line with the agreed PIP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
4-week dog NOAEL at 0.35-fold clinical exposure
“The NOAEL was identified at 0.1 mg/kg/day (0.35-fold the clinical exposure).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Nulibry

fosdenopterin · cPMP replacement (MoCD type A)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study before approval; single-species study deferred to a postmarketing requirement
Why: Not required pre-approval to avoid delaying a drug with mortality benefit for a rare, serious disease without other treatments · Rare disease / unmet need · Serious disease
“Carcinogenicity studies with fosdenopterin have not been conducted. A carcinogenicity study in a single species will be conducted as a postmarketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 79Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No reproductive or developmental toxicity studies before approval; deferred to postmarketing requirements
Why: Untreated patients do not survive into adolescence and adulthood; studies delayed until more clinical data · Rare disease / unmet need · Serious disease
“Nonclinical reproductive and developmental toxicity studies with fosdenopterin have not been conducted. These studies will be conducted as a postmarketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 79Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
Safety pharmacology margins at the no-observed-effect level low to non-existent due to low maximum dose levels
“No fosdenopterin-related effects were observed in vitro or on cardiovascular, CNS or respiratory parameters in vivo. Due to low maximum dose levels, margins at no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) are low to non-existing.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pharmacodynamic data in mice by the intended IV route of administration
Why: Limited volume feasible for IV administration to mice · Other reason
“The lack of data from the intended route of administration is considered acceptable based on the limited volume feasible for IV administration to mice.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo metabolism or excretion studies
Why: No metabolites in vitro; synthetic replacement for endogenous cPMP eliminated like the endogenous molecule · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In vivo studies to address metabolism have not been conducted. This is considered acceptable since no metabolites are detected in vitro, and since fosdenopterin is a synthetic replacement for the endogenous molecule (cPMP) expected to be eliminated and excreted in an identical manner to that of the endogenous molecule.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Xdemvy

lotilaner · Mite GABA-Cl channel
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity studies waived on a weight-of-evidence basis
Why: Weight of evidence showed no concern in animals or humans and no prolonged significant systemic exposure · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Based on the totality of Sponsor’s arguments, this reviewer judged the waiver request for carcinogenicity studies receivable since the weight of evidence indicated no cause for concerns in the animals or humans, nor significant systemic exposure for a long period of time that would justify evaluating the cancer risk with Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25%, for the indication sought.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 60Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Nasal turbinates and nasopharynx not examined histologically in any ocular toxicity study
Why: No clinical signs in any animal study suggesting nasal or throat irritation · Weight of evidence
“Nasal turbinate and nasopharynx were not examined under the microscope in any of the ocular studies which was a drawback to the complete evaluation of the potential ocular toxicity of Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution, 0.25%, but does not influence the decision on approvability of this product.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No nonclinical proof-of-concept studies for Demodex blepharitis
“Proof of concept studies were not conducted for the indication of Demodex blepharitis.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated fertility study; male fertility NOAEL derived from the rat 2-generation study
Why: 2-generation study provided a male fertility NOAEL · Other reason
“There was no designated fertility study conducted, however the results of the 2- generation study suggested that the NOAEL for male fertility was 20 mg/kg/day, which provides a safety margin of X with the MRHD of mg/kg for a 60 kg human.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 62Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Chronic oral systemic toxicity study in dogs used once-monthly dosing
Why: Lotilaner exposure in dogs was relatively constant with monthly oral dosing · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Considering the exposure to Lotilaner was relatively constant in the dog study by oral exposure, this reviewer found the design of monthly administration in the dog acceptable for assessing systemic toxicity in the context of a daily ocular exposure in humans for 6 weeks.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 9Source ↗

Zokinvy

lonafarnib · Farnesyltransferase
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study before approval; deferred to a postapproval study as agreed at the pre-IND meeting
Why: Agreed at the pre-IND meeting · Other reason
“As agreed at the pre-IND meeting held on August 22, 2018 (PIND 139923), the Applicant will conduct a carcinogenicity study postapproval.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 141Source ↗
Juvenile toxCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile toxicity studies for a paediatric product; toxicology animals' ages did not cover patients from 12 months
Why: Previously agreed · Other reason
“No juvenile toxicity studies were conducted, although lonafarnib is in this application intended for children. The lack of juvenile toxicity studies has previously been agreed upon. In addition, the age of the animals in the toxicological studies corresponded to human ages from approximately 12 years and older and did not cover the ages of the intended paediatric patients (from 12 months and older).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Chronic rat NOAEL at 0.06 (males) and 0.36 (females) times human AUC
“The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 15 mg/kg/day. AUC0-24hr at 15 mg/kg/day was 2.31 ȝJ·hr/mL in males and 14.1 ȝJ·hr/mL in females, which are 0.06 and 0.36 times the human AUC0-24hr (39.1 ȝJ·hr/mL) observed with 150 mg/m2 BID, respectively.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 66Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite M33 below 50% of human exposure in rats, the species used for pivotal embryo-fetal studies
Why: Lonafarnib already teratogenic at clinically relevant exposures; SmPC section 4.6 recommendation sufficient · Weight of evidence
“In the rat toxicity studies, mainly the M33 is lower than 50% of the human exposure. Since monkeys were not used in the pivotal EFD studies, the low exposure of M33 in rats is uncertain which may impact the results and conclusion of the reproductive toxicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Impurity Compound W not tested on its own for genotoxicity; QSAR assessment used instead
Why: QSAR assessment using statistical and expert-rule based methodology · Other reason
“To better investigate the genotoxic potential of Compound W, the substance itself should have been tested and preferably in a bacterial reverse mutation assay.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗

Defencath

taurolidine and heparin · Antimicrobial catheter lock
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No adequate general toxicology study: rat study with diluted product did not reach doses that explore taurolidine toxicity
Why: Previous clinical experience with taurolidine in catheter lock solutions judged adequate by medical reviewers · Human data
“A rat study conducted with a diluted solution of Defencath did not use high enough levels of the active ingredients to adequately explore the toxicity of taurolidine and identify possible target organs of toxicity (if any).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Reproductive toxicity studies for taurolidine waived
Why: Product not intended for systemic administration · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Defencath is not intended for systemic administration, so the Division agreed to waive reproduction toxicity studies for taurolidine and deemed that these data were not needed for labeling.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Not for systemic administration; negligible clinical exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Carcinogenicity Carcinogenicity studies were not needed for Defencath because the product is not intended for systemic administration and clinical exposure to its components is negligible when used as directed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Taurolidine positive in vitro (Ames and mouse lymphoma) but negative in vivo; accepted
Why: Negative in vivo; risk low at clinically achievable taurolidine exposure · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although taurolidine is positive for genotoxicity in vitro regardless of metabolic activation (mouse lymphoma and Ames tests), it is negative in vivo.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗

Mayzent

siponimod · S1P1/S1P5 receptor
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Human metabolites M3 and M17 not measured in pivotal repeat-dose studies; exposure inferred from non-GLP metabolite-to-parent ratios with unvalidated assays
Why: Not in line with ICH S3A, but justification agreed; M3 and M17 considered adequately qualified in pivotal studies · Other reason
“Concentrations of metabolites M3 and M17 were not directly assessed in pivotal repeat-dose toxicity studies. Instead, levels in these studies were inferred based on the ratio of metabolite to parent observed in non-GLP PK and exploratory studies in relevant species, and no method validation has been submitted for the methods of analysis used to determine metabolite concentrations in these studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No exposure margin at the embryo-fetal NOAEL (0.2-fold clinical exposure at 2 mg daily)
Why: Embryonic malformations and no margins; use in pregnancy and without effective contraception contraindicated, as for fingolimod · Class precedent
“Hence, no safety margin could be determined at the NOAEL for embryo-foetal development with respect to clinical exposure at the 2 mg daily dose (0.2 fold the exposure level), whereas the NOAEL for maternal toxicity of 1 mg/kg/day corresponds to a margin of exposure of 1.7 fold.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No safety margin for cardiovascular effects (bradycardia, AV block) at the guinea pig NOAEL
Why: Cardiovascular toxicities can be monitored clinically · Other reason
“On a body surface area basis, NOAELs were <0.24 and 720 mg/m2 for guinea pig and monkey, respectively. The human dose is 0.3 mg/m2, resulting in no safety margin.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 14Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study before approval; required postmarketing to support pediatric development
Why: Supports later pediatric clinical development under PREA · Other reason
“A post-marketing requirement for a juvenile animal toxicology study is recommended to support clinical development of siponimod in the pediatric population under PREA.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 9Source ↗

Nextstellis

drospirenone and estetrol · Estrogen / progestin receptors
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No new nonclinical program for drospirenone; relies on FDA's previous findings of safety for the listed drug YAZ
Why: Adequate scientific bridge to the listed drug YAZ established · Class precedent
“The Applicant refers to the Agency’s previous findings of safety for the nonclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology of the DRSP component of the approved product YAZ® (NDA 021676, approved March 16, 2006) to support the nonclinical safety of drospirenone in Nextstellis.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 16Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Estetrol positive in Ames strain TA102; in vivo assays did not suggest genotoxicity
Why: In vivo studies do not suggest that E4 is a genotoxicant · Weight of evidence
“The genotoxicity testing of E4 was not straight-forward. In the first Ames test, E4 was positive, as increased revertants were seen in the TA102 strain.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Low toxicity margins for estetrol and drospirenone in the repeat-dose program
Why: Toxicities identified are clinically well known from other combined oral contraceptives · Class precedent · Human data
“Margins of toxicity are considered to be low, but they are acceptable, considering that the toxicities identified in the programme are clinically well-known from other COC products.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Estetrol metabolism not studied in monkey; no animal plasma data on the two major human glucuronide metabolites
Why: Glucuronides have low pharmacological activity and form via direct conjugation; no toxicological concern · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In vivo metabolic pathways have not been studied in monkeys. No data on the levels of the two major human metabolites in plasma, the E4-3- and E4-16-glucuronide, is thus available.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Rezzayo

rezafungin · Fungal glucan synthase
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Proposed indication and short duration of treatment · Other reason
“No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted. Considering the proposed therapeutic indication and the proposed duration of treatment, this was considered a satisfactory approach.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal studies
Why: Application covers adult patients only · Other reason
“No studies in juvenile animals have been conducted. The lack of such studies is accepted, as the present Marketing Application Authorization refers to the use of Rezzayo in adult patients only.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Male reproductive organ effects in rats with a low (2-fold AUC) safety margin
Why: Effects on male rat reproductive organs and spermatogenesis described in the SmPC
“Based on human exposure data and animal toxicokinetics data extrapolated from the 4-week repeated dose toxicity study, there is a low safety margin (2-fold, based on AUC) for the effects observed in male reproductive organs.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Intention tremors in monkeys with relatively low safety margins (2.53 to 6.15-fold AUC)
Why: Intention tremor information included in SmPC section 5.3
“Considering that the available information suggests that rezafungin may induce dose-dependent intention tremors with relatively low safety margins (2.53 to 6.15- fold, based on systemic exposure [AUC0-168] from the 13-week [NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/dose, since intention tremors were observed at ≥30 mg/kg/dose] and 6 months study [NOAEL of 30 mg/kg/dose, the maximum tested dose])”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗

Voranigo

vorasidenib · IDH1/IDH2
Study lengthCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No chronic toxicity study, although the long-life-expectancy indication falls outside ICH S9
Why: Clinical experience (136 patients over 12 months, 79 over 24 months) considered sufficient; 3Rs principles · Human data
“The applicant has submitted a non-clinical package according to the recommendations mentioned in the ICH guideline S9; however, given the long-life expectancy of the patients the claimed indication does not fall under the scope of the ICH S9 guideline.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; mouse and rat studies required post-marketing given long survival
Why: Chronic use given the life expectancy of the patient population
“Carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are warranted to determine the risk of carcinogenicity from vorasidenib for chronic use given the life expectancy of the proposed patient population. Two nonclinical Post Marketing Requirements (PMRs) for rodent carcinogenicity studies were communicated to the Applicant.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 80Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fertility or pre- and postnatal development studies; ICH S9 waiver not accepted by CHMP for this indication
Why: Women of childbearing potential with long life expectancy; rat PPND study committed post-approval
“The claimed indication being out of the scope of the ICH S9 guideline, therefore waiving the conduct of other developmental and reproduction toxicity studies is not considered justified on this sole basis.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No longer-term toxicity data for the major human metabolite AGI-69460
Why: Slow formation in humans limits long-term exposure; no safety concern in substantial clinical experience · Human data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The lack of longer term toxicity data for metabolite AGI-69460 is not considered acceptable considering that the claimed indication does not fall under the ICH S9 guideline. Formation and accumulation of AGI-69460 is slow in humans, and therefore significant long-term exposure is limited.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Zurzuvae

zuranolone · GABA-A receptor (positive modulator)
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rabbit embryofetal study inadequate (plasma exposure below detection in some dams); second-species study required postapproval
“Potential adverse effects of zuranolone on embryofetal development in pregnant rabbits were not adequately assessed because TK data in satellite animals demonstrated that plasma exposures in some dams were below the limit of detection.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 147Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies reached only about 4- to 5-fold human exposure; higher doses limited by sedation
Why: Short-term treatment; no tumour increase at achievable exposures · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“In both species the exposure was limited (around 4-fold human exposure in mouse and 4 to 5-fold in rats) but higher doses were not achievable due to pharmacological effects of sedation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Dog studies: sedation below clinical exposure; doses limited by sedation
Why: Higher doses not achievable due to the sedative effect · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Sedation was seen at exposures below the clinical exposure, and tremors were seen at about 5.5-fold the clinical exposure. Higher doses were not achievable due to the sedative effect, but is considered sufficient.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗
Juvenile toxCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Neonatal rat (PND 7) apoptotic neurodegeneration with low margin (1.4-fold at no-effect dose)
Why: Indication restricted to women after childbirth · Other reason
“In a juvenile rat study with a single dose at PND 7, which corresponds to brain development at the end of the third trimester in humans, apoptotic neurodegeneration in one area of the brain (subiculum) in both males and females was seen. The safety margin is low (1.4-fold at NOEAL).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Cibinqo

abrocitinib · JAK1
SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Cynomolgus monkey used as non-rodent species without initial cross-reactivity data; CHMP questioned its pharmacological relevance
Why: Monkey previously used for tofacitinib; builds on prior experience and data from other JAK inhibitors · Class precedent
“Indeed, the pharmacological relevance of the monkey was therefore questionable, as no cross-reactivity studies with abrocitinib had been presented.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Juvenile toxQuestioned
No NOAEL in the juvenile rat study: bone malformations and fractures at all doses; mechanism unexplained
“Because adverse bone findings were noted at all dose levels, a NOAEL could not be established.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive (aneugenic) in vitro micronucleus assay accepted on a negative in vivo rat micronucleus assay
Why: Negative in vivo micronucleus; no genotoxic risk at the clinical dose of 200 mg QD · Weight of evidence
“Abrocitinib was positive in an in vitro micronucleus assay and determined to be an aneugen in a follow-up study; however, it was not genotoxic in an in vivo micronucleus assay in rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No margin for rat thymoma: benign thymomas in females from the lowest dose, at low exposure margins
Why: Human relevance unclear; thymoma data included in SmPC section 5.3 · Other reason
“However, thymomas were evident in females already from the lowest dose, with low margins of exposure to human exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
Mutagenic impurity PF-07216658 controlled by a benchmark-modelled PDE of 1.36 μg/kg/day (170 ppm)
“Based on benchmark modelling, a PDE which was established at 1.36 μg/kg/day corresponding to a concentration limit of 170 ppm.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Cosela

trilaciclib · CDK4/6
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No fertility, embryo-fetal or pre/postnatal development studies despite ovary and estrus-cycle findings in rats
Why: Short duration of clinical use and patient needs; CDK4/6 inhibitor class labels already describe reproductive toxicity · Class precedent · Serious disease
“No developmental or reproductive toxicity (DART) studies were conducted, consistent with the short duration of clinical use and therapeutic needs of the patient population, but there was no additional data to inform potential endocrine/reproductive toxicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 9Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity assessment in animals
Why: Patients already receive chemotherapy for existing small cell lung cancer, so little to gain · Serious disease
“Carcinogenic potential of trilaciclib has not been assessed in animals.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 70Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo genotoxicity assay; in vitro micronucleus increase in human lymphocytes
Why: Patients with SCLC are already treated with genotoxic chemotherapy, so further genotoxicity testing is not needed · Serious disease
“Genetic toxicity was not assessed in any in vivo assay (e.g., rat liver micronucleus formation in vivo to assess clastogenic potential).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 65Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a condition
Major human metabolite M8 not formed in rat or dog and not qualified (genotoxicity unknown)
Why: M8 pharmacologically inactive; ICH S9 for advanced cancer; sponsor to submit ongoing M8 investigations · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics · Serious disease
“Given that M8 is not pharmacologically active, and consistent with ICH S9 guidance for anticancer pharmaceuticals, further qualification of M8 is not recommended for patients with advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 10Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Pivotal IV dog study NOAEL 5 mg/kg at 0.5 times the MRHD
“NOAEL = 5 mg/kg (0.5X MRHD) [LOAEL = 15 mg/kg (1X MRHD; consistent with exaggerated pharmacologic effect)]”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 58Source ↗

Egaten

triclabendazole · Fasciola (tubulin)
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Nonclinical package consists of older studies conducted to support the veterinary product
Why: Data from the veterinary studies considered valid to support the clinical formulation · Other reason
“The preclinical investigations with TCBZ were conducted to support the veterinary product for treatment of fluke diseases. However, the data from these studies are considered valid to support the safety of clinical formulation of TCBZ for the treatment of fascioliasis.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No stand-alone hERG assay; most safety pharmacology studies non-GLP; dog QTc prolongation of unclear relevance
Why: Clinical relevance of dog QT prolongation unclear; thorough QT study to be conducted postmarketing
“As part of the Safety Pharmacology assessments, a stand-alone hERG channel inhibition assay was not conducted with TCBZ. However, in a series of other non-GLP Safety Pharmacology studies, no adverse effects were observed”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Dietary rat repeat-dose study with group-housed animals and no toxicokinetics
“While, overall the repeat-dose study in rats seems adequate, the study design is, to some extent, flawed, as 5 animals per treatment group were housed together in a cage.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 54Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Rat 2-generation study doses too low to assess postnatal toxicity; no toxicokinetics in any reproductive study
“the study are likely inadequate to indicate whether the drug causes postnatal developmental toxicity apart from the observed body weight loss in F2 offspring. No TK analyses were conducted in any of the reproductive toxicology studies in rats or rabbits.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat repeat-dose NOAEL of 0.75 mg/kg/day is below the proposed clinical dose
“The NOAEL was determined to be 10 ppm (corresponding to a mean of 0.75 mg/kg/day dose) which is below the proposed clinical dose based on a body surface area comparison.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 52Source ↗

Koselugo

selumetinib · MEK1/2
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Mouse instead of rat as the rodent for long-term toxicology and developmental studies
Why: Mouse forms detectable levels of the active N-desmethyl metabolite, giving toxicological coverage · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Applicant chose the mouse as the rodent species for the long-term toxicology and developmental studies due to detectable levels of the active N-desmethyl metabolite in this species that allowed for toxicological coverage; there were no unique human metabolites or other metabolites that needed toxicological coverage in animals.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal development tested in mouse only (no second species)
Why: Embryolethality and teratogenicity already shown in mice · Other reason
“A second species was not used for investigating the potential effects on embryo-foetal development, which is acceptable in view of the toxicological findings reported in mice (embryolethality, teratogenicity).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated juvenile toxicity studies for a paediatric indication
Why: Studies in sexually immature primates and younger mice cover children from 12 years onwards · Weight of evidence
“No specific juvenile toxicity studies have been conducted but studies performed in sexually immature primates and younger mice cover the age of children from 12 years onwards.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive mouse micronucleus test via an aneugenic mode of action accepted for long-term paediatric use
Why: Aneugenicity is a known MEK-inhibitor pharmacological effect; carcinogenicity studies showed no neoplastic changes · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“Aneugenic effects of selumetinb are known as pharmacological action of MEK inhibitors. However, no neoplastic changes were observed in carcinogenicity studies supporting the long-term treatment of children with selumetinib.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL or safety margin for irreversible corneal mineralisation in the 1-month mouse study
“In 1-month study in mice, ophthalmology findings (oval opacities across the cornea, rough appearance to the surface of the cornea) were observed at all doses and histopathologic exam revealed a dose-dependent mineralisation of the cornea which is not reversible after cessation of treatment. No NOAEL and no safety margin could be determined.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗

Scemblix

asciminib · BCR-ABL1 (STAMP, myristoyl pocket)
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies submitted for chronic-phase CML in patients pretreated with two or more TKIs
Why: Pretreated Ph+ CML-CP population; in accordance with ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“As this application is for the use of asciminib for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase (Ph+ CML-CP) previously treated with two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors no carcinogenicity studies were submitted, which was considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre/postnatal development study
Why: Teratogenic in rats and rabbits at human therapeutic exposures; agreed in EMA scientific advice · Weight of evidence
“Since asciminib showed teratogenicity in rats and rabbits at human therapeutic exposures, a pre- /postnatal development study was not performed”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No rat NOAEL: hepatocellular necrosis at the lowest dose, at or below clinical exposure
“A NOAEL could not be established in the rat studies since hepatocellular necrosis occurred already at the lowest dose tested (≥15 mg/kg/day). This exposure was equivalent or even below the intended clinical dose of 80 mg QD.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No dog NOAEL: pancreatic toxicity at exposures below the clinical dose; cause not established
Why: Pancreatic enzymes to be monitored clinically per SmPC section 4.4
“Although asciminib was tolerated up to the highest dose tested (60 mg/kg), a NOAEL could not be established due to the pancreatic toxicity which was observed at ≥3 mg/kg/day (corresponding to exposure multiples below the intended human dose of 40 mg BID or 80 mg QD).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Follow-up Ames tests of in silico positive impurities not GLP-compliant
Why: Studies followed OECD and UK MHRA general rules · Other reason
“In silico positive impurities were tested with follow up Ames tests. Theses assays were not performed under GLP conditions however according to the study protocols, general rules of OECD and UK MHRA were followed and lack of full GLP compliance is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗

Xolremdi

mavorixafor · CXCR4
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies deferred to postmarketing requirements
Why: High unmet need in WHIM syndrome · Rare disease / unmet need
“Carcinogenicity studies with mavorixafor have not been conducted. There was a prior agreement with the Applicant regarding the need for postmarketing requirement (PMR) studies to assess the carcinogenicity potential of mavorixafor.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 155Source ↗
Study lengthVerdict not stated
No chronic rat study with the marketed free base; chronic rat data only from a 26-week study of the PHB salt form
“As no chronic rat toxicity studies were conducted with the free base of mavorixafor, the 26-weeks rat study conducted with the PHB salt form of mavorixafor, referred to as AMD11070PHB, provided only supportive data for the chronic toxicity of mavorixafor in rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility, embryo-fetal or pre/postnatal development studies; literature weight-of-evidence (CXCR4/SDF-1 knockout mice) instead
Why: Human-relevant exposures hard to reach in animals; CXCR4/SDF-1 knockout mice already show developmental toxicity · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No dedicated fertility and early embryonic development, definitive embryo-fetal development, or pre- and post-natal development toxicity studies were conducted with mavorixafor.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 156Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the NOAELs in most pivotal rat and dog studies
“The CHMP concluded that, for the most parts, there were no margins from the NOAELs to clinical exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 54Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive juvenile toxicity study in rats because of poor tolerance in juvenile rats
Why: Poor tolerance in juvenile rats at low exposures · Other reason
“It was agreed that a definitive juvenile toxicity study in rats is not feasible due to poor tolerance of mavorixafor at low exposures in juvenile rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 53Source ↗

Agamree

vamorolone · Glucocorticoid receptor (dissociative)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; mouse and rat studies deferred to postmarketing requirements
Why: Seriousness of the indication; deferral previously agreed with the CHMP · Serious disease
“additionally, given the seriousness of the indication, carcinogenicity studies in two species (mouse and rat) are to be conducted as post marketing requirements.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 119Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No standard battery of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies
Why: Patient population almost exclusively male; consistent with ICH S5 and earlier CHMP protocol assistance · Within the guideline · Other reason
“Because the intended patient population is almost exclusively male, a standard battery of reproductive and developmental toxicology studies was not needed to support a marketing application”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 119Source ↗
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro hERG assay exploratory and non-GLP, conducted outside the OECD mutual acceptance of data area
Why: Not justified by the applicant; reassurance from dog telemetry showing no cardiovascular or respiratory effects · Weight of evidence
“However, the documentation of the hERG measurements is rather of exploratory nature and the applicant did not adequately justify the lack of GLP compliance, although the study was conducted in 2010, i.e., after implementation of the pertinent ICH S7A and B guidelines in 2001 and 2005.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No or negligible exposure margins at the NOAELs in mice and dogs versus the maximum recommended human dose
Why: Limitation reflected in section 5.3 of the SmPC
“Safety margins based on the Cmax- and AUC0-last-related exposure at the respective NOAELs determined in repeat-dose toxicity studies were negligible in adult or juvenile mice or not existent in dogs when compared to corresponding levels in human DMD patients at the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Cobenfy

xanomeline and trospium · Muscarinic M1/M4 agonist; peripheral antagonist
OtherVerdict not stated
No new nonclinical program for trospium; relies on prior FDA finding of safety for the approved trospium product
Why: Previous Agency finding of safety and effectiveness for trospium chloride · Other reason
“For trospium, the Applicant is relying on the Agency’s previous finding of safety and effectiveness of trospium chloride under NDA 021595 (Sanctura).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 72Source ↗
First doseAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Deaths in 14-day rat combination study left no NOAEL; no trospium-alone arm; clinical hold before dose escalation
Why: Hold lifted on commitment not to escalate beyond the starting dose until 40-day rat combination data were reviewed
“We informed the Applicant that based on animal deaths in their 14-day combination study with low and high doses there was now an unknown no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and safety margins could not be established to inform dosing.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 169Source ↗
CarcinogenicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat carcinogenicity protocol not submitted for ECAC dose concurrence; high dose exceeded the MTD
Why: No tumor increase at lower doses, slightly above the MRHD on a body surface area basis
“The Applicant did not submit the study protocol for ECAC concurrence on dose selection. The high dose exceeded the MTD and caused excessive decreases in body weight (↓up to 45%), weight gain (↓up to 70%), and food consumption (↓up to 19%), precluding an adequate assessment for carcinogenic effect at this dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 189Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicokinetic data unreliable (cross-contamination, high variability); safety margins based on body surface area, not exposure
Why: Rat PK bridging study showed adequate exposure to xanomeline and major human metabolites · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Therefore, the TK data are unreliable to use quantitatively, and they are evaluated only from a qualitative perspective. The safety margin calculations listed in the drug label are based on body surface area and not on exposure data.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 176Source ↗

Cypsedo

cipepofol · GABA-A receptor
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat toxicity and neonatal neurotoxicity studies deferred to postmarketing requirements
Why: Needed only before clinical studies in pediatric patients from birth to under 3 years · Other reason
“Conduct a juvenile animal study in rats to support the initiation of clinical studies in pediatric patients from birth to less than 3 years of age.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 203Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
No safety characterization of the major human O-glucuronide metabolite M4, poorly covered in rats
Why: Non-acyl glucuronide conjugate, pharmacologically inactive · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“M4 is a non-acyl-glucuronic acid metabolite confirmed by the CMC Reviewer and demonstrated to not be pharmacologically active. No additional safety characterization was conducted for M4, which was deemed acceptable by the Division during drug development.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 38Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Repeat-dose general toxicology studies dosed every other day rather than daily
“The Division acknowledged the Applicant’s justification for dosing animals every other day in the repeat-dose general toxicology studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 224Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Local tolerance histopathology done on Day 3 or 4 after dosing; no acute local assessment
Why: Clinical data can be leveraged for the local safety assessment · Human data
“Note that the assessment of histopathology was conducted on Day 3 or Day 4 after the final dose; therefore, the acute assessment of the local effects was not adequate, although clinical observation on the dosing site was conducted at several more acute time points after dosing.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 203Source ↗

Grafapex

treosulfan · DNA alkylation
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Why: Reproductive toxicity assumed from cytotoxic and genotoxic properties; decades of clinical use and alkylating-agent experience · Weight of evidence · Human data · Class precedent
“A potential for an influence on reproductive performance and intrauterine development in humans can be assumed based on the cytotoxic and genotoxic properties of treosulfan. Therefore, no dedicated reproductive and developmental toxicity studies for treosulfan according to current regulatory guidance were conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Package largely published literature and brief summaries of 1970s-1980s studies; only recent studies GLP
Why: Known mutagenic, cytotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic profile; decades of clinical use; experience with other alkylating agents · Human data · Class precedent
“Most of the study results are derived from the published literature whilst other studies are presented as brief summaries of studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Original submission lacked convincing evidence of DNA alkylation or genotoxicity; new Ames and chromosomal aberration studies required
“During the review of the NDA, it was determined that the nonclinical data for treosulfan submitted to the NDA in studies or literature for which the Applicant has the right to reference did not provide convincing evidence of DNA alkylation and breaks as the mechanism of action (MOA) of treosulfan or to address genotoxicity potential of the drug.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 111Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in most repeat-dose studies; adverse effects at the lowest dose tested
“In the other repeat-dose studies, adverse effects were observed at the lowest dose tested.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗

Litfulo

ritlecitinib · JAK3/TEC kinases
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Dog axonal dystrophy margin only 6.0-fold (Cmax) and 7.4-fold (AUC); lowest affected dog dose 10 mg/kg/day
Why: SmPC warning and nonclinical summary added; safety concern followed up post-approval
“According to the applicant, the margins between the clinical exposure and the exposures in the lowest dose group at which ritlecitinib-related axonal dystrophies were observed (rostral cerebellar vermis at 10 mg/kg/day, study 20099163) are only 6.0-fold in terms of Cmax and 7.4-fold in terms of AUC24.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Aneugenic in vitro (TK6 micronucleus); negative in vivo rat micronucleus
Why: Threshold effect seen only at supra-therapeutic exposures; in vivo micronucleus negative · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“While ritlecitinib was unequivocally an in vitro aneugen, the in vivo relevance of this finding is considered to be low, especially as aneugenicity is generally considered to be a threshold effect and as in vitro aneugenicity was only observed at exceedingly high supra-therapeutic exposures.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Dog cardiovascular safety study with very small sample size (three evaluable dogs); supportive only
Why: Cardiovascular effects not expected given selectivity towards JAK3 · Pharmacology or kinetics
“However, the very small sample size of 4 beagle dogs, actually 3 in the GLP-compliant study, since the data of one dog could not be evaluated, poses an issue with the informative value of the results.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 57Source ↗
GLPAccepted
Non-GLP exploratory Ames tests used for mutagenicity evaluation of impurities
Why: Assays in line with appropriate guidance; ICH M7(R1) allows use without full GLP compliance · Within the guideline
“As the submitted exploratory Ames tests were nonetheless in line with appropriate guidance (e.g. highest tested concentrations 5 mg/plate, cytotoxicity and solubility assessments, 5 relevant strains, adequate positive controls etc.), the non-GLP assays submitted in the dossier are considered sufficient for mutagenicity evaluation of (potential) impurities.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 65Source ↗

Livtencity

maribavir · CMV UL97 protein kinase
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo safety pharmacology studies not GLP-compliant (conducted before ICH S7A)
Why: Studies predated ICH S7A; GLP-compliant toxicity studies and clinical studies available · Weight of evidence · Human data
“Considering that the in vivo safety pharmacology studies have been performed prior to introduction of the ICH S7A guideline and in view of the available GLP-compliant single-and repeated dose toxicity studies and the clinical studies, the lack of GLP compliance is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rodent carcinogenicity NOAEL exposures below or only slightly above human exposure
Why: Low exposure multiples not a concern given the proposed indication · Serious disease
“Nevertheless, for both rodents, exposure margins obtained at the NOAEL for carcinogenicity are not existing (< 1 x) or rather low (1 – 2 x) with regard to the total concentrations or free concentrations of maribavir based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
26-week rat NOAEL exposure about 0.1 times total human AUC
“The NOAEL was set at 25 mg/kg/day resulting in exposures below human therapeutic exposures for total (approximately 0.1-times) and free unbound (approximately 0.5-times) maribavir based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
High clinical exposures (up to 1200 mg) not reached in nonclinical safety studies
Why: Exposure covered by the 800 mg and 1200 mg clinical studies · Human data
“These Cmax and AUC exposures have not generally been reached in the non-clinical safety studies, and thus, the non-clinical study package provides no support for this wide therapeutic window.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Myqorzo

aficamten · Cardiac myosin
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Chronic rat and dog exposure margins below ICH M3(R2) expectations because exaggerated pharmacology limited dosing
Why: Dose-limiting exaggerated pharmacology; HCM patients would likely tolerate reduced cardiac contractility better than animals · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In both species, chronic RDT studies generally may not have explored the full range of aficamten mediated effects in naïve animals due to lack of exposure due to dose limiting aficamten-related (exaggerated) pharmacology. As a result, exposure margins in the chronic RDT studies in rat and dog are below what is expected in ICH M3(R2).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
CarcinogenicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
High mortality in the 104-week rat carcinogenicity study forced early termination of dose groups
Why: Transgenic mouse data and totality of evidence indicate low carcinogenic potential · Weight of evidence
“The high mortality in the 104-week carcinogenicity necessitated early termination of dose groups.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Rabbit EFD study limited to maternally toxic exposures below the MRHD; considered insufficient
Why: Maternal toxicity limited exposures to below the MRHD
“When aficamten was administered orally in an embryo-foetal toxicity study in the rabbit, increases in the number of late resorptions were observed at maternally toxic exposures below the MRHD. As such this study is considered insufficient.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated carcinogenicity study for major metabolite M1a, covered at only 0.5-fold exposure in the 2-year rat study
Why: M1a non-genotoxic, no concerning signals in rodent studies; minimal carcinogenic risk by weight of evidence · Weight of evidence
“The 2-year rat study, which reached 0.5-fold exposure, similarly demonstrated no concerning signals. Furthermore, M1a was determined to be non-genotoxic based on a comprehensive battery of assays and weight-of-evidence evaluation. Collectively, these data indicate minimal carcinogenic risk for this metabolite, therefore, we conclude that a dedicated carcinogenicity study is not warranted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 110Source ↗

Ojemda

tovorafenib · RAF (type II pan-RAF)
Juvenile toxCriticised but accepted
No juvenile toxicity studies for a paediatric indication; youngest animals corresponded to 12 to 16 years of human age
Why: In line with ICH S9 for oncology indications, though a deviation from ICH M3(R2) · Within the guideline
“Furthermore, no juvenile toxicity studies were conducted. Rats were about 8 to 10 weeks of age and monkeys 2.3 to 3.9 years of age corresponding to 12 to 16 years of human age. While this is in line with ICH S9 guidance for oncology indications, it represents a deviation from ICH M3(R2) and should be considered in the context of the intended paediatric use.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margins at the NOAEL in pivotal repeat-dose studies: rat 0.39 and monkey 0.41 (adults), 0.22 and 0.23 (paediatric)
“However, exposure multiples compared to the NOAEL of the clinical exposure demonstrated no margins of exposure within the pivotal long-term repeat-dose toxicology studies (rats: 0.39 (M) for adults and 0.22 (M) for paediatric patients; monkeys: 0.41 (M) for adults and 0.23 (M) for paediatric patients).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗
Study lengthCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Several high-dose monkey groups terminated early and planned dosing duration shortened because of toxicity below clinical exposure
“In monkeys, the studies indicated that gastrointestinal and haematological adverse effects occurred at exposures below those expected clinically. These effects led to early termination of several high-dose groups and shortening of the planned dosing duration, which limits the interpretation of long-term toxicity at clinically relevant exposures.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study still ongoing at approval
“The 2-year rat carcinogenicity study is ongoing. The carcinogenicity evaluation is considered adequate considering the ongoing 2-year study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗

Orlynvah

sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid · Penicillin-binding proteins
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro clastogenicity for sulopenem etzadroxil and sulopenem; judged non-genotoxic on negative in vivo micronucleus and Ames results
Why: Negative in vitro mutagenicity and in vivo micronucleus assays · Weight of evidence
“Based on the negative results in the in vitro mutagenicity assays and the in vivo micronucleus assays, the weight of evidence supports a negative potential for genotoxicity for sulopenem etzadroxil.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 261Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Formaldehyde released on prodrug hydrolysis not measurable in toxicology studies because of a high quantitation limit
Why: Formaldehyde formed is much smaller than the normal body burden · Pharmacology or kinetics
“However, measurable quantities of formaldehyde were not observed in any of the rat or monkey toxicology studies, although the lower limit of quantitation for formaldehyde in these studies was high, µg/ml.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 261Source ↗
Efficacy modelCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Murine thigh infection model PK/PD targets deemed unreliable because of study design deficiencies
Why: In vitro target attainment and hollow-fiber model results supportive · Other reason
“Due to deficiencies in the murine thigh infection model study design and limited interpretability of the findings, the resulting targets (i.e., 16.6 and 20.3% fT>MIC for stasis and 1-log kill, respectively) were deemed unreliable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 45Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rabbit maternal toxicity and reduced fetal weights at about 0.1 and 0.2 times clinical sulopenem exposure
“In rabbits, maternal toxicity and reduced fetal body weights occurred at sulopenem etzadroxil doses associated with sulopenem plasma exposures approximately 0.1 and 0.2 times, respectively, the clinical sulopenem exposure for the MRHD of sulopenem etzadroxil.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Recarbrio

imipenem, cilastatin and relebactam · Beta-lactamase (relebactam)
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies with relebactam or imipenem/cilastatin
Why: Relebactam not genotoxic and treatment duration relatively short · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In the absence of genotoxicity, and as the proposed treatment duration is relatively short, no carcinogenicity tests have been conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
Cardiovascular and CNS GLP safety pharmacology studies used males only
Why: No substantial gender differences in repeat-dose toxicology studies · Weight of evidence
“For relebactam it was noted only males were used in the CV and CNS GLP-studies. However, since no substantial gender differences were observed in the repeat dose toxicology studies, this is considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo metabolism studies in rabbit or monkey, the species used for reproductive and repeat-dose toxicity
Why: No major relebactam metabolites identified in humans · Pharmacology or kinetics · Human data
“It is noted that no studies on in vivo metabolism of REL have been carried out in rabbit or monkey that were used in reproductive toxicity or CV and repeat dose toxicity studies, respectively. However, since no major REL metabolites have been identified in humans, this is considered acceptable by CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Monkey chosen as non-rodent species without full 3Rs justification
Why: Animal models considered relevant
“With respect to the 3Rs principles the selection of the monkey should have been further justified. However, the animal models are considered relevant.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Skyclarys

omaveloxolone · Nrf2 activator
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity studies (26-week Tg.rasH2 mouse, 2-year rat) deferred to post-marketing requirements
“Carcinogenicity studies (26-week study in Tg.rasH2 mice and 2-year study in SD rats) are to be conducted as post-marketing requirements.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite M22 not adequately covered in general or reproductive toxicology studies; EFD study of M22 required post-marketing
Why: M22 has minimal pharmacological activity and was negative in silico and in a non-GLP Ames assay · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Therefore, M22 was not adequately tested in the general toxicology studies in rat and monkey or in any reproductive and developmental toxicology studies in rat. M22 showed minimal pharmacological activity and was negative in in silico analysis and in a non-GLP Ames assay.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 4Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal studies despite use from age 16; no justification provided by the applicant
Why: Target organs (GI tract, liver, kidney) already fully developed in patients aged 16-18 years · Weight of evidence
“No justification for omission of juvenile animal studies was provided by the applicant. However, considering the target organs of toxicity (gastrointestinal tract, liver and kidney) identified in the young and adult animals in pivotal repeat-dose toxicity studies, no higher sensitivity to toxicity in comparison to adults is expected as these organs are already fully developed in the proposed paediatric population (16-18 years”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rabbit embryo-fetal NOAELs below clinical exposure (maternal 0.3, developmental 0.7)
“The maternal NOAEL is considered 3 mg/kg/day and the developmental NOAEL is considered 10 mg/kg/day in rabbits, corresponding to exposure margins of 0.3 and 0.7, respectively.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Sunlenca

lenacapavir · HIV-1 capsid
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a condition
No completed carcinogenicity studies at submission; rasH2 mouse and 2-year rat studies ongoing, submitted post-approval
Why: Intended patient population allows post-approval submission; no clear warning signals for oncogenicity · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“No carcinogenicity studies have been submitted except a dose-range finding transgenic RasH2 study (which did not find any signs of neoplasia).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No GLP hERG assay because lenacapavir precipitated in the patch clamp vehicle
Why: No cardiovascular effects in dogs at 20-fold clinical free Cmax; negative human thorough QT study · Human data · Weight of evidence
“As lenacapavir became a suspension at concentrations ≥ 0.1 µM in the DMSO/buffer vehicle used for the patch clamp technique no GLP hERG assay was performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicology program mostly not run with the exact clinical subcutaneous formulation; several vehicle variations used
Why: All subcutaneous formulations produced more or less the same toxicity findings · Weight of evidence
“It should be noted that the toxicological programme has in most cases not been conducted with the exact clinical formulations - especially the SC formulation (lenacapavir sodium 26.46% [w/w], PEG300 50.13% [w/w] and water) where several variations have been used in the toxicological studies (containing variations of combinations of PEG200, PEG300, P188, ethanol and/or NaOH).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat embryofetal study by oral route with low bioavailability; only rabbit achieved higher systemic exposure
Why: Absence of adverse DART signals · Weight of evidence
“With regard to the DART studies, the choice of conducting repeated oral exposure in rat (which has low bioavailability) and IV exposure in rabbit means that, in practice, a setup where only one animal model has achieved a higher systemic exposure (i.e., rabbit).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Trikafta

elexacaftor, tezacaftor and ivacaftor · CFTR
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study of elexacaftor ongoing at approval; completed as a postmarketing requirement
Why: Unmet medical need in the proposed indication · Rare disease / unmet need
“A 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats (Study VX-445-TX-015) is ongoing and the division agreed that this study could be completed as a Post-Marketing Requirement based on the unmet medical need in the proposed indication (communication dated Jun 28, 2018).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 49Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Potential synergistic effects of the triple combination on fertility not investigated
Why: Rat fertility findings occur at exposures above clinical exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“However, potential synergistic effects on fertility were not investigated with the triple combination which is acceptable by CHMP since the observation in rat occurs at exposures above those reached in clinic.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL for males in the rat triple-combination study: adverse body weight effects at the lowest dose
“However, the adverse body weight effects in males already at the lowest dose result in a NOAEL that cannot be determined for male animals.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo efficacy model; pharmacology studied only in vitro (CF patient bronchial epithelial cells)
Why: No validated animal model of CF; all three components bind specifically to CFTR · Other reason
“As there is no validated animal model for CF that fully mimics the human multi organ affected disease and all three components bind specifically to CFTR, the use of in vitro systems to study the pharmacology of elexacaftor only or in combination with tezacaftor and ivacaftor can be accepted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗

Zevtera

ceftobiprole medocaril · Penicillin-binding proteins
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
Animal data support only up to one month of dosing, while clinical treatment up to six weeks was permitted
Why: Longer treatment duration supported by clinical data · Human data
“The animal data supports safety of ceftobiprole medocaril sodium for up to 1 month duration, however, based on clinical data treatments for up to six weeks were permitted. We deferred to the clinical review team on the safety of ceftobiprole medocaril sodium administered for this extended duration.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 293Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro mouse lymphoma and chromosomal assays (clastogenic potential); negative in vivo micronucleus and rat liver UDS
Why: Negative in vivo micronucleus and rat liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assays reduce the concern · Weight of evidence
“The genotoxicity profile of ceftobiprole medocaril sodium was mixed including a negative Ames assay, a positive mouse lymphoma assay, a negative forward mutation assay, and positive chromosomal assays for both the pro-drug and active metabolite suggesting clastogenic potential.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 293Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Several drug substance and drug product impurities not adequately qualified in toxicology studies
Why: Impurity levels considered acceptable despite qualification limitations; no further safety evaluation warranted · Other reason
“The impurity qualification review indicates that the select individual impurities in the DS and DP are not adequately qualified based on the toxicology studies considered.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 296Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Convulsions and mortality in 13-week rat and marmoset studies at doses below the MRHD (0.2 times in marmosets)
“However, in the 13-week studies in the rats and marmosets at similar doses to those used in shorter term studies, convulsions and mortality were observed (≥50 mg/kg in marmosets, 0.2 times the MRHD; ≥250 mg/kg in rats, 0.94 times the MRHD, based on BSA comparisons).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 125Source ↗

Byfavo

remimazolam · GABA-A receptor (benzodiazepine site)
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat fertility, EFD and PPND studies used short boluses giving exposures below human; DART battery incomplete
Why: Women of childbearing potential are pregnancy-tested before planned procedural sedation; male fertility, second-species EFD and PPND required as PMRs · Other reason
“Of specific concern, data from the rat studies did not provide acceptable safety margins as the DART studies were conducted with short boluses that resulted in systemic exposures below that in humans.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 9Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal study on the developing brain before approval; required postmarketing
“In addition, a PMR for juvenile animal studies will be issued to further characterize the potential impact of the drug on the developing brain.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 10Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Novel excipient Dextran 40: second-species (rat) EFD study replaced by literature-based justification
Why: Dextran 40 exposure to the embryo or fetus negligible · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In lieu of studies in a second species (rat), the Applicant provided a justification based on experimental evidence to demonstrate that Dextran 40 exposure to the embryo or fetus is negligible to support the safety of dextran.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗

Duvyzat

givinostat · Histone deacetylase (class I/II)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Mouse and two-year rat carcinogenicity studies deferred to after approval as postmarketing requirements
Why: Nature of the indication (DMD) and negligible in vivo mutation risk · Serious disease · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant was therefore informed in a Type C meeting (May 11, 2020) that, due to the nature of the proposed indication (i.e., DMD), carcinogenicity studies for givinostat may be deferred until post approval.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 133Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive Ames result accepted after a follow-up transgenic rat (Big Blue, Pig-a) mutagenesis assay
Why: In vivo transgenic rat assay showed negligible in vivo mutation risk · Weight of evidence
“Based on a review of these data by the PTCC Genetic Toxicology Subcommittee, it was determined that the risk of in vivo mutation was negligible for givinostat.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 133Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No Cmax- or AUC-based safety margins at repeat-dose NOAELs in mice, rats and monkeys
“However, no relevant Cmax- and AUC-based safety margins could be established for givinostat at the respective NOAELs in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in mice, rats and monkeys compared to the envisaged therapeutic human doses of 25 to 70 mg bid in DMD patients.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗

Inqovi

decitabine and cedazuridine · DNMT (decitabine); cytidine deaminase (cedazuridine)
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
Combination toxicology limited to one non-GLP 4-week (one-cycle) monkey study using separate capsules, not the fixed-dose tablet
Why: Disparate toxic dose levels of decitabine and cedazuridine · Other reason
“The toxicologic profiling of cedazuridine in combination with decitabine was limited to a non-GLP 4-week/1-cycle study in cynomolgus monkeys. This study did not evaluate the ASTX727 FDC drug product; instead, monkeys were orally administered separate gelatin capsules containing cedazuridine (1, 3, or 6 mg/kg/day) and decitabine (2 mg/kg/day).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 38Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No CNS safety pharmacology study; no safety pharmacology studies with the combination or decitabine
Why: FDA agreed with conclusions from the cedazuridine safety pharmacology studies · Pharmacology or kinetics
“CNS safety pharmacology studies were therefore not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 44Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Decitabine nonclinical package relies on data from the approved decitabine injection application
Why: Prior nonclinical data supporting approval of decitabine for injection · Class precedent
“The nonclinical pharmacology, ADME/TK, and toxicology data submitted to this NOA, in combination with the nonclinical data submitted to support the approval of decitabine for injection (NOA 21790), are adequate to support the approval of ASTX727 for the proposed indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗

Jaypirca

pirtobrutinib · BTK (non-covalent)
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Aneugenic in in vitro human lymphocyte micronucleus assays; in vivo rat micronucleus negative
Why: Human exposure below the rat no-effect level for aneugenicity; cancer patient population; FDA disputed the margin estimate · Serious disease · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Pirtobrutinib is an aneugenic genotoxicant; however, human exposure at 200 mg QD is 12-fold lower than the no effect level for this genotoxicity in rats. Thus, this is not a significant risk for cancer patients.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 52Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Dog corneal lesions at 0.42-fold human AUC at the recommended dose
Why: Not a class toxicity and not a significant finding in humans; described in product information · Human data
“Corneal lesions were only observed in 2 dogs treated for 3 months. To date, this has not been identified as a drug class toxicity and has not been identified as a significant safety finding in the human population but is nevertheless described in the product information as it was observed at 0.42-fold human exposure (at the recommended dose of 200 mg based on AUC).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Anti-KLH TDAR eliminated in male rats at 0.69-fold human AUC at the recommended dose
Why: Described in the product information
“Thus, the effect was considered adverse in male rats and is described in the product information as it was observed at 0.69-fold human exposure (at the recommended dose of 200 mg based on AUC).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗

Livmarli

maralixibat · IBAT (ASBT)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Only the Tg.RasH2 mouse study completed before approval; 2-year rat carcinogenicity study in progress and made a postmarketing requirement
Why: Prior FDA agreement; two-species carcinogenicity routinely expected for use beyond 6 months, so rat study made a PMR
“A 2-year rat carcinogenicity study is currently in progress. The incomplete status of the carcinogenicity testing program is in accordance with the FDA’s prior agreement with the Applicant.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 68Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Safety margins calculated on dose rather than systemic exposure
Why: Very low bioavailability (in general below 1%) · Pharmacology or kinetics
“As the bioavailability of maralixibat is very low (in general below 1%) the use of doses instead of systemic exposure for calculation of safety margins is acceptable as well.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat reproductive studies used dietary dosing; PPND study did not prevent pup access to maternal diet, confounding pup body weights
“Unfortunately, no measure was taken to prevent access of offspring to the maternal diet in the PPND study, where adverse effects on pups’ body weights were considered due to consuming the maternal diet at the time when the offspring start to eat on their own.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗

Nexletol

bempedoic acid · ATP citrate lyase
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
26-week rat NOAEL below clinical exposure (<1x AUC); 52-week monkey NOAEL 13x
Why: Rodent margin limited by rodent-specific PPAR-related effects; monkey more representative of human responses · Pharmacology or kinetics
“In conclusion, safety margins established from the 26-week rat and 52-week monkey studies support the proposed 180 mg/day dose of bempedoic acid and correspond to at least <1 and 13 times the clinical exposure at the human dose of 180 mg, respectively, based on AUC exposures at the nonclinical no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 72Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat NOAEL at exposure below clinical exposure (no safety margin)
Why: Juvenile toxicity profile comparable to adult rats; findings were rodent-specific PPAR effects not relevant to humans · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“The NOAEL is established as 10 mg/kg/day (at doses resulting in exposures below the clinical exposure, based on AUC) considering the absence of effect on growth and neurobehavior in juvenile rats treated at the high dose (10 mg/kg/day) tested.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 148Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Low safety margins in rat fertility, embryo-fetal and pre- and postnatal development studies
Why: Adverse effects only at maternally toxic doses · Other reason
“The low safety margins identified from fertility, embryo-fetal and pre-and postnatal development studies conducted in rat (Table 47) are considered acceptable, because the adverse effects were only observed at maternally toxic doses.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 116Source ↗

Sohonos

palovarotene · RARγ
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity studies before approval for chronic use; weight-of-evidence assessment submitted; two-species studies required postmarketing
Why: Unmet medical need in severely debilitating FOP · Rare disease / unmet need · Serious disease
“Carcinogenicity bioassays were not considered necessary prior to submission and review of a marketing application because of the unmet medical need for the severely debilitating nature of heterotopic ossification in patients with FOP.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 62Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal study in rat only (no second species); no pre-/postnatal development study
Why: Teratogenic in rats; retinoid class known to affect fetal development · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“As palovarotene adversely affected fetal development in pregnant rats, and retinoids as a class are known to carry a risk of affecting fetal development, neither an EFD study in pregnant animals of a second species nor a pre-/postnatal developmental toxicity study were warranted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 218Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No safety margins: NOAELs below lowest doses tested in 26-week rat and 39-week dog studies
Why: Exaggerated pharmacology in healthy animals; risks manageable through clinical monitoring and labelling · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Because of the exaggerated pharmacology in healthy animal models, no safety margins were established at the palovarotene NOAEL doses of <0.03 mg/kg/day and <12 mg/kg/day in the 26-week rat and 39-week dog toxicity studies, respectively (Table 42).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 220Source ↗

Tavneos

avacopan · C5a receptor (C5aR1)
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
Respiratory, renal, CNS safety pharmacology and TDAR studies done only in rats, a pharmacologically non-relevant species
Why: Standard clinical observations in the chronic monkey study sufficient · Other reason
“The T cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) assay, respiratory, renal, and CNS safety pharmacology studies were conducted in rats, a pharmacologically non-relevant species for CCX168.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 468Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No dose-limiting effects or target organs in chronic studies; maximum feasible doses with only about 4- to 15-fold AUC margins
Why: Maximum feasible doses given dose volume, formulation concentration and tolerability constraints · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No dose-limiting effects or target organ of toxicity were noted in the chronic studies and therefore, the toxicology of avacopan is not considered fully explored. However, the maximum dose levels employed were the maximum feasible dose levels based on dose volume and formulation concentration constraints, and/or formulation tolerability.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Hamster used as the main rodent species for general, reproductive and carcinogenicity studies
Why: Justified by pharmacology and pharmacokinetic data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The selection of the main toxicology species, hamster and Cynomolgus monkeys is justified based on pharmacology and pharmacokinetic data.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Verquvo

vericiguat · Soluble guanylate cyclase
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro hERG assay deviated from ICH S7B Q&A best practices (voltage protocol, no concentration verification or positive controls)
Why: Additional CiPA-based ion channel studies submitted during review showed no proarrhythmic channel interactions · Weight of evidence
“Although the safety margin of vericiguat on hERG current is high (546-fold), the hERG assay deviates significantly from the new ICH S7B Q&A best practices. Specifically, the study used a different voltage protocol, lacked concentration verification and positive controls”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 146Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite M1 (70% of human plasma exposure) below 0.24x human AUC in rodent carcinogenicity studies; not separately dosed
Why: Administered M1 unlikely to remain intact through the stomach, so dosing it would add little · Pharmacology or kinetics
“This is an N-glucuronide that accounts for 70% of human plasma exposure and in rat and mouse accounts for less than 10% of total exposure, reaching <0.24X the human AUC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 162Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat developmental toxicity study (bone effects) deferred to a postmarketing requirement
Why: Bone effects not expected in the adult heart failure population · Human data
“A non-clinical PMR will be issued to evaluate developmental toxicity in juvenile rats in order to support dosing for potential studies in a pediatric population.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 86Source ↗

Joenja

leniolisib · PI3Kδ
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Carcinogenicity studies (6-month Tg-rasH2 mouse, 2-year rat) ongoing at approval; final reports deferred to postmarketing
Why: Unmet medical need for APDS · Rare disease / unmet need
“Carcinogenicity studies with leniolisib have not been conducted. The 6-month transgenic (Tg-RasH2) mouse carcinogenicity study and 2-year carcinogenicity study with rats are ongoing under Special Protocol Assessments with ECAC concurrence.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study before approval; rat PPND study required postmarketing
Why: Unmet medical need for APDS · Rare disease / unmet need
“A pre- and postnatal development study with leniolisib has not been conducted. A pre- and postnatal development study with rats will be submitted as a post-marketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Fertility and early embryonic development assessed in a subset of rats after a juvenile toxicology study (combined design)
“The Fertility and Early Embryonic Development (FEED) study was conducted in a subset (20/sex/group) of rats immediately after the conclusion of a juvenile toxicology study in which rats were treated with 0, 10, 30, or 90 mg/kg/day leniolisib once daily by oral gavage from PND 7 – 77.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
NOAEL margins 0.8 (rat) and 1.0 (monkey); animal NOAEL exposure similar to human therapeutic exposure
“The safety margins in toxicity studies were 0.8 (15mg/kg/day) and 1.0 (20 mg/kg/day) at the NOAEL in rat and monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No validated APDS animal model; pharmacology shown in rat SRBC antibody response and mouse ozone lung inflammation models
“Currently, there is no validated APDS disease model in animals. The Sponsor explored antibody response to sheep red blood cells (SRBC) in rats and ozone-induced neutrophil infiltration in mouse bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗

Lynkuet

elinzanetant · NK1/NK3 receptors
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No margin at 39-week monkey NOAEL: females below 1x and males 1x MRHD AUC
“The NOAEL for females was the low-dose of 30 mg/kg/day, with AUC(0-24) = 3000 µg.h/L (<1 X MRHD) and the NOAEL for males was the high-dose of 80 mg/kg/day, with AUC(0-24) = 8370 µg.h/L (1 X MRHD).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 457Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No margin at the rat pre- and postnatal developmental NOAEL (0.23x MRHD AUC)
“2) At the NOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg/day for developmental toxicity there is no safety margin (0.23 X) based on AUC0-24h of 8572 ng•h/mL (Elinzanetant) obtained from clinical study B002427.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 598Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study gave very low exposure margins to main metabolites M27 and M18/21
Why: Executive CAC agreed metabolite coverage in the rat carcinogenicity study is adequate · Other reason
“While the carcinogenicity study generated adequate clinical exposure margins for the parent drug and its primary metabolite (M30/34) in rats, it provided very low exposure margins to the other two main metabolites (M27 and M18/21).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 646Source ↗
RecoveryQuestioned
No recovery groups in cynomolgus monkey repeat-dose studies; recovery only in one 13-week rat study
“Recovery groups were included in one of the 13- week rat studies but unfortunately not in Cynomolgus monkeys.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated male fertility study; male reproductive organs assessed in repeat-dose toxicity study
Why: Repeat-dose reproductive organ findings only at high exposure (margin 80; safety factor 56 at NOAEL), indicating low male fertility risk · Weight of evidence
“No dedicated male fertility study was conducted. Instead, male reproductive organs were assessed in a repeated dose toxicity study, which is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Pemazyre

pemigatinib · FGFR1-3
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal development assessed only in a non-GLP dose range-finding rat study
Why: Clear developmental findings at exposures below clinical exposure at 13.5 mg · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant conducted a non-GLP dose range-finding embryo-fetal development study in Sprague-Dawley rats. Because this study demonstrated clear findings at exposure levels below the clinical exposure at the 13.5 mg human dose, this study was sufficient to characterize the potential developmental risk.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 36Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility and early embryonic development studies
Why: Advanced-cancer indication and teratogenicity already shown; in line with ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Due to the indication of pemigatinib and the teratogenic effects observed in the range-finding embryo-foetal toxicity study, the lack of fertility and early embryonic developmental studies is acceptable and is in line with the recommendations given in the ICH S9 guideline.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No pre- and postnatal development study
Why: Intended indication; in line with ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“No studies on pre-postnatal development have been conducted with pemigatinib. The lack of pre-postnatal developmental studies is acceptable in view of the intended indication for Pemazyre and is in line with the ICH S9 guideline.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity studies
Why: Adult-only indication; full paediatric waiver granted · Other reason
“Since the currently intended indication of Pemazyre is for treatment of adults, the lack of juvenile toxicity studies in animals is acceptable; pemigatinib was granted a full paediatric waiver for development for the treatment of either cholangiocarcinoma or urothelial carcinoma (EMA decision P/0386/2018).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No safety margin for soft tissue mineralisation (rats, monkeys) and ophthalmic findings
“There are no safety margins for the soft tissue mineralisation in rats and monkeys and ophthalmic findings for up to 90 days.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗

Relyvrio

sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol · ER stress / mitochondrial (proposed)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; mouse and rat studies deferred to post-marketing requirements
Why: Seriousness of the indication (ALS) · Serious disease
“Carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted. Carcinogenicity studies in mouse and rat may be conducted post-approval, as agreed to by the Division (Meeting Minutes, April 7, 2020, and July 22, 2021) because of the seriousness of the indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 6Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margin: highest doses in rat and minipig gave plasma exposures below human exposure at the maximum recommended dose
Why: Available clinical safety data · Human data
“It is, however, of note that the data available from the general toxicology studies indicate that the plasma exposures for PB and TUDCA achieved in animals at the highest doses tested in the nonclinical studies were lower than those in humans at the maximum recommended human doses (6 gm NaPB and 3 mg TUDCA).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 6Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteQuestioned
No human mass balance study; qualification of major human metabolites unknown
“According to the Clinical Pharmacology team, a mass balance study in humans was not conducted for AMX0035. In the absence of data on the in vivo metabolic profile in humans, it is not known whether any major human metabolites are qualified by the nonclinical data.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 46Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No CNS safety pharmacology assessment
“CNS safety pharmacology was not assessed; however, cardiovascular and respiratory safety pharmacology endpoints were assessed in standalone studies in Gottingen minipig and SD rat, respectively, following administration of 1000 mg/kg PB/333.3 mg/kg TUDCA and did not indicate any adverse effects.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 45Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
One in vivo ALS model study plus in vitro assays; results inconsistent or failed to show benefit
“A number of in vitro assays and one in vivo study in an ALS-relevant animal model of disease were conducted to characterize the pharmacological activity and potential efficacy of AMX0035 for the treatment of ALS. Overall, the results of these studies were inconsistent or failed to demonstrate beneficial effects of AMX0035.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 6Source ↗

Romvimza

vimseltinib · CSF1R
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study ongoing at approval; report deferred to post-marketing
Why: Agreed at a pre-submission meeting as a post-marketing commitment
“A long–term rat 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats is ongoing and will be submitted post-marketing. During a Pre-submission meeting held on 17 April 2024, the rapporteur agreed that it is acceptable to submit the report of the 2-year rat carcinogenicity study as a post-marketing commitment.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No definitive rabbit embryo-fetal study; rabbit dose-range-finding study only
Why: Rabbit maternal toxicity and abortions plus rat teratogenicity; consistent with ICH S5(R3) · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Based on maternal toxicity and abortions observed at ≥2.5 mg/kg and ≥5 mg/kg, respectively, following administration of vimseltinib in New Zealand White rabbits, and in conjunction with teratogenicity observed in rats at 15 mg/kg/day, a definitive EFD assessment was not conducted in rabbits, consistent with ICH S5(R3) guidance.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 13-week dog NOAEL (free and total vimseltinib)
“It is important to notice that no margins of exposure were observed in the 13-week dog study at NOAEL (for free and total vimseltinib) whereas in rats, margins of exposure were around 4 at NOAEL.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal studies
Why: Product-specific paediatric waiver for all subsets · Other reason
“The lack of juvenile animal studies is acceptable. The medicinal product has been granted a product-specific waiver for all subsets of the paediatric population.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No tenosynovial giant cell tumour animal model; efficacy in the indication rests on clinical data
“However, information on its efficacy in the proposed indication can only be taken from clinical data as no animal models of TGCT were employed in the non-clinical development of vimseltinib.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Zycubo

copper histidinate · Copper replacement (Menkes disease)
Study lengthAcceptedBeyond the letter
No chronic repeat-dose toxicity studies in rodents or nonrodents, and no safety pharmacology studies
Why: Short life expectancy of patients; studies unlikely to add information beyond what can be monitored clinically · Serious disease · Human data
“Repeat-dose chronic toxicity studies in rodents and nonrodents have not been conducted with CuHis. PMRs for conducting additional nonclinical studies have not been issued as nonclinical studies to evaluate safety of CuHis are unlikely to provide information beyond what is already known and can be monitored clinically.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 129Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No rodent carcinogenicity studies
Why: Limited life expectancy meets ICH S1A waiver criteria · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Rodent carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted with CuHis. The limited life expectancy associated with classical MD is consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation S1A guidance criteria for waiving the requirement for carcinogenicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 137Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No fertility, embryo-fetal or pre- and postnatal development studies
Why: Disease manifests predominantly in male infants; limited life expectancy · Serious disease · Other reason
“DART studies, including FEED, EFD, and PPND studies to evaluate the reproductive toxicity potential of CuHis in patients with MD can be waived as MD manifests predominantly in male infants. Further, the limited life expectancy of patients with MD negates the need for DART studies in animals to support its use in the clinic.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 138Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
No pharmacology studies in Menkes disease models; only published literature with combination gene therapy
“The Applicant has not conducted pharmacology studies using CuHis in animal models of MD. Instead, the Applicant has submitted published literature to support its efficacy in which CuHis was administered SC in combination with recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 9-ATP7A delivered to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a mouse model of MD”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 40Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in juvenile rats: kidney, liver and spleen changes as low as 1 mg/kg/day, equivalent to human Cmax
“renal, hepatic, and splenic histopathologic and clinical pathology changes occurred mainly at 5 mg/kg/day, but as low as 1 mg/kg/day (equivalent to the human plasma concentration at the recommended dose of CuHis [based on Cmax])”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 162Source ↗

Accrufer

ferric maltol · Iron replacement
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies with ferric maltol; rodent carcinogenicity data on maltol relied on
Why: Maltol not carcinogenic in mice and rats; carcinogenic potential of ferric maltol under proposed use appears low · Weight of evidence
“Carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted with ferric maltol.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 28Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No embryo-fetal or fertility studies with ferric maltol; ferrous sulfate, ferric sodium pyrophosphate and maltol data used
“Embryo-fetal development studies have not been conducted with ferric maltol. Embryo-fetal development studies have been conducted in mice and rats treated with ferrous sulfate and ferric sodium pyrophosphate.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 28Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standalone safety pharmacology studies
Why: Active moiety is iron · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No standalone safety pharmacology studies were conducted for ferric maltol, which is scientifically justified as the active moiety is iron.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 29Source ↗
GenotoxicityVerdict not stated
Ferric maltol positive in Ames; maltol positive in Ames and in vivo mouse micronucleus
“Ferric maltol was mutagenic in vitro in bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) assays. Ferric maltol increased revertant frequency in the absence and presence of metabolic activation.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 28Source ↗

Avmapki Fakzynja Co-pack

avutometinib and defactinib · RAF/MEK clamp; FAK
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No embryo-fetal development study for avutometinib or defactinib; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Weight-of-evidence assessment in lieu of EFD study; FDA agreed reproductive toxicology studies not warranted · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Applicant provided a Weight of Evidence (WoE) assessment for avutometinib in lieu of an embryo fetal development study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 106Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No dedicated fertility studies; fertility assessed from reproductive organ findings in general toxicology studies
Why: Advanced cancer indication · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Dedicated fertility studies have not been conducted with avutometinib, nor were warranted to support this marketing application in the proposed advanced cancer indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 36Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but accepted
Defactinib rat neurobehavioral study inadequate and inconclusive; no additional CNS safety pharmacology study
Why: Detailed clinical observations in repeat-dose studies; stand-alone safety pharmacology not warranted per ICH S9 · Within the guideline
“Since the Applicant included detailed clinical observations in the repeat dose toxicology studies per ICH S9, and stand-alone safety pharmacology studies are not warranted per ICH S9, an additional CNS safety pharmacology study is not needed to support the proposed marketing application.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 48Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Avutometinib rat myocardial degeneration and necrosis at ≥0.01 mg/kg/day, below human exposure at recommended dose
Why: Cardiovascular findings were not observed in patients; findings added to label section 13.2 · Human data
“In the repeat-dose toxicology studies up to 13-weeks duration in rats, myocardial degeneration and necrosis were observed at doses ≥ 0.01 mg/kg/day (below the human exposure at the recommended dose based on AUC).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗

Cabenuva

cabotegravir and rilpivirine · HIV-1 integrase; NNRTI
OtherVerdict not stated
Pivotal cabotegravir toxicity studies used the oral route; IM/SC route covered only by a 3-month rat bridging study
“All studies were conducted using the oral formulation of CAB, with the exception of a 3-month bridging study in rats using the subcutaneous and IM routes.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 126Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No repeat-dose combination toxicity studies of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine
Why: Clinical experience with both drugs; no shared target organ; given as separate injections in separate locations · Human data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Concerning the association CAB/RPV, it should be acknowledged the lack of combination toxicity studies due to the clinical experience with CAB and RPV, the lack of similar target organ indicating a potential additive/synergic interaction.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicity study with the cabotegravir-rilpivirine combination
Why: Rilpivirine already marketed; its animal studies showed no effect on reproductive function · Human data · Class precedent
“No study was conducted with the CAB-RPV combination which is acceptable. RPV is already marketed in Europe, and studies conducted in animals have shown no effect on reproductive function.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rabbit embryo-fetal NOAEL exposure only 0.7-fold human exposure
“No drug-related effects on rabbit embryo-fetal development were observed up to 2,000 mg/kg/dose (0.7× the human exposure at the proposed human dose).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 127Source ↗

Cardamyst

etripamil · L-type calcium channel
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity studies for a chronically used intranasal drug
Why: Intermittent dosing, no pharmacology- or toxicology-based concern, technical challenges of long-term intranasal rodent dosing · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“Considering the intermittent clinical dosing and exposure profile, lack of obvious pharmacology- and toxicology-based concerns, and the technical challenges of conducting long-term studies in rodents with the intended nasal route of administration, the Division agreed that rodent carcinogenicity studies are not warranted for the proposed clinical indication and dosing regimen”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 132Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Chronic toxicity in one species (cynomolgus monkey); no chronic rodent study
Why: Technical challenge of long-term intranasal dosing in rodents, rapid biotransformation, intermittent clinical treatment · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“Considering the technical challenge of long-term administration via intranasal route in rodents, the rapid biotransformation of etripamil, and the intended intermittent clinical treatment (potentially 36 dosing occasions per year over a lifetime), a chronic toxicity study in one species (cynomolgus monkeys) was considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 121Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
All pivotal reproductive toxicity studies dosed intravenously instead of by the clinical intranasal route
Why: Achieve adequate exposures during the critical organogenesis period · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The Applicant has conducted all the pivotal reproductive toxicity studies (embryo-fetal development in rats and rabbits, fertility and early embryonic development, and pre- and postnatal development in rats) via intravenous route of administration QD, as opposed to the intranasal route to achieve adequate exposures during critical organogenesis period.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 132Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal studies: high doses limited by maternal toxicity, giving exposure multiples below 1 at the MRHD
Why: High doses limited by maternal toxicities (mortalities, clinical signs) in rats and rabbits
“Although no fetal toxicities were noted at any dose levels in both rat and rabbit embryo-fetal development studies, the high doses tested were limited due to maternal toxicities (mortalities, transient clinical signs) observed in both rats and rabbits. This resulted in low exposure multiples (<1) when compared to the exposure at the MRHD (see Table 53 below) given that the high doses were limited.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 132Source ↗

Exblifep

cefepime and enmetazobactam · PBPs; beta-lactamase (enmetazobactam)
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No exposure margin for enmetazobactam liver effects; combination-study NOAELs below MRHD exposure in dogs and rats
Why: No margin in rats or for dog NOAELs, and liver effects seen clinically; findings described in the SmPC · Human data
“For the NOAELs in the combination studies of enmetazobactam given together with cefepime, the margin to the exposure at the MRHD was 0.71 in dogs and 0.86 or lower in rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Male fertility study did not continue dosing through mating until conception, deviating from ICH S5(R3)
Why: Dosing shortfall was less than 3 days; unlikely to change the male fertility outcome · Other reason
“Note: The study design for this study deviated from recommendations in the ICH S5(R3) Guideline. Males in the study were administered vehicle or test article for 1-month during the premating period, but dosing was not continued during the mating period at least until verification of conception as recommended in the Guideline.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 102Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
Combination toxicity studies used an enmetazobactam/cefepime ratio different from the clinical ratio
Why: Exact ratio not defined during preclinical development
“The Applicant acknowledges that the combination ratio was dissimilar between non-clinical and clinical studies, as the exact ratio was not defined during the preclinical development.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Exposure margins for enmetazobactam in reproductive and developmental studies very low or undetermined
“The safety margins from animal to human exposure ratio for enmetazobactam in the reproduction and development studies were very low or undetermined.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Fexinidazole

fexinidazole · Trypanosoma brucei
GenotoxicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Positive Ames assay, including nitroreductase-deficient strains; applicant argued no human relevance
Why: Applicant: bacterial nitroreductases drive mutagenicity; reviewer: nitroreductase-deficient strains also positive, so results described in prescribing information
“The Applicant argues that the positive finding in the Ames assay does not indicate a risk to humans because bacterial nitroreductase enzymes contribute to the mutagenicity of fexinidazole and equivalent enzymes in mammalian cells cannot nitroreduce compounds with low redox potential and generate mutagenic by-products.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 57Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies despite a positive Ames assay and carcinogenic nitroimidazole analogues
“Carcinogenicity studies are not indicated for fexinidazole and were not conducted. However, structurally related compounds such as metronidazole have exhibited carcinogenic potential in lifetime animal studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 74Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat NOAEL in males at 0.7 times the clinical exposure
“The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was estimated to be 200 mg/kg for males (0.7 times the clinical exposure, which is approximately 7 µg*hr/mL) and 800 mg/kg for females (similar to the clinical exposure).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 57Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rabbit embryo-fetal study limited by maternal toxicity and abortions; NOAEL below 0.01 times clinical Cmax
Why: Excessive maternal toxicity is common in rabbits given antibiotics; rabbit not a good model for antibiotics · Class precedent
“Based on these findings, the NOAEL for maternal toxicity and embryofetal development in the rabbit was 10 mg/kg/day, equivalent to a dose of less than 0.01 times the maintenance dose based on Cmax comparisons).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 58Source ↗

Jascayd

nerandomilast · PDE4B
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro hERG assay not conducted under GLP and had several deficiencies
Why: No QT prolongation potential in a dedicated clinical QT assessment · Human data
“Several deficiencies were evident in the hERG assay, which was not conducted under GLP conditions as per ICH S7B.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
Rat carcinogenicity high dose gave low exposure margins of 1.6 (males) and 2.2 (females) by AUC
Why: In line with the ICH S1(R1) addendum · Within the guideline
“The low exposure margins achieved in rats at the high dose of 2 mg/kg of 1.6 and 2.2 based on AUC in males and females was discussed and considered acceptable in line with ICH S1 (R1) addendum.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
Definitive juvenile rat toxicity study deferred under the paediatric investigation plan; only non-GLP range-finder available
Why: Agreed deferral in the paediatric investigation plan · Other reason
“A definitive juvenile toxicity rat study is agreed in the PIP, with the completion of this study deferred to September 2025.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
26-week rat NOAEL exposure equivalent (1-fold) to human Cmax and AUC at the MRHD
“In the 26-week repeat-dose toxicity study in rats, the NOAEL of 2 mg/kg/day resulted in steady state Cmax and AUC0-24 levels that were 1-fold (equivalent) to human levels at the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗

Lupkynis

voclosporin · Calcineurin
OtherVerdict not stated
Most toxicology studies used a cis/trans isomer mixture (mix-ISA247) rather than the clinical product, with a limited bridging programme
Why: Bridging programme with voclosporin: 13-week rat study, rabbit embryo-fetal study and Ames test
“Voclosporin consists of 2 geometric isomers, a trans-isomer and a cis-isomer, and most studies in the programme have evaluated a mixture of the two isomers (mix-ISA247; 45-50% trans-, 50-55% cis-), whereas a few newer studies have evaluated the clinical product. A bridging programme with the two formulations has been performed which consisted of a 13-week oral voclosporin study in rats, an EFD study in rabbits and an Ames’ test.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Genotoxicity battery run with the isomer mixture, underdosing the trans-isomer (about 55% of ICH-recommended doses)
Why: Weight of evidence supports lack of genotoxic potential; additional studies not necessary · Weight of evidence
“Note that the doses used in these studies assessed approximately 55% of the ICH recommended doses for the trans-isomer (for example if the Ames assay maximal dose is 5000 µg, only about 2500 µg, rather than 4500 µg of the trans-isomer (if voclosporin was assayed) would be assayed for this dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 67Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
NOAEL exposure margins in pivotal rat and monkey studies below the optimal 10x
Why: Toxicity profile similar to cyclosporine; substantial clinical experience with calcineurin inhibitors allows monitoring and risk minimisation · Class precedent · Human data
“Therefore, the safety margins are lower than the optimal 10x. However, the toxicological profile of voclosporin was similar to that of cyclosporine and the findings observed were either expected due to the pharmacological action of the drug (e.g., thymic medullary atrophy, absence of germinal centers, lymphomas) and/or to the known class specific adverse effects”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 534Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the developmental NOAEL in the rabbit embryo-fetal study with mix-ISA247 (TK below quantification)
“At this dose, all TK values were BLQ why there are no margins to clinical exposure. Of note, the MoE to the dose associated with increased early and late resorptions is only 1.9.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗

Nereus

tradipitant · NK1 receptor
Study lengthAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No ≥6-month nonrodent toxicity study for unrestricted, repeated intermittent lifetime use; dog studies subchronic only
Why: No sufficient justification; approved with label stating safety not established beyond 90 total doses · Human data
“However, the Applicant did not submit a ≥6-month toxicity study in a nonrodent species and did not provide sufficient scientific justification for why such a study was not warranted to support the safety of unrestricted use of tradipitant over a lifetime for this indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 15Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Disproportionate human metabolites M2, M4 and M8 not qualified in animals; qualified by weight of evidence on total drug-related exposure
Why: WoE (structural evaluation, on- and off-target effects) shows no increased or novel toxicities versus tradipitant · Weight of evidence
“Metabolite M3 is the only metabolite qualified by the levels present in the nonclinical studies, while M2, M4, and M8 were not measured, not present, or present at low levels in animals and therefore not considered qualified for safety using typical approaches.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 285Source ↗
GLPQuestioned
Four-organ microphysiological system studies offered in lieu of chronic nonrodent study were not GLP-compliant
“The lack of U.S. FDA GLP compliance and absence of adequate justification by the Applicant for noncompliance are considered limitations of these studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 117Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Han Wistar rat male NOAEL (liver necrosis) below the maximum clinical dose on an HED basis
“Based on the adverse findings of necrosis in the liver of males at ≥150 mg/kg/day and females at 1500 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL was considered the lowest dose of 15 mg/kg/day in males (less than the maximum clinical dose, based on HED) and the mid dose of 150 mg/kg/day in females (8.5-fold the maximum clinical dose)”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 109Source ↗

Ojjaara

momelotinib · JAK1/JAK2/ACVR1
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major active metabolite M21 not covered by animal exposure; no safety margins for M21
Why: M21 pharmacodynamic activity similar to parent momelotinib · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although the major active metabolite M21 is not considered qualified based on free exposure in animal species in line with the ICH M3(R2), it can be considered qualified based on pharmacodynamic activities similar to MMB.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vitro genotoxicity studies with the major active metabolite M21
Why: M21 present at sufficient exposure in the in vivo rat micronucleus test · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No in vitro genotoxicity studies were performed with the major active metabolite M21.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
39-week dog NOAEL below 0.6 times the MRHD (combined momelotinib + M21 AUC)
“The NOAEL based on mild testicular bilateral spermatocyte degeneration and renal epithelial vacuolation was 20 mg/kg/day in dogs (<0.6x the MRHD on an AUC basis for combined momelotinib + M21).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 188Source ↗
GLPVerdict not stated
Toxicokinetic analyses in several pivotal GLP studies not GLP-compliant
Why: Method validation followed GLP principles
“For some pivotal GLP toxicology studies, toxicokinetics analysis were not performed in compliance with GLP (8283319 4-week in mice; 8336287 4-week impurities in rats ; WIL-604183 Juvenile DRF in rats ; WIL-604256 Juvenile in rats and 8283320 26-week study carcinogenicity in mice), but validation was conducted following the principles of GLP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗

Rozlytrek

entrectinib · TRK/ROS1/ALK
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margins: CNS toxicity at 0.2 times human Cmax and skin, red-cell effects at 0.1 times human AUC
“Entrectinib-related toxicities in repeat-dose studies in adult rats and dogs, and juvenile rats were observed in the CNS (convulsions, abnormal gait, tremors) at ≥0.2 times the human exposures by Cmax at the recommended dose, skin (scabs/sores) and decreased RBC parameters at ≥0.1 times the human exposure by AUC at the recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 66Source ↗
GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro hERG assay conducted non-GLP, contrary to ICH S7B
Why: QT prolongation already observed in clinical studies · Human data
“It is noted, the in vitro hERG assay, in the safety pharmacology package and reported in study 1087275, was carried out under non-GLP conditions. It should have been conducted according to GLP, as stated in ICH-S7B.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 65Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
Pharmacology package insufficient to extrapolate activity to all TRK fusions and tumour histologies, including paediatric tumours
“In light of the claimed site and histology independent indication, the non-clinical pharmacological data-package is considered insufficient to extrapolate activity in all clinical TRK fusions and tumour histologies including paediatric tumours.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 64Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Human-specific N-glucuronide metabolite M11 not further studied
Why: M11 is a direct N-glucuronide conjugate considered inactive · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The main metabolite M11, a direct N-glucuronide conjugate only detected in man and considered inactive was not further studied. This is considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 66Source ↗

Vanflyta

quizartinib · FLT3
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at NOAELs for severe haematopoietic inhibition in monkeys (MOE 0.07-0.10) and dogs (MOE 0.41-0.54)
“NOAELs for severe haematopoietic inhibition are 3 mg/kg/day for rats (MOE: 1.42-1.51) and monkeys (MOE: 0.07- 0.10) and 5 mg/kg/day for dogs (MOE: 0.41-0.54).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro Ames test; negative in vivo transgenic rodent mutation assay
Why: Negative in vivo transgenic rodent mutation assay overrules the in vitro Ames finding · Weight of evidence
“The assay was negative, indicating no mutagenic potential of quizartinib in this model, which overrules the positive in vitro findings in the Ames test.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study
Why: Patient population · Other reason
“No pre- and postnatal studies were performed. Considering the patient population, this is agreed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No stand-alone CNS or respiratory safety pharmacology studies; endpoints from up to 13-week general toxicology studies
Why: No CNS or pulmonary effects in rat, dog or monkey general toxicology studies
“Stand-alone CNS and respiratory system safety pharmacology studies were not conducted. However, there was no indication of CNS or pulmonary effects in the rat, dog, or monkey general toxicology studies of up to 13 week duration.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 52Source ↗

Ztalmy

ganaxolone · GABA-A receptor (positive modulator)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies not conducted before approval; deferred to postmarketing requirements as agreed with the Division
Why: Severity of the indication · Serious disease
“Carcinogenicity studies in two species (26-week study in TgRasH2 mouse and 2-year study in rat) are to be conducted as post-marketing requirements (PMR), as agreed to by the Division (IND 44020 Type C Meeting Minutes, January 11, 2018)”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite M47 not characterized in animal plasma; metabolite safety evaluation deferred to postmarketing studies
Why: Metabolite M2 carcinogenicity and juvenile studies and M47 brain distribution study required postmarketing
“There is currently no information on plasma levels of M47 in animal species. Although M47 is a sulfate conjugate, there are concerns that it may have pharmacological activity, depending on the extent of its distribution into the CNS (Hartneck C. Molecules 18:12012-12028, 2013). The nonclinical safety of these metabolites is to be addressed in studies conducted as PMRs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No rabbit embryo-fetal study because sufficiently high plasma exposures could not be achieved
Why: Sufficiently high plasma exposures could not be achieved in rabbit · Pharmacology or kinetics
“(An EFD study was not conducted in rabbit because sufficiently high plasma exposures could not be achieved.)”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No toxicokinetics in the rat embryo-fetal/pre- and postnatal study; dam exposures likely below human exposure at all doses
“Although TK data are not available for these studies, data from separate studies in SD rat suggest that plasma exposures in dams were lower at all doses tested than those in humans at the maximum recommended human dose of 1800 mg/day.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 4Source ↗

Anzupgo

delgocitinib · Pan-JAK (topical)
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No toxicokinetics in safety pharmacology studies; margins derived from repeat-dose study exposures
Why: Identical dosing in rat and dog studies; resulting margins exceed 1000-fold clinical exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“As the TK analysis was not included in the safety pharmacology studies, the safety margins have been calculated based on the exposure measured in the repeat-dose toxicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo topical pharmacology studies used ointment, not the commercial cream formulation
Why: Formulation difference not considered to affect the in vivo pharmacodynamic assessment
“The formulation of topical delgocitinib used in the in vivo PD studies (ointment) differs from the suggested commercial formulation (cream). However, this is not considered to impact the assessment of in vivo PD of delgocitinib and the studies were considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 22Source ↗
Safety marginQuestioned
Nonclinical exposure threshold (3 months at about 40 ng/mL) used to argue over 80-fold margin against systemic JAK-class risks
Why: Applicant: human exposure about 0.5 ng/mL; FDA: extrapolation may not predict human sensitivity to JAK inhibition
“Nonclinical studies showed that continuous exposure for at least 3 months at systemic levels around 40 ng/mL is needed before JAK inhibition-related adverse effects are observed. Human exposure of approximately 0.5 ng/mL provides a safety margin in excess of 80-fold.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 83Source ↗

Brexafemme

ibrexafungerp · Fungal glucan synthase
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Limited duration of intended use for VVC · Within the guideline
“Carcinogenicity studies were not performed for ibrexafungerp due to the limited duration of its intended use for the treatment of VVC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rabbit embryo-fetal NOAEL only about 2-fold, LOAEL about 5-fold, clinical AUC with severe malformations
Why: Contraindication in pregnancy, pregnancy verification and contraception advice in labeling
“The plasma AUC values associated with the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL) and Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (LOAEL) doses in rabbits are approximately 2- and 5-times respectively the plasma AUC exposures expected for fed patients.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
hERG IC50 only 1.4-fold the clinical Cmax
Why: No QTc prolongation at high exposures in a clinical study · Human data
“Results from an in vitro hERG assay indicated that the ibrexafungerp IC50 for hERG inhibition was 1.4-fold higher than the plasma Cmax value associated with the recommended clinical dose of 600 mg/day ibrexafungerp in fed patients.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗

Caplyta

lumateperone · 5-HT2A / D2 receptor
SpeciesAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat and dog used although neither matches human metabolism; dog and rat form aniline metabolites not quantifiable in humans
Why: No alternative species (monkey, hamster, guinea pig, minipig) had a human-like metabolic profile · Other reason
“The Applicant was unable to identify an alternative nonclinical species with a similar metabolic profile to humans and, therefore, the rat and dog were used.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Pigment accumulation in dogs, rats and mice with little to no exposure margin to the 42 mg MRHD
“Oral administration of lumateperone caused systemic intracytoplasmic accumulation of pigmented material in dogs, rats, and mice, with little to no exposure margin relative to the 42- mg MRHD on both a mg/m2 and AUC plasma exposure basis.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗
RecoveryQuestioned
Recovery from CNS, heart and retinal pigment accumulation assessed over only 1 to 2 months
“Apparently irreversible pigment accumulation was observed in the brain and spinal cord in all three species, and in cardiomyocytes and the retina of rats, although, recovery was assessed over a relatively short period of time (1 to 2 months).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗

Exxua

gepirone · 5-HT1A receptor
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro chromosome aberration assay inadequate: 5-hour treatment only, no ~24-hour continuous treatment without activation
Why: Weight of evidence suggests gepirone is neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic · Weight of evidence
“The in vitro chromosomal aberration assay was inadequate because although gepirone was negative for 5-hour treatment, with and without metabolic activation, this negative finding (without activation) should have been followed up with a study using continuous treatment with gepirone (without activation) for ~ 24 hours (1.5 cell doubling times) in accordance with current guidelines.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Exposure multiples expressed on body surface area (mg/m2) rather than AUC ratios
Why: Pharmacokinetic and drug metabolism data support body-surface-area comparison · Pharmacology or kinetics
“It is also noted that although the current practice is to express exposure multiples in the labeling based on AUC ratios, the pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism data provide a strong rationale for expressing exposure multiples in the toxicity studies on the basis of body surface area (Mg/M2”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 22Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Pre- and postnatal development study did not establish a no-effect dose for offspring effects
“Increased offspring mortality during the first 4 days after birth and persistent offspring growth retardation were observed at all doses. The no-effect dose for fetal effects was not determined in this study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 133Source ↗

Foundayo

orforglipron · GLP-1 receptor (non-peptide)
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Lifetime rat and rasH2 mouse studies in pharmacologically inactive species; on-target thyroid C-cell tumor risk not assessable
Why: On-target risk cannot be differentiated from peptide GLP-1 receptor agonists; class boxed warning for thyroid C-cell tumors · Class precedent
“Since orforglipron is not pharmacologically active in wild-type rodents or rasH2 transgenic mice, the absence of thyroid C-cell neoplasia, an on-target effect, was expected.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 61Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Reproductive toxicity tested only in pharmacologically non-relevant rats and rabbits (off-target assessment)
Why: On-target developmental risk cannot be differentiated from peptide GLP-1 receptor agonists; residual uncertainty addressed in labeling · Class precedent
“Off-target safety was further characterized in several nonpharmacologically relevant species, including rats (general toxicology and reproductive safety assessment), rasH2 transgenic mice (carcinogenicity assessment), and rabbits (reproductive safety assessment).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Rodent general toxicology in rat, an off-target model; monkey the only pharmacologically relevant species
Why: Rat is an off-target model; monkey is pharmacologically relevant
“Wistar rats were selected as the most suitable rodent species; however, rats represent an off-target model of toxicology. Cynomolgus monkeys were selected as the nonrodent species because they are a pharmacologically relevant species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 57Source ↗

Inpefa

sotagliflozin · SGLT1/SGLT2
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite sotagliflozin-3-O-glucuronide not qualified in animal studies (formed at much lower levels in rodents, absent in dog)
Why: Experience with other glucuronides; metabolite has minimal SGLT1/SGLT2 activity and is not an acyl glucuronide · Class precedent · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The main human metabolite sotagliflozin-3-O-glucuronide was formed in rats and mice at much lower levels than in humans and was not found in dog. Whereas this metabolite is not qualified in these animal studies it is not considered a safety concern, based on experience with other glucuronides.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
NOAELs set without treating pharmacological glucosuria as adverse
Why: Glucosuria is the desired clinical effect, so a NOAEL based on it would not be meaningful · Pharmacology or kinetics
“While it is generally not acceptable to disregard an adverse effect that is related to primary pharmacology, and glucosuria would normally be considered an adverse effect, in this case such NOAEL determination would not be meaningful. Glucosuria is the desired effect in the clinical situation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
HFpEF rat model lacked a concurrent SGLT2-inhibitor control, so SGLT1 vs SGLT2 contribution cannot be distinguished
“However, a concurrent control with a SGLT2 inhibitor was not included in the study and the contribution by SGLT2 vs. SGLT1 inhibition cannot be distinguished.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 234Source ↗

Inrebic

fedratinib · JAK2
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No long-term rodent carcinogenicity study; sponsor ICH S9 rationale rejected, waiver granted on low rodent exposure
Why: Low tolerability of rodents to fedratinib limits exposures, so rodent carcinogenicity studies lack value · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No long-term carcinogenicity study has been conducted, and this was justified by the applicant by referring to ICH guideline S9 (treatment of advanced cancer). However, this is not applicable to fedratinib and instead ICH S1 applies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat and rabbit embryo-fetal studies at exposures well below clinical exposure
Why: JAK inhibitor class effect; pregnancy contraindication added to SmPC · Class precedent
“Although no teratogenic effects were observed in rat or rabbit embryo-foetal toxicity studies, the exposure to fedratinib in these studies was well below the clinical exposure. The relevance of these studies for human safety is therefore limited.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No safety margin: repeat-dose exposures in mice, rats and dogs below human exposure
“Toxicokinetic data In TK, low exposure levels were obtained in mice, rats and dogs following repeated administration, resulting in no safety margin.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Iqirvo

elafibranor · PPARα/δ
Safety marginQuestioned
Most repeat-dose exposure margins for elafibranor below one (CHMP recalculation); findings considered likely clinically relevant
“Based on the exposure margins recalculated by the CHMP, the observed findings in the preclinical studies are likely to be clinically relevant, as most of the exposure margins for the repeat-dose toxicity studies for elafibranor are <1”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Clastogenic in vitro; accepted as non-genotoxic based on negative in vivo micronucleus, Comet and UDS assays
Why: Negative in vivo micronucleus, Comet and UDS assays with adequate exposure demonstrated by TK · Weight of evidence
“With regard to genotoxicity, elafibranor was conclusively demonstrated to be clastogenic in vitro; however, it produced negative results in two in vivo micronucleus tests, as well as in vivo Comet assay and UDS test in liver.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Metabolite GFT3351 not major in rats, so in vivo genotoxicity not covered; only in vitro tests
Why: Negative results in two GLP-compliant in vitro genotoxicity tests · Weight of evidence
“It should be noted that GFT3351 is not formed as a major metabolite in rats, thus its genotoxicity in vivo is not considered to be covered by in vivo tests conducted with elafibranor in rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗

Itovebi

inavolisib · PI3Kα (mutant-selective)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margins: NOAEL AUC margins in 4- and 13-week rat and dog studies and rat embryo-fetal study generally below 1
“The AUC exposure margins NOAELs in the 4- and 13-week repeat-dose rat and dog studies, and in the preliminary EFD study in rats were generally below 1 indicating a lack of exposure margins to the adverse effects observed in the non-clinical studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
RecoveryAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No recovery assessment in the 3-month rat study (reproductive organ findings)
Why: Reversibility shown in the 4-week study; reflected in SmPC section 5.3 · Weight of evidence
“Findings in the uterus, vagina, and estrous cycle observed in the 4-week toxicity study were not observed following a 4-week recovery period. Recovery was not assessed in the 3-month study in rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Impurity RO7304403 qualified for genotoxicity without testing (inconclusive in silico); RO7304383 qualified by non-GLP Ames only
Why: Structural similarity to inavolisib, no structural alerts, and presence at 1.1% in batches used in genotoxicity studies · Weight of evidence
“For genotoxicity, one impurity RO7304383 was tested in Ames test in a non-GLP study, whereas the other impurity, RO7304403, was investigated in silico analysis of genotoxicity and is considered qualified.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Krazati

adagrasib · KRAS G12C
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Low exposure margins (0.3 to 2.4) in 28-day and 13-week rat and dog studies; NOAEL exposures similar to or below human exposure
Why: Severe toxicity at exposures similar to or below clinical exposure reflected in SmPC section 5.3 and the RMP
“It should be taken into consideration that low margins of exposure ranging from 0.3 to 2.4 were observed in the 28-day and 13-week repeat-dose studies in rat and dog. And in general, the observed exposure at NOAEL levels were similar or below the exposure level at the maximum human recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive GLP genotoxicity assays with major human metabolites M11 and M68
Why: Parent not genotoxic and metabolites structurally related; totality of data suggests low genotoxicity risk · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant did not conduct definitive GLP genotoxicity assays with M68 and M11.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyQuestioned
Blood pressure in the 28-day dog study measured indirectly at the tail root, a method not fit for safety pharmacology
“Of note in the 28-day repeat-dose study (study No TX-MRTX849-009) in dogs indirect blood pressure recordings were performed from the tail roots or other appropriate sites. However, this method is not considered fit for purpose to obtain accurate measurements and to detect blood pressure fluctuations in a safety pharmacology context.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗

Olinvyk

oliceridine · μ-opioid receptor (G-protein biased)
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite TRV0109662 not shown qualified in EFD studies (failed ISR); no dedicated metabolite study, original EFD samples reanalysed instead
Why: Revalidated assay showed rat and rabbit EFD exposures exceeded projected human exposure at the revised 27 mg/day maximum dose · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Thus, we were unable to conclude that TRV0109662 had been adequately qualified with respect to an impact on embryo-fetal development.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 113Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile and neonatal rat toxicity studies deferred to postmarketing requirements under the pediatric study plan
Why: Agreed initial Pediatric Study Plan · Other reason
“If the drug product is approved in this review cycle, the following additional studies are recommended as post-marketing requirements as outlined in the agreed initial Pediatric Study Plan:”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 114Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Reproductive and developmental toxicity margins low relative to the maximum human daily dose
“The exposure margins in these studies suggest the potential for adverse effects on reproduction and development at clinically relevant doses compared to the currently proposed maximum human daily dose of 27 mg.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 106Source ↗

Revuforj

revumenib · Menin-KMT2A
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Single preliminary rat embryo-fetal study only; no definitive or second-species embryo-fetal study
Why: Clear embryo-fetal effects already shown · Weight of evidence
“As revumenib caused clear evidence of embryo-fetal effects, further embryo-fetal studies were not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 77Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal toxicity at all doses, starting at 0.6 times human exposure; no developmental NOAEL
“There was a dose-dependent increase in the number of resorptions (including total litter resorption at 300 mg/kg/day), post-implantation loss, and malformations at all revumenib doses, suggesting potential fetal toxicity at exposures 0.6 times the human exposure (AUC) at the recommended dose of 270 mg twice daily.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 34Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive juvenile toxicity study; only a sponsor-initiated dose range-finding juvenile rat study
“A juvenile study was not requested by the FDA, and the Applicant conducted this study at their discretion.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗

Rezurock

belumosudil · ROCK2
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies at US approval; waiver for chronic GVHD refused and rodent studies deferred to postmarketing requirements
Why: Waiver rejected: non-cancerous population with long life expectancy; studies required postmarketing
“The submission did not adequately address the carcinogenicity potential of belumosudil for chronic use. Given that the patient population includes subjects with non-cancerous conditions and long life expectancy, rodent studies should be conducted to determine the risk of carcinogenicity from belumosudil.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 75Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No pre- and postnatal development study
Why: ROCK2 knockout mice show placental dysfunction, growth retardation and foetal death · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“Additionally, targeted ROCK2 receptor knockdown in homozygous knockout mice showed placental dysfunction, intrauterine growth retardation, and foetal death. Consequently, a PPND study is not considered necessary based on current knowledge.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 61Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Dog 9-month NOAEL margins 0.2 and 0.4, and rabbit embryo-fetal NOAEL margin 0.08, of clinical exposure
“In the rabbit embryo-foetal toxicity study, the NOAEL resulted in safety margin of 0.08, and dog 9-month repeat dose toxicity study NOAELs resulted in safety margins of 0.2 and 0.4, when compared to the expected clinical exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 62Source ↗

Rinvoq

upadacitinib · JAK1
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No exposure margin for teratogenicity: rat and rabbit embryo-fetal NOAELs at exposures similar to or below the clinical dose
Why: Label carries a Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity based on nonclinical data
“Upadacitinib is a potent teratogen in rats and rabbits, with NOAELs in these studies associated with exposes similar to or less than the proposed clinical dose. While other approved JAK inhibitors are also teratogenic, the review team expressed concern regarding the lack of exposure margins between the embryo-fetal toxicity and the proposed clinical dose level.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 6Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Major human metabolite M4 (glucuronide) not covered in rat or dog; no additional safety testing
Why: Glucuronide formed after monooxidation not a safety concern, consistent with ICH M3(R) Questions and Answers · Within the guideline
“The major metabolite of UPA in human plasma (i.e., M4, 13%) following a single oral dose is not covered by equivalent amounts detected in either dog (i.e., M4, 0.9%) or rat (i.e., M4, not detected) ADME studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 52Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive for numerical chromosome aberrations in vitro in human lymphocytes; negative for structural aberrations and in vivo micronucleus
Why: No structural chromosome breakage and negative in vivo micronucleus assay reassure against aneuploidy · Weight of evidence
“In the in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test in human peripheral blood lymphocytes, upadacitinib was found negative for induction of structural chromosome aberrations but positive for induction of numerical chromosome aberration.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Simtriyo

centanafadine · Triple monoamine reuptake
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
26-week rat NOAEL exposure below human AUC at the MRHD (~0.1x males, ~0.8x females)
Why: Dose-limiting body weight reductions would be monitorable in humans; no unmonitorable toxicities below those doses · Other reason
“At the NOAEL, male AUC is lower than (~0.1x), and female AUC is approximately equal to (~0.8x), human AUC at the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat embryofetal NOAEL for maternal toxicity and fetal development below human exposure at the MRHD
“The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for both maternal toxicity and fetal development was 10 mg/kg/day, which is below the human exposure at the MRHD based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Enantiomer impurity EB-1070 specified above the ICH Q3A(R2) qualification threshold
Why: Qualified by the submitted toxicology data · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant’s drug specification proposed a limit for the enantiomer impurity (EB-1070) which was above the qualification threshold recommended in the ICH Q3A(R2)1 guidance. Based on the toxicology data submitted by the Applicant, the proposed limit for the EB-1070 impurity is considered qualified.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 36Source ↗

Sunosi

solriamfetol · Dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at general toxicology NOAELs: about 1 in dog and below 1 in mouse and rat (AUC)
“The safety margins relative to the MRHD of 300 mg at the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) in the pivotal general toxicology studies were approximately 1 in the dog and < 1 in the mouse and rat, based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
In vitro hERG and isolated cardiac tissue studies not GLP-compliant and not repeated under GLP
Why: QTc-prolonging potential already characterised qualitatively and quantitatively · Weight of evidence
“Since the QTc-prolonging potential of solriamfetol has been qualitatively and quantitatively characterized on basis of the aforementioned studies, the position of the Applicant not to repeat in vitro hERG and isolated cardiac tissue studies under formally GLP-compliant conditions appears acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rabbit embryo-fetal development study without toxicokinetics
Why: Drug-related clinical signs and body weight changes qualitatively confirm exposure · Other reason
“Although TK is not performed, drug-related clinical signs and changes in body weight gain and food consumption were observed and were consistent with previous repeat dose studies in the rabbits, therefore qualitatively confirming drug exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 107Source ↗

Turalio

pexidartinib · CSF1R
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite ZAAD-1006a not measured in rat and dog toxicity studies; off-target screening deferred to a postmarketing commitment
Why: Deficiency addressed by a PMC for additional in vitro screening assays
“In the repeat-dose toxicology studies in rats and dogs, systemic exposure of ZAAD-1006a was not assessed, and therefore its toxicological potential was not evaluated.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility study dosed both sexes before mating, so effects on fertility cannot be attributed by sex
Why: Histopathology in both sexes plus reduced pregnancy suffice to warn; further fertility studies would not mitigate findings · Weight of evidence
“The suboptimal study design in which both sexes received pexidartinib prior to mating makes clear attribution of the reduced fertility by sex impossible.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat liver toxicity at exposures about 0.6 times the clinical exposure at 800 mg
“In the liver, hemosiderin deposition and necrotizing inflammation with increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) occurred at doses ≥20 mg/kg (approximately 0.6 times the clinical exposure at 800 mg).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗

Vafseo

vadadustat · HIF prolyl hydroxylase
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margin: NOAEL exposures in all species below human exposure at 600 mg QD
Why: Toxicity reflects polycythemia in healthy animals; in anemic patients erythropoiesis is the treatment intent and a monitoring endpoint · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Exposure in animals at the ‘no observed adverse effect level’ (NOAEL) were all below human exposure at the clinical dose of 600 mg QD (Table 63). Key to interpreting the toxicology data is to understand that the nonclinical toxicology studies were conducted in healthy and non-anemic animals, in which vadadustat produces polycythemia.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 270Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
Rat carcinogenicity study scheduled for 104 weeks terminated early (week 85/86 females, week 94 males)
Why: No pre-neoplastic changes or other toxicity increasing over time
“The carcinogenicity study in rats was scheduled for 104 weeks of daily treatment, however it was terminated at week 85/86 for females and week 94 for males as no signs of pre-neoplastic changes was observed or any other sign of toxicity increasing over time.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Clastogenic in in vitro CHO chromosomal aberration and GreenScreen assays; negative in vivo chromosome aberration and comet assays
Why: Negative in vivo chromosome aberration and comet assays plus negative Ames; weight of evidence not genotoxic · Weight of evidence
“Vadadustat was negative for mutagenicity (Ames assay) but positive results were obtained in the in vitro CHO assay for chromosomal aberrations and the GreenScreen assay.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Vtama

tapinarof · Aryl hydrocarbon receptor
CarcinogenicityQuestioned
Male arm of the subcutaneous rat carcinogenicity study of inadequate duration; only female rat data adequate
“The study is negative for drug-related neoplasms in female rats. The male portion of the study, while it did not show any statistical increase in tumors, was of an inadequate duration.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 31Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No separate male fertility study; male fertility assessed by spermatogenesis staging in a 4-week subcutaneous rat study
Why: Male fertility assessed in the 4-week subcutaneous rat study · Weight of evidence
“Although there was no separate male fertility study in this drug development program, it is not considered an approvability issue. Assessment of tapinarof effects on male fertility was conducted in the 4-week subcutaneous rat study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 31Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Two Ames-positive impurities allowed above the 1.5 µg/day TTC
Why: Topical route gives very limited systemic exposure; two negative carcinogenicity studies with tapinarof · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“From a pharmacology/toxicology perspective, the applicant’s proposal of setting the acceptable limit of these two impurities at times higher than TTC of 1.5 µg/day appears reasonable, because (1) the clinical route of administration for tapinarof is topical, which provides very limited amount of systemic exposure of these impurities; (2) two carcinogenicity studies have been conducted with tapinarof and no drug-related neoplasms was noted;”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 55Source ↗

Zeposia

ozanimod · S1P1/S1P5 receptor
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Major active human metabolites CC112273 and CC1084037 under-represented in pivotal toxicity, carcinogenicity and DART studies
Why: Higher CC112273 exposure not achievable by direct dosing; inadequate coverage addressed through SmPC embryo-fetal and carcinogenic risk wording · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Overall, the nonclinical studies are adequate to support approval of ozanimod for the proposed indication, although systemic exposures to the two major (and active) human metabolites (CC112273 and CC1084037) were lower in several pivotal studies than in humans at the maximum recommended human dose (0.92 mg/day).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat pre- and postnatal development study lacked adequate exposure to metabolite CC1084037; primary reviewer sought a postmarketing study
Why: Clear adverse developmental effects including teratogenicity already shown for ozanimod and should discourage use in pregnancy · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Dr. Toscano concluded that the PPND study is inadequate because of the lack of sufficient exposure to CC1084037 and recommended the metabolite be assessed in a PPND study as a post-marketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL and no safety margin in the rabbit embryo-fetal study: malformations at the lowest dose
“However, in this species, malformations were already noted at the lowest dose level and consequently no NOAEL and no safety margin with respect to clinical exposure could be established.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Attruby

acoramidis · Transthyretin (stabiliser)
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No exposure margin at the NOEL for learning deficits in rat offspring of the pre- and postnatal development study
Why: Learning effects adverse only at exposures with a 21-fold margin at the NOAEL; clinical relevance considered low · Other reason
“No effects were seen in the 50 mg/kg/day group which is the NOEL for this effect. Based on AUC-exposure data at the NOEL of 50 mg/kg/day, no safety margin to human exposure at the MRHD exists for this effect.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility and pre- and postnatal development studies without toxicokinetics; exposure estimated from rat repeat-dose studies
Why: Exposure estimated from rat repeat-dose toxicity data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The study has not included a toxicokinetic analysis. Based on data from the repeated dose toxicity studies in rats, it is estimated that systemic exposure (AUC) in rats at 350 mg/kg/day was 21-fold human exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗

Camzyos

mavacamten · Cardiac myosin
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study still ongoing at approval; to be completed post-approval (rasH2 mouse study completed)
“The Division has agreed the 2-year rat carcinogenicity study can be completed post-approval and the study is currently ongoing.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
NOAEL exposures (Cmax and AUC) in all toxicity studies below human exposure at the MRHD
“In all toxicity studies (except carcinogenicity), plasma exposure (Cmax and AUC) at the no-observed adverse effect level is less than those in humans at the MRHD suggesting potential risk even at the therapeutic dose range.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 281Source ↗

Isturisa

osilodrostat · 11β-hydroxylase (CYP11B1)
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No toxicokinetics of major human metabolite M34.5 in pivotal rat studies; exposure only extrapolated from single-dose ADME data
Why: Extrapolated exposure margin with uncertainty factor suggests M34.5 likely qualified · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No TK assessments of M34.5 have been performed in any of the pivotal safety studies (including carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity studies) conducted in the rat.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicity from cortisol inhibition could not be studied: in rats and monkeys osilodrostat mainly inhibits aldosterone synthase
Why: Adverse effects of hypocortisolism are clinically well known · Human data · No relevant species
“Since no inhibition on PCC (plasma corticosterone concentration) in rats and monkeys not infused with ACTH is seen, toxicity associated with cortisol inhibition cannot be studied.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗

Journavx

suzetrigine · NaV1.8
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vitro chromosomal aberration test with the major human metabolite M6-SUZ; clastogenicity covered by parent in vivo micronucleus assay
Why: Negative M6-SUZ Ames, negative parent genotoxicity battery and QSAR data · Weight of evidence
“An in vitro chromosomal aberration test was not conducted with M6-SUZ. However, the chromosomal aberration potential of M6-SUZ was assessed through the in vivo micronucleus assay that tested the parent SUZ, which was negative for genotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 139Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Longer-duration monkey studies with few animals and no recovery groups could not adequately assess male reproductive organ weight decreases
Why: Organ weight changes not toxicologically significant and not relevant for the proposed acute indication · Other reason
“Because of the low number of monkeys in the study, the lack of recovery groups, and known variability in male reproductive organ weights in this species, the nonhuman primate data do not provide an ideal model to evaluate the potential risk of SUZ to male reproductive tissues in these longer duration studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 139Source ↗

Leqselvi

deuruxolitinib · JAK1/JAK2
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat toxicity study deferred to a postmarketing requirement
“PMR 4655-1 Conduct a juvenile toxicity study to evaluate the potential toxicity of deuruxolitinib, including the potential effects on growth, development, and reproduction, when administered orally to juvenile rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 198Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro micronucleus assay, possibly aneugenic; other genotoxicity assays negative
Why: Positive response possibly aneugenic; no significant overall genotoxicity concern · Weight of evidence
“It was positive in an in vitro micronucleus assay. The positive response could be due to a potential aneugenic effect.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 45Source ↗

Livdelzi

seladelpar · PPARδ
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Cardiovascular/respiratory safety pharmacology in dogs without data showing dog relevance; female dog and guinea pig studies non-GLP
Why: Clinical data and no ECG or cardiovascular effects in the 52-week monkey study · Human data · Weight of evidence
“No in vitro affinity or potency studies have been presented in the primary pharmacology section to assess the relevance of dog for the cardiovascular and respiratory studies which is a deficiency.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Several bioanalysis/toxicokinetic deficiencies across studies; only data from the most critical studies considered reliable
Why: Bioanalysis/TK data from the most critical studies considered reliable · Weight of evidence
“Several deficiencies were identified with regards to bioanalysis. Despite these deficiencies, it is concluded that bioanalysis/TK data from the most critical studies can be considered reliable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Nurtec ODT

rimegepant · CGRP receptor
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat pre- and postnatal development study deficient (too few offspring, weak neurobehavioral assessment); repeat required postmarketing
Why: Nonclinical data support approval; new PPND study with adequate offspring numbers and more rigorous neurobehavioral assessment as PMR
“The battery of nonclinical studies conducted to support clinical development and a marketing application for rimegepant was adequate, except for the completed pre- and postnatal development study in rat, which had several deficiencies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal toxicity study before approval; required postmarketing under PREA
Why: Needed to support pediatric development under 12 years of age
“In addition, a juvenile animal toxicology study should be a PMR to support clinical development in pediatric patients <12 years of age, under PREA.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗

Pretomanid

pretomanid · Mycobacterial cell wall / respiration
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study ongoing at approval and deferred post-marketing, despite mutagenic circulating metabolite M50
Why: No pre-neoplastic findings in chronic rat or transgenic mouse studies; severe drug-resistant tuberculosis; positive therapeutic effect · Weight of evidence · Serious disease
“The applicant states that a 2-year oral carcinogenicity study in the rat is ongoing. A genotoxic concern based on the positive mutagenicity results of the M50 metabolite cannot at this point be excluded.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat testicular toxicity: NOAEL exposure in the 26-week study below predicted human exposure
Why: Human male fertility effects unknown; human semen analysis study required post-marketing
“In a 13-week study, exposures at the NOAEL were similar to or slightly higher than anticipated human exposures at the proposed dose. In a 26-week study, exposures at the NOAEL were lower than predicted human exposures.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗

Pyrukynd

mitapivat · Pyruvate kinase (activator)
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo pyruvate kinase deficiency model; efficacy shown in a β-thalassemia mouse model, normal mice and patient RBCs ex vivo
Why: No suitable PKD animal models available; thalassemia model, ex vivo PK isoform data and mechanism give sufficient evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“The Applicant stated that in vivo studies were conducted in normal C57BL/6 mice and in the murine Hbbth3/+ model of β-thalassemia, another hemolytic anemia, because suitable animal models of PKD were not available during the early development of mitapivat.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 40Source ↗
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Low exposure margins at NOAELs; chronic monkey NOAEL 1.2 times (males) MRHD AUC
Why: Findings of limited severity and mostly reversible · Other reason
“NOAEL is 25 mg/kg/BID (1.2× MRHD, based on AUC) and 50 mg/kg/BID (2.2× MRHD, based on AUC) in males and females, respectively, based on the occurrence of subcapsular inflammation/necrosis at higher doses.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 153Source ↗

Qelbree

viloxazine · Norepinephrine reuptake
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
General and reproductive toxicity largely from 1970s legacy studies not in full GLP compliance, many without toxicokinetics
Why: No significant issues compromising study quality or data interpretation found on review · Other reason
“Many of the nonclinical legacy general toxicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity studies were completed in the 1970s, before the good laboratory practice (GLP) regulation was implemented; therefore, they are not in full compliance with GLP.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 135Source ↗
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No safety margin between animal NOAEL exposures for seizures and clinical blood levels
Why: Published clinical literature showed no clear seizure risk in humans · Human data
“The Agency expressed concern over the lack of a safety margin between the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) exposures for seizures in animals and the blood levels already attained in clinical trials.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 134Source ↗

Quviviq

daridorexant · Orexin OX1/OX2 receptors
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Tg.rasH2 mouse high dose gave only 4.37- to 8.5-fold AUC multiples, below the 50-fold ICH S1 criterion
Why: Possible limiting toxicity over 26 weeks, based on liver necrosis at 1500 mg/kg/day in the 4-week dose-range-finding study · Other reason
“Selection of high dose for carcinogenicity study should be 50-fold ratio (AUC) in TgrasH2 mice according to ICHS1, however the multiple of exposure ratio for the 1000 mg/kg high dose are only 8.5-4.37 fold (males-females) for Daridorexant, and comprised between 5.3 and 7.7 fold for metabolites.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pre/postnatal rat study high dose set at 300 mg/kg/day although 450 mg/kg/day could have been tested
Why: Maternal deaths and cataplexy-like clinical signs at higher doses in other studies · Other reason
“Based on the maternal death and cataplexy-like clinical signs, 300 mg/kg/day was selected as the high dose for the current study, which is acceptable, although 450 mg/kg/day could have been selected and tested as the high dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 212Source ↗

Rhapsido

remibrutinib · BTK
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
No NOAEL in 26-week rat study: endocrine pancreas fibrosis, haemorrhage and pigment at all doses
Why: Spontaneous changes in aging rats exacerbated by BTK inhibitors, with no translation to other species · Class precedent · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Whereas a NOAEL was established at the highest tested dose level of 300 mg/kg/day in the 39-week dog study, no NOAEL was established in the 26-week rat study due to an increased incidence and severity of endocrine pancreas fibrosis, haemorrhage and pigment at all tested dose levels (i.e., doses of 30, 300, and 1000 mg/kg/day).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 52Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Ocular and neurobehavioral findings in juvenile rats; repeat juvenile toxicity study in older rats required postmarketing
Why: Juvenile rat results to be reviewed before the paediatric trial starts
“Given ocular and neurobehavioral findings in the completed juvenile toxicity study in rats, an additional PREA PMR will be issued for a repeat juvenile toxicity study in older rats that approximate children 6 years of age.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 111Source ↗

Veozah

fezolinetant · Neurokinin-3 receptor
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Sub-chronic and chronic toxicity studies conducted in female animals only
Why: Product intended for hot flushes in menopausal women · Other reason
“As the product is intended to be administered for the treatment of hot flushes in menopausal women, sub-chronic and chronic studies were performed in female animals only, which is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rat fertility and early embryonic development study dosed females only (no male fertility assessment)
Why: Indication is hot flushes associated with menopause · Other reason
“Considering the proposed indication for the treatment of hot flushes associated with menopause, the dosing of only female animals is considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗

Vyndaqel

tafamidis · Transthyretin (stabiliser)
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo pharmacology studies; efficacy supported by in vitro TTR stabilisation only
Why: No animal model reproducing ATTR pathology was available · Other reason
“No in vivo studies were performed by the applicant. The CHMP considered that at the time of the preclinical development of tafamidis, an animal model of ATTR-PN that would reflect the clinical disease or resemble the pathology was not available, and that none of the transgenic animals described in the literature reproduce the pathology seen in ATTR patients.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No long-term rodent carcinogenicity study in the original EU dossier; 26-week rasH2 mouse study only
Why: Severe, rare disease; no alert signals in nonclinical studies including rasH2 mouse · Serious disease · Rare disease / unmet need · Weight of evidence
“The carcinogenic potential of tafamidis was not studied in a long term rodent carcinogenicity study. This was considered acceptable given the severity and low incidence of the disease together with the fact that no alert signals were identified in the nonclinical studies conducted including the TgrasH2 mouse model.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗

Balversa

erdafitinib · FGFR1-4
Safety marginQuestioned
No exposure margin: animal-to-human exposure ratios below one at the highest doses in 3-month rat and dog studies
“The animal-to-human exposure ratios at the highest daily dose of 8 mg/kg and 0.75 mg/kg tested in the 3-month rat and dog study, respectively, are low (<1). Thus, interpretation of the observed adverse effects is difficult since the exposure multiples following repeat dose administration of erdafitinib are much lower than the AUC in humans at the intended clinical dose of 8 or 9 mg.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Dog cardiovascular NOAEL only 2.4-fold clinical exposure; QT effect within clinical exposure range
Why: Risk addressed in the RMP and SmPC section 5.3
“The NOAEL was 2.5 mg/kg with Cmax of 12.4 ng/ml representing 2.4-fold of the expected clinical exposure which is not considered acceptable as a safety margins. As this effect appears in the clinical exposure range it is included in the RMP part II module SII and the SmPC section 5.3.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility or pre- and postnatal development studies; embryo-fetal studies in rats only
Why: ICH S9 and ICH S5(R3) for an advanced cancer indication · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“In accordance with ICHS9 and ICHS5 (R3) guidelines no studies on fertility and early development and on pre- and postnatal development have been performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No dedicated CNS safety pharmacology study; CNS endpoints included in toxicology studies
Why: CNS endpoints included in the toxicology studies
“No dedicated safety pharmacology study was performed to evaluate CNS effects of erdafitinib. CNS endpoints were included in the toxicology studies and the effects are described in Toxicology section.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Potential genotoxic impurities controlled to non-mutagenic impurity limits (ICH Q3A) under ICH S9
Why: Erdafitinib not genotoxic; advanced cancer indication within ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Erdafitinib (itself not genotoxic) is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, to which ICH S9 applies. As such, potential genotoxic impurities may be controlled according to the limits for non-mutagenic impurities in ICH Q3A.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 18Source ↗

Ayvakit

avapritinib · KIT/PDGFRA
DARTAccepted
No dedicated fertility or pre- and postnatal development studies
Why: Not necessary for development in patients with advanced cancer · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“Dedicated fertility and pre- and post-natal development studies were neither conducted nor necessary to support the development of avapritinib in patients with advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 28Source ↗
Efficacy modelAccepted
No in vivo PDGFRA-driven tumour model; PDGFRA exon 18 activity shown in vitro only
Why: ICH S9 Q&A allows lack of in vivo data when in vitro pharmacology systems generate relevant data · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Although inhibition of PDGFRα exon 18 mutants by avapritinib at low nM concentrations has been demonstrated, the effect of avapritinib in PDGFRα driven in vivo animal tumour models have not been examined.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Impurity BLU112316 at 0.55%, above the ICH Q3A qualification threshold of 0.15%
Why: Qualified up to 0.78% by the 3-month rat toxicity study · Other reason
“Despite impurity BLU112316 level (0.55%) is above the qualification thresholds defined in ICH Q3A (0.15%), it is qualified up to 0.78% based on the 3-month rat toxicity study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Dog choroid plexus edema at exposure about 0.4 times human AUC at 300 mg
“choroid plexus edema in the brain occurred in dogs at doses greater than or equal to 7.5 mg/kg/day (approximately 4.7, 1 or 0.4 times the human exposure based on AUC at the 25 mg, 200 mg or 300 mg dose, respectively), but were not observed in a 9-month study at 5 mg/kg/day.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Daybue

trofinetide · IGF-1 tripeptide analogue
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before approval; two-species carcinogenicity deferred to a postmarketing requirement
“Carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted (with agreement from the Division) prior to submission of the NDA, but these studies will be required as a PMR.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 95Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
Safety pharmacology studies done by IV bolus only, not by the clinical oral route
“Safety pharmacology studies with trofinetide were not conducted using the oral route.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 94Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin in the 26-week juvenile rat study: AUC at highest dose similar to pediatric clinical exposure
“Plasma exposure (AUC) at the highest dose tested was similar to that those in pediatric patients at recommended doses.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 3Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteQuestioned
Impurities above the qualification threshold qualified on mg/kg margins; several not qualified when normalized to body surface area
“However, the sponsor calculated margins of the 9 impurities normalized to body weight (mg/kg) instead of normalized to body surface area (mg/m2 ). When margins are normalized to body surface area the following impurities, , are not qualified at the proposed acceptance levels.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗

Ekterly

sebetralstat · Plasma kallikrein
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study still ongoing at approval; completion issued as a postmarketing requirement
“While the NDA includes appropriate preapproval nonclinical and clinical pharmacology studies, a post-marketing requirement will be issued to complete an ongoing 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats receiving sebetralstat.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 24Source ↗
CarcinogenicityCriticised but accepted
Carcinogenicity high doses did not reach ICH S1 exposure ratios (50-fold rasH2 mouse, 25-fold rat)
Why: No significant increase in malignant tumours; high dose gives margin of 5.7 for malignant tumours · Within the guideline
“According to ICHS1, selection of high dose for carcinogenicity study should be based on a 50-fold exposure ratio (AUC) in TgrasH2 mice and 25-fold for the 2-year rat study. While the dose range chosen in the carcinogenicity studies performed can be acceptable, it cannot be excluded with absolute certainty a lack of carcinogenic potential, as the 50-fold and 25-fold exposure ratio are not met.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
Study lengthAccepted
Chronic nonrodent toxicity limited to 6 months in monkey
Why: ICH M3(R2): 6-month nonrodent studies acceptable for chronic intermittent treatments such as hereditary angioedema · Within the guideline
“Per ICH guidance for industry M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals (January 2010), toxicology studies of 6 months’ duration in nonrodents are considered acceptable for products developed as chronic intermittent treatments for indications such as hereditary angioedema.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 116Source ↗
SpeciesAccepted
Rabbit used for embryo-fetal development although not a pharmacologically active species for sebetralstat
Why: ICH S5: acceptable since pharmacodynamic effect confirmed in the rat · Within the guideline
“Regarding species selection, rabbits cannot be considered as pharmacologically active species since PD data showed IC50 values higher than 40,000 nM regarding inhibition of rabbit plasma kallikrein enzyme (in other words, fold to human Ki was 12.3 and >6623 for rat and rabbit, respectively). However, according to ICH S5, this can still be accepted since PD effect was clearly confirmed in rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Filspari

sparsentan · Endothelin A / angiotensin II receptors
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 9-month monkey NOAEL: 0.2 (males) and 0.1 (females) times human AUC at 800 mg
“The NOAEL in the monkeys in the 9-month study was 50 mg/kg/d. At the NOAEL, the associated Week 39 AUC0-last values were 16,700 h⋅ng/mL in males and 12,700 h⋅ng/mL in females or 0.2 and 0.1 times, respectively, the AUC0-24 in humans at 800 mg clinical dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
2-year rat study: male dose limited by tolerability, exposure about 0.7 times MRHD AUC
Why: Male dose limited by tolerability
“In the 2-year rat carcinogenicity study, there was no evidence of an increased incidence of neoplasia in male rats orally administered 15 mg/kg/day (dose limited by tolerability) and in female rats orally administered up to 240 mg/kg/day, which provides an exposure approximately 0.7 times and 26 times the AUC at the MRHD, respectively.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 54Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No nonclinical pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies
Why: PD interactions of endothelin antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers already well characterised · Class precedent
“No non-clinical PD drug interaction studies were performed and a justification that PD interactions of endothelin antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers with other drugs have been well characterised in the past was provided. The approach is acceptable to the CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
Bacterial mutagenicity test not performed for one alerting synthetic intermediate; controlled as a Class 2 impurity
Why: Impurity treated as Class 2 (mutagenic) impurity instead of testing
“One was evaluated in a bacterial mutagenicity assay and was negative; reverse bacterial mutagenicity testing was not performed for the second and will be treated as a Class 2 impurity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗

Fruzaqla

fruquintinib · VEGFR1-3
GLPCriticised but accepted
Most single- and repeat-dose studies non-GLP; only two 13-week GLP bridging studies (rat, dog) considered pivotal
Why: Advanced-cancer indication under ICH S9; supportive toxicity profile consistent with marketed anti-VEGFR products · Within the guideline · Class precedent
“All other single- or repeated-dose studies are claimed as non-GLP compliant. Given the indication was in the scope of ICH S9 guideline, the two 13-week GLP compliant studies could be considered as the only pivotal studies in the submitted non-clinical package.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗
DARTAccepted
Embryo-fetal development studied in rat only (no second species)
Why: Clear malformations and embryo-fetal lethality at low doses in rat (ICH S9) · Within the guideline
“The absence of second species in the embryo-foetal development studies can be accepted as clearly positive results for the induction of malformations and embryo-foetal lethality was demonstrated after administration of low doses of fruquintinib in rat studies (ICH S9).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: 13-week NOAEL AUC ratios 0.3 (rat) and 0.05 (dog); EFD 0.02
“The safety margins (total AUC ratio) derived from the GLP-compliant 13-week rat and dog study NOAELs are 0.3 and 0.05, respectively. For the embryo-foetal development, the safety factor derived from the NOEAL is 0.02.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
CNS and respiratory safety pharmacology studies non-GLP; cardiovascular exposure margins very limited
Why: Large clinical experience addresses uncertainties from limited exposure margins · Human data
“Similarly, the dedicated study to assess respiratory function (0849PH1) was declared as non-GLP compliant; fruquintinib had no effect on respiratory system.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗

Lampit

nifurtimox · Trypanosoma cruzi
GLPVerdict not stated
Most nonclinical studies, including all repeat-dose toxicity studies, decades old, non-GLP and reported in literature publications
“Many of the submitted studies were conducted decades ago, without GLP compliance, and are reported in literature publications.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
NOAEL-based human equivalent dose margins only 0.2-1.7 versus the 10-20 mg/kg/day clinical dose
“The human equivalent dose (HED) values for the rat and dog NOAEL values based on body surface area comparison provide only low safety margins of 0.4 for rats and 1.7 for dogs with respect to a 10 mg/kg/day clinical dose and 0.2 for rats and 0.8 for dogs with respect to a 20 mg/kg/day clinical dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 44Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat and mouse embryo-fetal studies deficient; new rat embryo-fetal study required after approval
Why: Embryo-fetal toxicity Warning in label; new rat study as postmarketing requirement
“Because of the deficiencies in the embryo-fetal studies in rats and mice, a new embryo-fetal study of acceptable design in rats will be conducted as a postmarketing requirement.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No adequate carcinogenicity study; only limited legacy reports submitted, as treatment lasts under 6 months
Why: Treatment duration under 6 months; genotoxicity and nitrofuran class findings suggest carcinogenic potential · Within the guideline · Class precedent
“Because the proposed treatment duration of nifurtimox is less than 6 months, a carcinogenicity assessment is not required. However, three carcinogenicity studies for nifurtimox were submitted in NDA 213464, two in limited brief study reports and one in a published manuscript.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 44Source ↗

Lytgobi

futibatinib · FGFR1-4 (covalent)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: rat severely toxic dose (cardiac mineralisation) exposure approximately equals clinical exposure
“A severely toxic dose (STD10) was determined for QOD dosing of 10 mg/kg based on the cardiac mineralisation. There is no exposure multiple as this exposure corresponds to approximately the clinical exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No fertility, pre- and postnatal development or juvenile animal studies
Why: ICH S9 for advanced cancer · Within the guideline
“In line with ICH S9, no fertility, PPND or juvenile animals studies were performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
Bioanalytical methods supporting the GLP repeat-dose rat and dog studies not GLP compliant
Why: Methods adequately validated under domestic reliability standards and met pre-defined acceptance criteria · Other reason
“Analytical methods (C-AT120019 and C-AT120020) used in repeat dose toxicity studies in rats and dogs, however, are not GLP compliant. It was, however, sufficiently demonstrated that the analytical methods supporting GLP repeat dose toxicity studies were adequately validated, as these were in compliance with domestic reliability standards.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Major human cysteinylglycine conjugate metabolite not observed in rat or dog
Why: Metabolites below 25% of parent exposure, inactive in vitro; indication within ICH S9 · Pharmacology or kinetics · Within the guideline
“Metabolism seems similar in human as in rat and dog with the exception of the major metabolite in human plasma cysteinylglycine conjugate (TAS-06-22952). This metabolite and also the glutathione conjugate were not observed in vitro and in vivo in rat and dog (see Non-clinical aspects).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 51Source ↗

Omlonti

omidenepag isopropyl · EP2 receptor
CarcinogenicityQuestioned
No rodent carcinogenicity bioassays; applicant cited the ICH S1A ocular-route provision
Why: ICH S1A: ocular-route products may not need carcinogenicity studies; reviewer found 26-week rat and monkey ocular results concerning · Within the guideline
“As justification for not conducting carcinogenicity studies, the Applicant: o Cited ICH S1A42, “Pharmaceuticals administered by the ocular route may not need carcinogenicity studies unless there is cause for concern or unless there is significant systemic exposure.””
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 136Source ↗
GenotoxicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
In vivo rat micronucleus test with inadequate dose selection; adequate in vivo genotoxicity test to be required
Why: Adequate in vivo genotoxicity test recommended as a postmarketing requirement under ICH S2(R1)
“The in vivo rat micronucleus test (report # 02-226) dose selection was inadequate.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 14Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL identified in the 39-week monkey topical ocular study
“The GLP monkey 39-week topical ocular toxicity study with omidenepag isopropyl did not identify a NOAEL.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
Rat subcutaneous toxicity studies did not include nasal cavity histopathology
“The rat sc studies did not include histopathology of the nasal turbinates / nasal cavity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗

Utebzi

tebipenem pivoxil · Penicillin-binding proteins
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Prodrug tebipenem pivoxil positive in vitro (mammalian gene mutation, CHO chromosomal aberration); in vivo micronucleus negative
Why: Totality of evidence; rapid gut conversion of the prodrug to the non-mutagenic active moiety · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The prodrug, tebipenem pivoxil was found to be mutagenic in a mammalian cell gene mutation assay and induced chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in vitro; however, it was not clastogenic in an in vivo bone marrow micronucleus study in mice.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 212Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Impurity with mutagenicity structural alerts specified above ICH M7 TTC-based limits
Why: TTC-based limits not practically achievable; oral route of administration · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) noted that ICH M7(R2) threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)-based limits are not practically achievable given observed batch levels up to %. Given the oral route of administration, the not more than (NMT) % limit was therefore acceptable from both CMC and pharmacology/toxicology perspectives but should be re-evaluated if the route of administration changes.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 105Source ↗
GLPVerdict not stated
Clinical salt form tested only in 28-day GLP studies; longer (90-day) and juvenile studies with the prodrug were non-GLP
“Specifically, oral administration of the proposed clinical formulation, tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide has been studied in rats and monkeys in repeat dose 28-day GLP toxicology studies, while tebipenem pivoxil has been studied in rats and monkeys in non-GLP studies (i.e. 14-day, 28-day, and 90-day studies).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 211Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
13-week monkey NOAEL at 0.9 times the MRHD exposure
“and minimal cecal erosion in the 13-week monkey study (NOAEL 300 mg/kg/day; 0.9 times the MRHD based on exposure), consistent with the antibacterial class of drugs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 105Source ↗

Vonjo

pacritinib · JAK2/FLT3
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Chronic dog NOAEL exposure only 0.06x (males) and 0.02x (females) the clinical AUC
“The NOAEL (MD, 11.8 μg·h/mL, and 3.4 μg·h/mL AUC0­24, Day 270, in males and females) represents a 0.06× (M) and 0.02× (F) exposure margin to the anticipated clinical dose (200 mg BID, 213 μg·h/mL AUC).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 118Source ↗
CarcinogenicityQuestioned
Rat and transgenic mouse carcinogenicity exposures considerably below human exposure at the recommended dose
Why: Higher doses not tolerated due to excessive JAK2/FLT3 activity
“However, a notable limitation of the carcinogenicity assessment is that pacritinib exposures achieved in rats and mice were considerably lower than the exposure observed at the recommended human dose, due to a lack of tolerability primarily from excessive JAK2/FLT3 activity at higher doses.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 71Source ↗
RecoveryVerdict not stated
Reversibility of findings not assessed in the chronic dog study
“The reversibility of findings in dogs was not assessed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 118Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite M2 (~10% of parent) not predominant in any nonclinical species
Why: No safety concerns identified with M1 and M2 metabolites in nonclinical studies
“However, it is notable that the M2 metabolite, a principal metabolite in humans present at ~10% of the parent pacritinib, is not a predominant metabolite in any of the nonclinical species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 71Source ↗

Wayrilz

rilzabrutinib · BTK (reversible covalent)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Chronic rat NOAEL exposure only approximated clinical AUC at the maximum recommended dose
“Exposures at the NOAEL approximated the clinical exposures at the MRHD of 400 mg BID, based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 121Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but accepted
Impurities qualified with a generic 4-fold dose margin, which the reviewer found unexplained
Why: Dose margins revised from results of study TXC1711 (ICH Q3A(R2)) · Within the guideline
“A generic acceptability criterium of 4 to regard impurities as qualified is not explained any further.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 56Source ↗
Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat study programme dropped from the paediatric plan
Why: Paediatric waiver extended; not needed for an adult indication · Other reason
“A programme of juvenile animal studies was initiated in rats aged 10 days to support paediatric development of rilzabrutinib from 1 year of age, but subsequently deleted from the PIP due to extension of the waiver to patients below 10 years of age.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
DARTAccepted
Milk transfer and offspring toxicokinetics not assessed in the pre- and postnatal study
Why: ICH S5 does not strictly demand toxicokinetic assessment in maternal milk · Within the guideline
“Transfer of Rilzabrutinib into maternal milk was not assessed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Xpovio

selinexor · XPO1
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No safety margin: toxicity in rats and monkeys at exposures below clinical exposure
“Non-clinical safety program revealed a high toxicity of selinexor. Some tissues were mainly affected (reproductive systems, CNS-mediated gastrointestinal system…) and clinical findings reported (food consumption and body weight reduction, mortality). No safety margin could be established for human studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal development studied in rat only (NOAEL at 0.02x clinical exposure); no second species and no fertility study
Why: Findings in rats make a second species unnecessary (applicant)
“In an embryofoetal developmental toxicity study in rats the NOAEL value for maternal toxicity and embryo-foetal development was established at 0.25 mg/Kg/day and the resultant exposures measured represent a margin of exposure of 0.02 from the clinical dose. The Applicant has suggested that based on the findings in rats that studies in a second species are not warranted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗
OtherQuestioned
Rat 13-week NOAEL set by the applicant considered poorly justified given severity of findings
“As such, NOAEL was reported to be 0.25 mg/Kg/day for males and 1 mg/Kg/day for females, which was hardly justified given the severity of the findings reported in the study report.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 28Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Metabolite structures only partly characterised; confirmation study committed post-authorisation
“As of metabolites, partial information was provided. Therefore, the applicant committed to conduct additional post-authorisation studies to confirm the structure of the metabolites.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 32Source ↗

Barhemsys

amisulpride · Dopamine D2/D3 receptor
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
Repeat-dose toxicity limited to a single 28-day IV study in one species (rat)
Why: Extensive clinical experience with amisulpride at higher doses outside the US; single-dose indication · Human data · Other reason
“Based on extensive clinical experience with amisulpride, outside of the Unites States, at higher doses, the Division agreed that a 28-day repeat dose toxicity in a single species would be adequate for the proposed indication in which only a single dose will be administered.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 59Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies conducted
Why: Drug administered as a single dose · Within the guideline
“Carcinogenicity studies of amisulpride were not conducted. Carcinogenicity studies are not required for this indication for which the drug will be administered as a single dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 70Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
No secondary pharmacology studies submitted; published literature on related receptor activity used instead
“No secondary pharmacology studies were submitted. Literature cited by the applicant that assessed activity at related receptors is reviewed in section 5.3.1, above.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 62Source ↗

Baxfendy

baxdrostat · Aldosterone synthase (CYP11B2)
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rat and transgenic mouse carcinogenicity studies likely did not achieve aldosterone synthase inhibition; treated as off-target assessment only
Why: Low aldosterone is not identified in the published literature as an independent carcinogenicity risk factor · Weight of evidence
“As aldosterone synthase inhibition was not likely achieved at the doses tested in these rodent studies, the findings are considered an off-target assessment; notably, low aldosterone has not been identified in the published literature as an independent risk factor for carcinogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 10Source ↗
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Chronic rat study not pharmacologically active; on-target chronic toxicity assessed in cynomolgus monkey only
“Notably, baxdrostat was not considered pharmacologically active at these doses in the chronic rat study and therefore the results of that evaluation primarily represent an off-target assessment.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat developmental studies of limited interpretability because of greatly reduced baxdrostat potency in rats
“While baxdrostat had no effects on embryo-fetal development in rats or rabbits dosed through organogenesis at exposures up to 54‑fold (rat) and 29-fold (rabbit) the human dose of 2 mg, baxdrostat showed greatly reduced potency in rats compared to humans, which limits the interpretability of the rodent data.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Blujepa

gepotidacin · Bacterial topoisomerases (gyrase/topo IV)
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro micronucleus and mouse lymphoma assays; negative in vivo rat micronucleus and comet assays
Why: Weight of evidence from in vitro and in vivo data; class known to be clastogenic in vitro only · Weight of evidence · Class precedent
“Gepotidacin was positive in an in vitro micronucleus test in human peripheral blood lymphocytes and in an L5178Y mouse lymphoma assay, consistent with the known in vitro clastogenic effects of topoisomerase inhibitors in in vitro mammalian cell assays.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Decreased fetal weight and late resorptions in mouse and rat EFD at exposures below the MRHD
“In embryo‑fetal development studies in mice and rats, decreased fetal weights and increased fetal mortality (late resorptions) were observed at exposures less than the maximum recommended human dose (MRHD).”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
PK-PD targets for uUTI derived from murine thigh infection and in vitro chemostat models, which do not reflect bladder infection
“the findings from both murine thigh infection model and in vitro 1-compartment (chemostat) model were deemed unreliable for assessing uUTI for the following reasons: 1) the in vitro 1- compartment model does not account for bladder tissue architecture, the complexities of urodynamics, or the pH of urine”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 40Source ↗

Brukinsa

zanubrutinib · BTK
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies; absence justified by weight of evidence
Why: Weight-of-evidence argumentation, in line with the relevant guideline · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“The absence of carcinogenicity studies with zanubrutinib is justified based on a weight of evidence argumentation and in line with the relevant guideline.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo excretion and metabolism (ADME) study in the dog, the non-rodent toxicology species
Why: Similar in vitro metabolic profiles across rat, dog and human; sufficient safety margins · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The omission of conducting ADME study of BGB-3111 in dog was justified in the next round of assessment by the following points: i) In vitro metabolic profiles (liver microsomes) were similar between rat, dog and humans.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
No ex vivo studies in primary lymphoma cells; limited efficacy in the systemic xenograft model
“However, since ex vivo studies using relevant primary lymphoma cells are missing and the efficacy in the systemic xenograft model appear limited, non-clinical proof of concept is not entirely convincing.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗

Dojolvi

triheptanoin · Anaplerotic energy substrate
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No nonclinical toxicology studies submitted to the IND; only published pharmacology studies
Why: Prior agreement with FDA
“As per previous agreements, no nonclinical toxicology studies were submitted in the IND (IND 117053). Only published pharmacology studies were submitted in the IND.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 80Source ↗
GLPQuestioned
Chronic rat toxicity data came only from a published non-GLP dietary study with limited histopathology
“This was not a good laboratory practice (GLP)-compliant toxicology study, and only a limited number of tissues were examined histologically. The proliferative changes observed in the rat intestine may suggest that oral administration of triheptanoin has a potential for causing tumors in rodents.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 59Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic, lifelong dietary therapy
“Nonclinical animal studies evaluating long-term administration of triheptanoin have not been conducted to assess the carcinogenic potential of the drug.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Evrysdi

risdiplam · SMN2 splicing
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Only a rasH2 mouse study before approval; 2-year rat carcinogenicity study deferred to a post-approval commitment
Why: Agreed with CHMP and PDCO; ongoing study referenced in SmPC section 5.3 and RMP
“A two-year carcinogenicity study in rats is planned to be conducted post-approval. This is acceptable and in agreement with feedback received from CHMP and PDCO.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 49Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
No standard fertility and early embryonic development study; fertility assessed within juvenile and adult repeat-dose studies
Why: Fertility integrated into juvenile rat studies; reproductive organ histopathology examined in adult and juvenile studies · Weight of evidence
“A standard fertility and early embryonic development study was not conducted. The sponsor’s justification was that assessment of fertility was integrated into the juvenile rat toxicity studies and reproductive organ histopathology was examined in the adult and juvenile toxicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 8Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 39-week monkey NOAEL: AUC identical to targeted patient exposure
“At the NOAEL, systemic exposure (AUC0-24h) to risdiplam in males and females was identical to the targeted exposure in patients.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗

Gavreto

pralsetinib · RET
DARTAccepted
Embryo-fetal toxicity in rat only; no second-species EFD, pre/postnatal, juvenile or immunotoxicity studies
Why: Consistent with ICH S9 for advanced-cancer products · Within the guideline
“Consistent with ICH guideline S9, the following non-clinical studies were not conducted: carcinogenicity studies, a confirmatory embryofoetal toxicity study in a second species, studies on pre/postnatal development, studies in juvenile animals, and immunotoxicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
GLPAcceptedBeyond the letter
No definitive GLP-compliant in vitro hERG study; only a non-GLP hERG study
Why: Available GLP safety studies plus the supportive non-GLP study provide sufficient safety data · Weight of evidence
“Though the Applicant did not submit a definitive GLP-compliant in vitro study, the available GLP-compliant safety studies have provided sufficient safety data along with this supportive study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 51Source ↗
RecoveryVerdict not stated
No recovery phase in the 13-week rat and monkey studies; bone and tooth findings incompletely recovered in 28-day rat study
“Recovery was not assessed in the 13-week studies, but increased physeal thickness in the femur and incisor degeneration did not show evidence of complete recovery in the 28-day rat study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗

Ibsrela

tenapanor · NHE3
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Juvenile rat NOAEL gives no safety margin for patients under 12; additional juvenile study (from postnatal day 21) deferred to postmarketing
“The NOAEL was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg/day, which does not provide a margin of safety to support study of pediatric patients <12 years of age. An additional juvenile toxicity study in juvenile rats starting at postnatal day 21 will be required (refer to Postmarketing Requirements and Commitment, Section 14) below.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 34Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
Major metabolite M1: sponsor proposed exposure-ratio calculations in lieu of a dedicated repeat-dose study; only a rodent study up to 4 weeks conducted
“The Applicant responded that, in lieu of a repeated dose toxicity study, they planned to quantify M1 in plasma samples from phase 2 patients and calculate the ratio of exposure multiples to M1 in the dog to human M1 exposure at the anticipated dose of 50 mg BID.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 27Source ↗
First doseQuestioned
Proposed first-in-human doses based on the NOAEL of a 7-day rat study
“The Division stated that basing doses for phase 1 clinical studies on the no adverse effect level (NOAEL) from the 7-day rat toxicology study was unacceptable.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 26Source ↗

Lybalvi

olanzapine and samidorphan · D2/5-HT2A; opioid receptors (samidorphan)
OtherAccepted
No new olanzapine nonclinical studies; olanzapine pharmacology, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and DART data taken from the approved Zyprexa label
Why: Zyprexa is the listed drug for this 505(b)(2) application · Within the guideline
“Nonclinical data describing the primary pharmacodynamics, metabolism, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and developmental and reproductive toxicity of OLZ will be taken from the approved label of Zyprexa, the listed drug for this 505(b)(2) NDA.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 321Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human metabolite RDC-1066 found late and not measured in pivotal toxicity studies; exposures estimated from later GLP PK bridging studies
Why: GLP PK bridging studies in rats, mice, dogs and rabbits provided metabolite exposure data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Metabolite RDC-1066 was discovered in human plasma late in clinical development and was not measured in initial nonclinical toxicity studies. Therefore, a series of nonclinical GLP PK bridging studies were conducted in rats, mice, dogs, and rabbits administered oral doses of SAM for 5 to 14 consecutive days”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 345Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Samidorphan rat NOAEL 5 mg/kg/day at 0.4 times the MRHD (AUC) in males
“The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for SAM in rats is 5 mg/kg/day, which is 0.4 and 5 times the MRHD in males and females, respectively based on AUC.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 320Source ↗

Oxbryta

voxelotor · HbS polymerisation
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Adverse effects in animals at exposures comparable to or below anticipated clinical exposure
Why: Compensatory erythropoiesis to be evaluated as an identified risk in the PSUR
“A number of adverse effects were observed in the test animals at dose levels comparable or even lower than the anticipated clinical exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 58Source ↗
Juvenile toxVerdict not stated
Only a dose-range-finding juvenile rat study; no definitive juvenile toxicity study
Why: Effects in juvenile animals consistent with those in adult animals · Weight of evidence
“As the observed effects in juvenile animals were consistent with the effects seen in adult animals, no full study was conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 54Source ↗
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Dog dropped after 4 weeks; monkey used as the chronic non-rodent species
Why: Dog exposure at highest tolerated dose too low to reduce tissue O2 extraction · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The exposure in dogs in the 4-week study at the highest tolerated dose was not sufficiently high to cause decreased tissue O2 extraction and dogs did not have erythroid or bone marrow changes, therefore dogs were not further considered as test species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 50Source ↗

Piqray

alpelisib · PI3Kα
GenotoxicityQuestioned
In vitro genotoxicity concentrations below ICH S2 requirements; in vivo micronucleus exposure only 2-fold or 1.4-fold human exposure
“However, it should be noted that the value of the these studies is limited since the concentrations of alpelisib used in in vitro studies were lower than those required in the ICH S2 guideline and systemic exposures to alpelisib achieved in the in vivo study were only 2 fold or 1.4 fold higher than therapeutic exposure in adult humans.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: all repeat-dose toxicity effects occurred below human exposure at the maximum recommended dose
“All effects were observed at doses that resulted in total plasma exposure levels lower than those reached in patients treated with the maximum recommended dose and were reversible or showed a tendency towards reversibility after a 4- or 8-week treatment-free recovery period.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Most impurity mutagenicity data from non-GLP Ames tests; three impurities Ames-positive
Why: Tested impurities not detectable in drug substance or purged to below 25 ppm · Other reason
“Only four studies on genotoxic potential of impurities were conducted in compliance with GLP. Three of the impurities were tested positive in the non-GLP AMES tests and three impurities were tested negative.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Qinlock

ripretinib · KIT/PDGFRA
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo phototoxicity follow-up after a positive in vitro 3T3 NRU assay, contrary to ICH S10 and CHMP advice
Why: Photosensitivity seen in patients; precautionary measures would remain regardless; similar restrictions for the class · Human data · Class precedent
“The justification is basically that there is no need for a follow up. This statement is in contrast to the ICH S10 Guidance on photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals as well as the advice given by CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Exposure margins at rat and dog NOAELs below 1 relative to patient exposure
“The revised margins did not change the conclusion that exposure margins between NOAEL and patient exposures were below 1.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat embryo-fetal NOAEL exposure only 0.02 times clinical exposure
“The exposure margin based on AUC at NOAEL in the pivotal embryo-foetal development study in rat vs clinical exposure in humans was 0.02.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗

Qulipta

atogepant · CGRP receptor
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Female mouse carcinogenicity study inadequate: high dose not an MTD or MFD and below 25-fold human exposure
Why: Dose range-finding study, and a repeat female mouse study if needed, may be conducted postmarketing
“The study in female mice was not adequate because the HD was not adequately justified; it was not demonstrated to be a maximum tolerated dose or maximum feasible dose and did not achieve plasma exposures at least 25-fold that at in humans at the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 120Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No animal model of migraine prevention; inhibition of capsaicin-induced dermal vasodilatation used as surrogate pharmacodynamic marker
“A specific animal model for the evaluation of prophylactic effects of atogepant on migraine was not provided by the applicant. As a surrogate pharmacological parameter for clinical efficacy of atogepant, inhibition of capsaicin-induced dermal vasodilatation (CIDV), an effect considered to be mediated largely by release of CGRP, was used by the applicant.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat fertility study without toxicokinetics; margins calculated from the embryo-fetal development study
Why: Exposure data from the rat embryo-fetal development study used instead
“No toxicokinetic data were collected. (The exposure data from the rat embryofetal development study was used to calculate margins.)”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 120Source ↗

Reyvow

lasmiditan · 5-HT1F receptor
GenotoxicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In vivo mouse micronucleus assay judged inadequate by the primary reviewer: exposure to major human metabolites not demonstrated
Why: Supervisory review considered the genotoxicity battery adequately designed and negative
“Lasmiditan was negative in a bone marrow micronucleus assay in ICR mice (IV); however, the study was not adequate because systemic exposure to all major human metabolites was not demonstrated.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 55Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the NOAEL in the pivotal rabbit embryo-fetal development study
“There was no safety margin based on AUC at the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg relative to that at the maximum human dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the NOAEL in the rat pre- and postnatal development study (mg/m2 basis)
“On a mg/m2 basis, there was no safety margin at the NOAEL of 150 mg/kg, relative to that at the maximum human dose, for the F0 or F1 generations.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 12Source ↗

Truqap

capivasertib · AKT1-3
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Only preliminary rat embryo-fetal studies; no definitive or second-species embryo-fetal study
Why: Capivasertib already shown to be embryolethal · Weight of evidence
“The applicant explained that further embryo-foetal development studies were not conducted with capivasertib as it has been shown to be embryolethal.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
No dog metabolism study and no toxicokinetic evaluation of the human glucuronide metabolite in animals
Why: Under ICH S9 separate metabolite evaluation generally not warranted for advanced cancer · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“However, it would have been helpful to generate such data in the dog considering that the glucuronide metabolite was formed in dog hepatocytes and in view of the fact that no meaningful margins of safety were found in the appropriate studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Toxicities in rats and dogs at about 0.4 and 0.6 times human AUC at the recommended dose
“Most capivasertib-induced toxicities were dose-dependent and observed in rats at doses ≥ 30 mg/kg and in dogs at doses ≥ 10 mg/kg (approximately 0.4 and 0.6 times the exposure in humans at the recommended dose of 400 mg twice daily based on AUC, respectively).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 47Source ↗

Welireg

belzutifan · HIF-2α
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity studies before US approval for chronic use in VHL disease; mouse and rat studies required postmarketing
Why: Preliminary weight-of-evidence assessment did not adequately address carcinogenicity for chronic use; studies required postmarketing
“Given the indication, the long-life expectancy and prolonged treatment, it is important to address the carcinogenicity potential of belzutifan for chronic use. Two post-marketing requirements (PMRs) to conduct carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats were communicated to the Applicant.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 35Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No confirmatory second-species (rabbit) embryo-fetal study; rat pilot study only
Why: ICH S5(R3): teratogenic and embryotoxic potential already shown in the rat study · Within the guideline
“As belzutifan showed teratogenic and embryotoxic potential in the pEFD rat study, a confirmatory study in a second species (rabbit) was not performed and is not required in accordance with ICH S5 (R3).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat seminiferous tubule degeneration at 0.13-fold human AUC (no margin); not seen in dogs at 1-fold
“The seminiferous tubule degeneration was observed at ≥6 mg/kg/day (0.13-fold human AUC) in SD rats but not in dogs with 10 times higher exposure (30 mg/kg/day, 1-fold human AUC).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗

Zenbexus

iberdomide · Cereblon (CELMoD)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 9-month monkey NOAEL (0.95-fold human steady-state AUC at 1 mg QD)
“In the 9-month monkey study, the NOAEL was 0.12 mg/kg/day with a mean AUC(0-24h) of 77.6 ng•h/mL 0.95-fold of the steady-state AUC(0-24h) of 81.36 ng•h/mL at 1 mg QD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 61Source ↗
RecoveryVerdict not stated
No recovery assessment in the 9-month monkey study, the only general toxicity study with testicular toxicity; reversibility assessed in a rabbit fertility study instead
Why: Recovery of testicular toxicity characterized in the rabbit FEED study
“Note testicular toxicity was only observed in the 9-month study where recovery was not assessed. Subsequently, testicular toxicity was characterized and recovery assessed in a rabbit FEED study (see Section 5.5.4).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 61Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro chromosomal aberration assay at 550 µg/mL or more; judged non-genotoxic on totality of data
Why: Ames and in vivo assays negative · Weight of evidence
“Iberdomide showed increased chromosomal aberrations at ≥ 550 μg/mL in the in vitro clastogenicity assay; however, the results of the Ames assay and in vivo assays were negative for genotoxicity. Given the totality of the data, iberdomide is not considered genotoxic.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 47Source ↗

Brinsupri

brensocatib · DPP1 (cathepsin C)
Juvenile toxAccepted
No juvenile animal studies; adolescent rat and dog repeat-dose studies used to support patients aged 12 years and older
Why: Animals of both species entered puberty at the start of the studies (ICH S11) · Within the guideline
“Studies in juvenile animals were not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Nitrosamine impurity follow-up mammalian mutation assay run without hamster S9 and without nitrosamine positive controls
Why: Weight of evidence indicates low mutagenic potential, supported by NSOEG · Weight of evidence
“Unfortunately, it was not performed with hamster S9 mix, at least at low concentrations as it is known to be cytotoxic for many cell cultures. In addition, no nitrosamine positive controls were included in the study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗

Crenessity

crinecerfont · CRF1 receptor
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Exposure multiples at the NOAELs in pivotal studies limited to one- to fourfold the MRHD because of exposure saturation
“Thus, clinical exposure multiples at the no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) in the pivotal nonclinical studies were limited to one- to fourfold the maximum recommended human dose (MRHD).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 94Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Early toxicology conducted with the tosylate salt, later studies with the free base; data bridged across salt forms
Why: Nonclinical studies adequately bridged tosylate salt and free base data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Nonclinical studies adequately bridged the data from studies conducted with tosylate salt to those conducted with the free base, and both sets of studies contributed to characterizing the toxicity profile of crinecerfont.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 182Source ↗

Fotivda

tivozanib · VEGFR1-3
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Exposure at the 9-month monkey NOAEL about 0.5-fold that of RCC patients (no margin)
“This exposure corresponds approximately to an exposure in humans that is 2-fold below the exposure obtain at the NOAEL in the 6-month rat study and is greater than the exposure observed at the NOAEL in the 9-month monkey study (the exposure in monkeys was approximately 0.5-fold that of RCC patients).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No secondary pharmacodynamic or pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies
Why: High selectivity of tivozanib for the VEGF pathway · Pharmacology or kinetics
“No secondary pharmacodynamic and pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies were performed by the applicant, which is considered acceptable, considering the high level of selectivity of tivozanib hydrochloride for the VEGF pathway.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗

Jesduvroq

daprodustat · HIF prolyl hydroxylase
Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
Major human metabolites M2, M3 and M13 not formed in rodents; given SC as a metabolite cocktail in mouse carcinogenicity and rat pre/postnatal studies
Why: Achieve at least 1X human metabolite exposure in rodent studies · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The metabolites were not detected in mouse, rat, or dog plasma, and were administered SC as a metabolite cocktail to mice and rats in a mouse carcinogenicity study and rat pre-and post-natal development study to achieve at least 1X human exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 244Source ↗
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Uncertain genotoxic potential of major metabolite M13 after mouse lymphoma and initial mouse liver comet assays
Why: Division concluded M13 was not genotoxic
“Genotoxicity studies paused based on the uncertainty about the genotoxic potential of the M13 metabolite of GSK 1278863 following the results of mouse lymphoma assay and the initial mouse liver comet assay”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 230Source ↗

Jideytro

zidesamtinib · ROS1
DARTAccepted with a condition
No fertility or pre- and postnatal development studies, so neurodevelopmental effects of TRK inhibition were not assessed
Why: Not warranted for advanced cancer; TRK neurodevelopmental risk described in labeling · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“A pre- and postnatal development study may be capable of evaluating some of these endpoints; however, these studies are not warranted for drugs intended to treat patients with advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 40Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Genotoxicity of major human metabolite M9 not directly tested
Why: Parent drug is itself genotoxic · Other reason
“The genetic toxicity of the M9 metabolite was not directly tested and is not warranted since the active pharmaceutical ingredient (i.e., zidesamtinib) is genotoxic.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 38Source ↗

Klisyri

tirbanibulin · Tubulin / Src
GenotoxicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Positive genotoxicity (clastogenic in vitro and in vivo, weakly mutagenic in mouse lymphoma) accepted for a topical product
Why: Short-term use only; marketed actinic keratosis alternative fluorouracil is also a genetic toxicant; addressed through labeling · Class precedent · Other reason
“Although tirbanibulin is a genetic toxicant, this matter may be appropriately addressed through labeling. The product is intended for short-term use only, which partially assuages concerns about genotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Proposed use does not involve chronic exposure · Within the guideline
“Not applicable, as the proposed use does not involve chronic exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗

Lazcluze

lazertinib · EGFR (mutant-selective)
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Low exposure margins: NOAEL or LOAEL exposures at or below clinical exposure at the recommended dose
Why: Expected for a TKI; animal target toxicities match the human toxicity profile known from other TKIs · Pharmacology or kinetics · Class precedent · Human data
“In general, low exposure margins based on systemic exposure at NOAELs or LOAELs were observed in animal studies, and corresponded to clinical exposures at or below the recommended human dose of 240 mg/kg/day.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat fertility and early embryonic development study conducted without toxicokinetics
“Treated males were mated with treated females at the same dose level; toxicokinetics were not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗

Modeyso

dordaviprone · DRD2 antagonist / ClpP agonist
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Embryo-fetal development assessed only in non-GLP dose-range-finding studies in rats and rabbits; no definitive GLP studies
Why: Significant embryo-fetal findings already seen in the dose-range-finding studies · Weight of evidence
“The FDA agreed that due to the significant findings in the non-GLP dose-range finding embryo-fetal development studies in rats and rabbits that additional GLP-compliant studies do not need to be conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 72Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Animal AUC at rat NOAEL and dog LOAEL only 75% and 70% of clinical AUC
“Shorter half-lives in nonclinical species compared to humans resulted in AUC plasma concentrations at these doses that were 75% and 70% clinical AUCs in rat and dogs, respectively.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 58Source ↗

Nourianz

istradefylline · Adenosine A2A receptor
OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Brain not adequately evaluated in pivotal dog toxicity studies despite rat brain mineralization; nonclinical deficiency in first-cycle Not Approvable letter
Why: Re-analysis of brain sections from the 26- and 52-week dog studies provided · Weight of evidence
“The nonclinical deficiency was an inadequate evaluation of brain in the pivotal toxicity studies in dog, a concern raised by the finding of brain mineralization in rat.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗
GenotoxicityVerdict not stated
No valid mouse lymphoma assay: no compatible solvent, sufficiently high concentrations could not be tested
“The testing laboratory concluded that the mouse lymphoma assay was not appropriate for this compound as sufficiently high doses were not able to be tested.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 113Source ↗

Nubeqa

darolutamide · Androgen receptor
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a condition
No carcinogenicity studies before approval (advanced cancer); EMA required a 6-month Tg-rasH2 mouse study post-approval
Why: Advanced cancer indication; EMA required Tg-rasH2 results by 30 June 2022 via the RMP · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“No carcinogenicity studies were conducted or warranted to support this NDA, as the proposed indication was for advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 29Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Cardiovascular safety pharmacology limited: non-GLP in vitro studies; anaesthetised dog study without control group or metabolite analysis
Why: QT prolongation risk cannot be excluded; adequate measures included in the SmPC
“It was noted that the two in vitro studies were not conducted in compliance with GLP standard. Furthermore, there was no control group and no analysis related to the effect of the metabolite and one of the diastereomers in the non-conscious dog study.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗

Orladeyo

berotralstat · Plasma kallikrein
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Narrow NOAEL exposure margins in chronic studies: 3.8 in rat and 1.5 in monkey
Why: Margins considered acceptable to support 150 mg once daily, despite decreased survival in the rat carcinogenicity study
“Hence, the safety margin based on exposures at the NOAELs in the chronic toxicity studies in rat (20mg/kg/day) and monkey (30mg/kg/day) is 3.8 and 1.5 respectively.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Rabbit embryo-fetal studies of limited value: low exposure and inadequate pharmacological activity in rabbits
“However, considering the inadequate pharmacological activity in rabbits, these data are considered insufficient evidence of lack of toxicity in non-rodent species and the rabbit data will not be included in the SmPC.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Palsonify

paltusotine · Somatostatin receptor 2
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Rat carcinogenicity study terminated early (Week 91 males, Week 89 females) due to low control survival
Why: At least 28 animals per sex per group survived to Week 80, enough to evaluate carcinogenicity · Other reason
“Due to low survival of water and vehicle control animals, the study was terminated early during Week 91 for males and Week 89 for females. However, at least 28 animals/sex in each group survived to Week 80, which provided enough animals to adequately evaluate carcinogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Animal-to-human exposure margins uncertain because of large variability in paltusotine bioavailability
“To conclude, animal/human margins of exposure calculated in the whole dossier were taken in consideration with caution, given the large variability of paltusotine bioavailability (see animal PK part of AR).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗

Paxlovid

nirmatrelvir and ritonavir · SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (3CL protease)
OtherVerdict not stated
No combination toxicity studies of nirmatrelvir with ritonavir
Why: Ritonavir is a marketed PK enhancer with well characterised nonclinical and clinical safety profiles · Human data · Class precedent
“No combination studies with administration of PF-07321332 with ritonavir have been conducted. Ritonavir is an already marketed drug as a PK enhancer with well characterised nonclinical and clinical safety profiles.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Pre- and postnatal development study ongoing at authorisation; only interim report submitted, final report requested post-authorisation
“The pre- and postnatal development study was ongoing; the interim report has been provided. The final study report for the PPND (21GR149) is requested by 30/04/2022 (LEG).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗

Rapiblyk

landiolol · β1-adrenergic receptor
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
Core nonclinical package taken from published literature on the Japanese landiolol product ONO-1101 (Onoact) rather than new studies
Why: Same active salt, pharmaceutically equivalent, same IV use and comparable human PK · Human data · Pharmacology or kinetics
“It is concluded in this review that the reliance on ONO-1101 literature for nonclinical support is justifiable since both products share the same active salt and appear to be pharmaceutically equivalent. Both products are administered intravenously for the same medical condition and comparable PK parameters were obtained for the LAN and Onact in healthy volunteers at the same doses.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Short-term use, per ICH M3(R2) and ICH S1A · Within the guideline
“The sponsor has not conducted carcinogenicity studies citing ICH M3 (R2) since the product is intended for short-term use. ICH S1A may be also relevant, and the issue of carcinogenicity study was not raised by the Division during the Pre-NDA meeting.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 63Source ↗

Revtorpyk

gedatolisib · PI3K/mTOR
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No embryo-fetal development studies; drug is given with palbociclib and fulvestrant, both known embryo-fetal toxicants
Why: Co-administered palbociclib and fulvestrant are known to cause embryo-fetal developmental toxicities · Other reason
“In addition, embryo-fetal development studies were not conducted as gedatolisib will be administered in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant, both of which are known to cause embryo-fetal developmental toxicities.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 78Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Reproductive organ findings in rats and dogs at exposures at or below 0.2 times human AUC; no margin
“All findings occurred at exposure ≤ 0.2 times the human AUC at the recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 41Source ↗

Rezdiffra

resmetirom · Thyroid hormone receptor β
DARTQuestioned
Rat pre/postnatal study lacked behavior, motor activity, sensory function and reflex development testing
“The PPND study in rats is deficient based on current ICH standards. Background The PPND study in rats is incomplete due to the absence of testing for behavior, motor activity, sensory or sensorimotor functions, and reflex development”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 182Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Major human plasma metabolite oxalic acid not detected in rat or dog toxicity studies
Why: Resmetirom-associated oxalic acid exposure expected within the physiological range · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Oxalic acid was not detected in toxicity studies in rats and dogs and was not investigated further in clinical studies. However, resmetirom associated oxalic acid intake and exposure is expected to be in the physiological range, hence it was agreed that further studies were not necessary.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗

Sotyktu

deucravacitinib · TYK2
Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Low margin in GLP monkey cardiovascular telemetry study: NOEL at 3x clinical Cmax
Why: Hemodynamic changes in psoriasis patients were not clinically meaningful · Human data
“The safety margin on the GLP cardiovascular telemetry study in monkeys was low (NOEL = 0.65 mg/kg (Cmax 0.13 µg/mL; 3X RHD Cmax). Clinically, hemodynamic changes occurred in BMS-986165-treated subjects with psoriasis, however the changes were not clinically meaningful.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No stand-alone CNS or respiratory safety pharmacology studies; endpoints incorporated into rat and monkey repeat-dose studies
“No independent safety pharmacology study was conducted to assess the potential CNS effects and potential respiratory effects of BMS-986165. However, in repeat-dose toxicity studies, in rat and monkey the safety pharmacology assessment of central nervous and respiratory system were included.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗

Tabrecta

capmatinib · MET
Safety marginVerdict not stated
NOAEL exposures in rat and dog within the range of human exposure; below 1 in female monkeys
“AUC ratio were within the same range when compared exposure in humans and NOAEL values established by the company in the nonclinical species (rat and dog). In the case of female monkeys, ratio value was below 1 (Table 9).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗
Efficacy modelAcceptedBeyond the letter
Binding of capmatinib to mutated MET not thoroughly investigated nonclinically
Why: Clinical data could justify the absence of these studies · Human data
“Further, binding of capmatinib to mutated MET were not thoroughly investigated during the nonclinical development. At this point, clinical data could provide a justification for the absence of these studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗

Truseltiq

infigratinib · FGFR1-3
Safety marginAcceptedBeyond the letter
Safety margins below 1 at all dose levels in rat and dog toxicity studies versus human exposure at 125 mg QD
Why: Greater sensitivity of nonclinical species to FGFR inhibition; mechanism-related findings monitorable and manageable in patients · Pharmacology or kinetics · Serious disease
“The safety margins at all dose levels was <1 based on a comparison of Cmax or AUC values in rat and dog toxicity studies to the human exposure (6284 ng*hr/mL; Cycle 1, Day 15) at the recommended dose of 125 mg QD, reflecting the greater sensitivity of the nonclinical species in the toxicology program to the pharmacologic effects (ie, inhibition of FGFR1‐3) of infigratinib.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 51Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat developmental toxicity NOAEL could not be determined (<1 mg/kg/day)
“The NOAEL for developmental toxicity could not be determined (<1 mg/kg/day).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 67Source ↗

Tryptyr

acoltremon · TRPM8 agonist
CarcinogenicityCriticised but accepted
Rodent carcinogenicity studies waived for a chronic topical ocular drug; reviewer noted unexplored literature on TRPM8 in cancer
Why: ICH S1A ocular-route provision and absence of significant systemic exposure · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Carcinogenicity studies were not conducted with acoltremon. ICH S1A indicates that pharmaceuticals administered by the ocular route may not require carcinogenicity studies unless there is cause for concern or unless there is significant systemic exposure (March 1996).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 79Source ↗
DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Fertility/early embryonic and pre- and postnatal development studies waived
Why: No systemic adverse findings and negligible systemic exposure in animals and patients · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Fertility and pre- and postnatal development animal studies have not been performed because there is negligible clinical systemic exposure at the RHOD and lack of systemic toxicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 70Source ↗

Vanrafia

atrasentan · Endothelin A receptor
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL established in chronic rat or dog toxicity studies
“In the chronic toxicology studies of atrasentan in the rat and dog, a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was not established.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 117Source ↗
OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No phototoxicity studies
Why: Low frequency of phototoxicity events in more than 2,000 patients on long-term atrasentan · Human data
“Phototoxicity studies have not been conducted with atrasentan.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 133Source ↗

Velsipity

etrasimod · S1P1/S1P4/S1P5 receptors
Impurity or metaboliteQuestioned
Exposure to major human metabolites M3 and M6 not investigated in mice and dogs; coverage shown in rats only
“The overview shows that rats were exposed sufficiently to the metabolites M3 and M6 during toxicity testing. The exposure in mice and dogs was not investigated.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No hERG assessment of metabolites M3 and M6 before approval; non-GLP patch-clamp test deferred post-authorisation
“Furthermore, an effect on QT prolongation of M3 and M6 will be evaluated post authorisation by an automated patch-clamp test on M3 and M6 for their effects on the hERG potassium channel current in vitro (non-GLP).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 89Source ↗

Xacduro

sulbactam and durlobactam · PBPs; beta-lactamase (durlobactam)
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Repeat-dose juvenile toxicity study (to inform dosing from birth to under one year) still ongoing at approval; completion under a postmarketing commitment
Why: Pediatric studies deferred until adult efficacy and safety demonstrated · Other reason
“Also, a repeat dose juvenile toxicity study is ongoing to inform dosing in patients from birth to less than1 year of age. A postmarketing commitment for the study completion and final report submission dates will be issued upon approval.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 85Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
Limited in vivo nonclinical pharmacokinetic data for sulbactam
“Few details of in vivo nonclinical pharmacokinetics of sulbactam were provided.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 53Source ↗

Xcopri

cenobamate · Sodium channel / GABA-A
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rat embryo-fetal study inadequate: high embryofetal death left too few fetuses to evaluate teratogenic potential; repeat study required postmarketing
“There was a small increase in visceral malformations at the HD; however, teratogenic potential could not be fully evaluated because of the high rate of embryofetal deaths, which resulted in an inadequate number of fetuses examined.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 9Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Minimal to no safety margins to clinical exposure; acute neurotoxicity dose-limiting in all species
“In all toxicology species, acute neurotoxicity was dose-limiting and resulted in minimal to no safety margins to clinical exposures (see Table 2 under section 5 below).”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 7Source ↗

Zaynich

cefepime and zidebactam · PBPs; beta-lactam enhancer (zidebactam)
GenotoxicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Bacterial reverse mutation assay of a (redacted) test article limited to low concentrations because of antibacterial cytotoxicity
Why: Antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity in bacterial lawns made the deficiency unavoidable · Pharmacology or kinetics
“exhibited antibacterial activity and produced cytotoxicity in bacterial lawns in concentrations of ≥ mcg/plate. As a consequence, only low concentrations of could be tested in this assay, and the mutagenicity potential of higher concentrations were not assessed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 267Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat pre-/postnatal study learning and memory test indeterminate: atypical M-maze not validated with a positive control
“However, the M-maze employed in the assessment was of an atypical design, and the methods were not validated with a positive control compound. Consequently, the test results were considered to be indeterminate due to limitations in the study design.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 278Source ↗

Zulresso

brexanolone · GABA-A receptor (positive modulator)
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies
Why: Treatment of postpartum depression by infusion is acute · Within the guideline
“Brexanolone was not assessed for carcinogenicity because the treatment of PPD with brexanolone infusion is considered acute.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 33Source ↗
Juvenile toxAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Developmental neurotoxicity (apoptotic neurodegeneration) of GABAergic drugs not studied with brexanolone; animal study required post-marketing
Why: Unclear threshold for apoptotic neurodegeneration; post-marketing animal study to inform labeling
“Although allopregnanolone is an endogenous neuroactive steroid, it is not clear if there is a threshold effect above which increased apoptotic neurodegeneration would occur.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 34Source ↗

Bylvay

odevixibat · IBAT
Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
Rabbit fetal cardiovascular malformations at all doses; low exposure multiple (about 2.1 times human AUC), no developmental NOAEL
Why: Findings described in pregnancy labeling and form the basis for a pregnancy registry postmarketing requirement
“The cardiovascular malformations in rabbit fetuses justify a concern for a clinically significant risk to embryo-fetal development. These finding were observed in one of the two animal species tested. The exposure multiple at which the fetal cardiovascular malformations occurred is low (approximately 2.1 times the human AUC at 120 mcg/kg).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 115Source ↗

Idvynso

doravirine and islatravir · NNRTI; NRTTI
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Islatravir positive for chromosomal aberrations in vitro (CHO cells); accepted on mechanism and negative Ames and in vivo micronucleus
Why: Effect mitigated by inosine, suggesting nucleotide pool perturbation; negative Ames and in vivo rat micronucleus · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“While ISL induced chromosomal aberrations in an in vitro Chinese hamster ovary cell assay, this effect was mitigated by the addition of inosine, suggesting it may be related to a perturbation of nucleoside/nucleotide pools rather than direct DNA interaction.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 192Source ↗

Kerendia

finerenone · Mineralocorticoid receptor
SpeciesAcceptedBeyond the letter
No finerenone MR binding data in mouse or rabbit (carcinogenicity and EFD species); relevance argued by receptor homology
Why: Aldosterone MR affinity in mouse and rabbit preparations and receptor sequence homology; indirect evidence of binding · Weight of evidence
“No data was presented however a thorough justification was presented including affinity to MR with aldosterone in rabbit and mouse preparations and presentations on sequence homologies of the receptors.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗

Lifyorli

relacorilant · Glucocorticoid receptor (antagonist)
Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Predominant human metabolite CORT125295 absent in rodents; qualified by weight-of-evidence assessment instead of dedicated toxicity studies
Why: Structural similarity to parent, lower pharmacodynamic potency, similar target selectivity, non-mutagenic, hERG inhibition like parent · Weight of evidence · Pharmacology or kinetics
“A predominant metabolite, CORT125295, was identified in human plasma that was not present in rodent species. The Applicant provided a weight of evidence assessment for the safety of CORT125295.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 50Source ↗

Nuzolvence

zoliflodacin · Bacterial topoisomerase II
DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No sperm count or viability analyses in animals despite testicular toxicity and incomplete reversibility of epididymal findings
Why: Postmarketing human sperm study recommended to evaluate sperm count and viability
“While the fertility in the rats recovered after a 4-week recovery period, there was incomplete reversibility of the histopathology in the epididymides in rats and dogs. Analyses of sperm count and viability have not been conducted in animals or humans.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 101Source ↗

Orzeyful

oveporexton · Orexin OX2 receptor agonist
GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
Positive in vitro micronucleus assay after continuous treatment; overall judged non-genotoxic on negative Ames and in vivo micronucleus
Why: Negative Ames and in vivo micronucleus assays · Weight of evidence
“Oveporexton was found to be negative in an Ames assay and in an in vivo micronucleus assay; however, it was found to be positive for induction of micronuclei in an in vitro micronucleus assay following 24-hours of continuous treatment. Overall oveporexton was determined to be non-genotoxic.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 47Source ↗

Sephience

sepiapterin · Tetrahydrobiopterin precursor
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No 2-year rat carcinogenicity study before approval; weight-of-evidence waiver refused and study deferred to a postmarketing requirement
Why: PKU causes significant morbidity with high unmet medical need, so the 2-year study is a postmarketing requirement rather than pre-approval · Rare disease / unmet need · Serious disease
“PTC also requested a carcinogenicity waiver on March 20, 2023. Following a review of PTC’s weight of evidence document which was proposed in lieu of conducting a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study, the Agency informed PTC on June 2, 2023, that the neoplastic and preneoplastic findings observed with sepiapterin in rats necessitated a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 152Source ↗

Tryvio

aprocitentan · Endothelin A/B receptors
CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated carcinogenicity studies with aprocitentan; mouse and rat studies of parent drug macitentan used instead
Why: Aprocitentan is a major metabolite of macitentan, at least 38% of total exposure in those studies · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“No dedicated carcinogenicity studies were conducted with aprocitentan. Aprocitentan is a major metabolite of macitentan, and its exposure represented ≥38% of the total exposure to macitentan and aprocitentan in the macitentan carcinogenicity studies. Therefore, the macitentan carcinogenicity studies, conducted in B6C3F1 mice and Wistar rats, were considered acceptable to assess the carcinogenic potential of aprocitentan.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 137Source ↗

Xeglyze

abametapir · Lice metalloproteinases
Safety pharmacologyCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Cardiovascular telemetry study in minipigs too flawed for regulatory use
Why: Studies less than ideal but raise no nonclinical cardiovascular concern · Other reason
“The sponsor subsequently conducted a cardiovascular study in minipigs using telemetry (71456) which was too flawed for regulatory use.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 29Source ↗

Veklury

remdesivir · SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase
RecoveryQuestioned
No recovery phase in the 4-week rat and monkey toxicity studies
“In the 2-week rat study the effects were mainly reversible, but it is not known whether this is the case after a longer treatment period. It is not understood why the applicant did not include a recovery phase in the 4-week studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat 4-week NOAEL exposures below clinical exposure for the main metabolites
“In the rat 4-week study, the AUC exposure margins at NOAEL were 0.1/0.2-fold (males/females) for GS-441524, and 0.2/0.4-fold (males/females) for GS-704277.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
Efficacy modelQuestioned
Rhesus SARS-CoV-2 efficacy study did not establish the natural disease course
“Unfortunately, the sponsor failed to adequately establish the natural progression of the disease in this animal model. Therefore, results from this study are generally not sufficient to draw any definitive conclusions concerning RDV’s potential to treat COVID-19 in humans.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 13Source ↗
DARTQuestioned
Female rat fertility effects attributed by the applicant to maternal stress; argument not accepted
“Taken together, it cannot be agreed that the data are solid enough to conclude that the adverse effects in female rats are consequences of maternal stress and not human relevant as argued by the Applicant.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 45Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
No dedicated toxicity studies with remdesivir metabolites beyond a non-GLP Ames test of GS-441524
“The metabolite GS-441524 was tested in a non-GLP reverse mutation assay and concluded as negative. Apart from this in vitro study, no other dedicated studies were performed with remdesivir metabolites.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗

Voydeya

danicopan · Complement factor D
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Rat (pharmacologically inactive) used only for off-target toxicity; DART conducted in rabbit, a pharmacologically active species
Why: Danicopan not pharmacologically active in rats · No relevant species
“Rabbit species was selected for DART studies, based on the absence of pharmacological activity of rats.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 25Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
Carcinogenicity assessed only in rodents (rasH2 mouse, rat), species not pharmacologically relevant for danicopan
“Both studies were concluded as negative, although rodent species are not considered pharmacologically relevant for danicopan.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Safety marginQuestioned
Applicant's dog 39-week NOAEL (75 mg/kg/day) disputed: bile duct hypertrophy/hyperplasia at that dose considered damage
“The Applicant argued that the isolated biliary findings at 75 mg/kg/day in the absence of corresponding clinical pathology correlates are not considered adverse and represent the study NOAEL. However, although the findings at this dose were less in severity and magnitude, the damage is clearly observed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
Juvenile toxVerdict not stated
Only a dose range-finding juvenile study in dogs; no definitive juvenile animal study
“The applicant presented the results of a Dose range finding Juvenile animal studie (DRF JAS) in dogs, although no definitive JAS has been performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗

Zepzelca

lurbinectedin · DNA minor groove (transcription)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Margins based on MTDs rather than NOAELs; exposure margins well below one in all studies and species
“Regarding the interspecies comparison of exposures and safety margins, these are determined based on Maximal Tolerated Doses (MTDs) for general toxicity studies instead of the NOAELs since the NOAELs were determined only in some toxicology studies (and companion toxicokinetics). Exposure margins at MTDs are well below 1 in all of the performed studies and all of the species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 38Source ↗
GenotoxicityAccepted
No in vivo genotoxicity testing after positive mouse lymphoma assay
Why: ICH S2 provision for strongly cytotoxic compounds targeting rapidly dividing cells · Within the guideline
“In vivo testing was not conducted, but this is acceptable under ICH S2 for strongly cytotoxic compounds targeting rapidly dividing cells.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗
DARTAccepted
No definitive embryo-fetal study; only a preliminary single-dose, single-dose-level rat study
Why: Genotoxic mechanism targeting rapidly dividing cells · Within the guideline · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Given its mechanism of action as a genotoxic agent targeting rapidly dividing cells, FDA would not generally request an embryofetal development study, however, the Applicant did conduct a preliminary single dose, single-dose level embryo-fetal development study in rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 29Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Human major metabolites not fully covered toxicologically; disproportionate metabolite not studied further
Why: ICH S9 Q&A states no additional studies are required for disproportionate metabolites · Within the guideline
“However, no further non-clinical concern is raised due to: (i) absence of a full toxicological coverage of both human major metabolites (see discussion above), and (ii) ICH S9 Q&A, stating that no additional studies are required with disproportional metabolites.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗

Augtyro

repotrectinib · ROS1/TRK
DARTAccepted
Only a non-GLP dose-range-finding rat EFD study; no definitive EFD study
Why: Preliminary study already showed potentially teratogenic effects; consistent with ICH S9 Q&A and ICH S5(R3) · Within the guideline
“The foetal effects indicated potentially teratogenic effects, hence no definitive EFD studies were conducted, which is supported and consistent with relevant guidelines (ICH S9 Q&A document 2018 and ICH S5 (R3) 2020).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyAccepted
hERG assay not GLP-compliant; no dedicated GLP safety pharmacology studies
Why: Dedicated safety studies not warranted under ICH S9; ECG measurements in non-rodents considered sufficient · Within the guideline
“Although, the hERG assay was not GLP-compliant, no additional study is required as no dedicated safety studies are warranted according to ICH S9 guideline, and appropriate and ECG measurements in non-rodents are generally considered sufficient.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Low to non-existing exposure margins at rat NOAEL for CNS, skin and bone marrow toxicity versus 160 mg BID
“Major target organs for toxicity in rats comprises CNS, skin and bone marrow, with low to non-existing safety margins based on systemic exposure at NOAEL and expected human exposure at clinical intended dosing of 160 mg BID.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Orserdu

elacestrant · Estrogen receptor (SERD)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin for rat embryo-fetal toxicity: maternal toxicity and embryo-fetal mortality at about 0.1 times human AUC
“(reduced body weight gain, low food consumption, red vulvar discharge) and embryo-fetal mortality (increased resorptions, post-implantation loss, and reduced number of live fetuses) were noted at ≥3 mg/kg/day (approximately 0.1 times the human AUC at the recommended dose).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 43Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Gastrointestinal findings in the 39-week monkey study at about 70% of human exposure (no margin)
“In monkeys this effect occurred at a level of systemic exposure of about 70% of the human exposure. (See SmPC section 5.3).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 62Source ↗
OtherVerdict not stated
Early toxicity studies conducted in female animals only; later studies included both sexes
“Initial studies were only performed in female animals, but later studies were conducted in both sexes.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 61Source ↗

Ponvory

ponesimod · S1P1 receptor
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Lung toxicity NOAEL in rats below human exposure (0.7-fold based on plasma exposure)
“The safety margins for lung toxicity based on plasma exposure were 12- and 2.4-fold in M and F mice, respectively, 0.7-fold in rats, and 4.4-fold in dogs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Fetal NOAEL in rat and rabbit at 0.2-fold clinical plasma exposure (teratogenicity and fetal lethality)
“The fetal NOAEL was 1 mg/kg/day in both rats and rabbits, with a safety margin for fetal toxicity of 0.2-fold in rat and rabbit based on plasma exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
Minimal safety margin for acute cardiovascular effects (guinea pig NOAEL) versus the clinical first dose
“The NOAEL for the acute cardiovascular effect in guinea pigs was 0.1 mg/kg (0.8 mg/m2), resulting in a minimal safety margin with the clinical first dose (2 mg; 1.2 mg/m2) on a body surface basis.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 10Source ↗

Tepmetko

tepotinib · MET
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: NOAEL AUC in chronic rat and dog studies about 4% of human exposure at 500 mg
“The total AUC in the chronic repeat-dose toxicity studies at the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is approximately 4% of the exposure achieved in patients at the proposed clinical dose of 500 mg in both rats and dogs.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 60Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Disproportionate major human metabolite MSC2571109A not further qualified nonclinically (low exposure in rats and dogs)
Why: Indication falls under ICH S9 · Within the guideline
“The exposure in both rats and dogs to MSC2571109A was comparatively low indicating that it represents a disproportionate metabolite. Given that the current indication falls under ICH S9, no further non-clinical qualification of metabolites is required.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗
GenotoxicityVerdict not stated
In vivo rat micronucleus test at the maximum feasible dose gave exposure about 3-fold below clinical exposure
“However, the maximally feasible dose used in the in vivo micronucleus test in rats provided an estimated systemic exposure close to 3 fold lower than the clinical plasma exposure.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 33Source ↗

Veppanu

vepdegestrant · Estrogen receptor (PROTAC degrader)
DARTVerdict not stated
Only a preliminary rat embryo-fetal study; no definitive or second-species embryo-fetal study
Why: Reproductive risk already identified and reported in the label
“Based on the primary pharmacology of ER degradation, findings in pivotal repeat-dose toxicity studies in sexually mature rats and dogs, and a preliminary embryofetal development study in rats, reproductive organs are key target organs of vepdegestrant. With this risk identified and reported in the label, no additional studies are warranted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 73Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal mortality and female reproductive toxicity at 0.3 times human AUC; no margin
“Oral administration of vepdegestrant resulted in embryo-fetal mortality (increased resorptions, post-implantation loss and reduced number of live fetuses) at ≥30 mg/kg/day (0.3 times the human AUC at the recommended dose).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 49Source ↗
RecoveryVerdict not stated
No recovery assessment in the longer-duration (chronic) rat and dog studies
“Recovery assessment was not included in longer-duration studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 48Source ↗

Winlevi

clascoterone · Androgen receptor (topical)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No developmental NOAEL in the rat embryo-fetal study: malformations at all doses
“a developmental NOAEL could not be determined because clascoterone-related malformations were noted in three fetuses at the low dose (LD) and 1 fetus each at the mid dose (MD) and HD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 36Source ↗
Juvenile toxVerdict not stated
No juvenile toxicity or phototoxicity studies
“Where specific studies were not conducted as part of the nonclinical development program (e.g., juvenile toxicity and phototoxicity studies), this has been discussed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
No respiratory safety pharmacology study; lungs assessed in repeat-dose toxicity studies
Why: No respiratory effects or lung histopathology in repeat-dose toxicity studies
“A respiratory safety pharmacology study was not conducted. However, no clascoterone-related adverse respiratory effects or histopathological changes to the lungs were noted in repeat dose toxicity studies in nonclinical species.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 37Source ↗

Fabhalta

iptacopan · Complement factor B
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Male dog NOAEL in the 9-month study at 0.5 times human AUC at the MRHD
“9-month, Dog Male 5 4580 39300 0.5”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 93Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat fertility and pre- and postnatal development studies without toxicokinetics; margins derived from general toxicology studies
Why: Toxicokinetic data from general toxicology studies used instead
“Rat fertility and pre/postnatal studies had no toxicokinetic (TK) data, therefore, the TK data from toxicology studies were used”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 93Source ↗

Hernexeos

zongertinib · HER2 (mutant)
DARTAccepted
No dedicated fertility and early embryonic development studies; fertility assessed from repeat-dose reproductive organ histopathology
Why: Not needed for the proposed advanced-cancer indication per ICH S9 · Within the guideline
“Fertility and early embryonic development studies were not conducted or needed to support the use of zongertinib in the proposed indication per ICH S9.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 79Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Dog NOAEL exposures only approximately equal to clinical exposure; rat margins about 1.5 to 3-fold
Why: Applicant: adverse findings not severe and reversible, so multiples acceptable for an oncology indication
“there are reasonable exposure multiples in rats (~ 1.5 to 3 fold) while there are low exposure multiples in dogs (approximately the clinical exposure). The adverse findings in the repeat dose toxicity studies were not severe and reversible, therefore the exposure multiples regarding the clinical situation are considered acceptable in the proposed oncological indications.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 68Source ↗

Hyrnuo

sevabertinib · HER2 (mutant)
DARTVerdict not stated
Embryo-fetal development assessed in rat only; rabbit not usable as no relevant exposure achieved
Why: No relevant exposure to sevabertinib could be achieved in rabbits · Pharmacology or kinetics
“Rabbit did not qualify as a test species for embryo-fetal development assessment, as no relevant exposure to sevabertinib could be achieved.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 90Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat embryo-fetal NOAEL at unbound exposures below or around one times human exposure
“In summary it can be stated that no fetal malformations or adverse fetal variations were noted at unbound exposures of sevabertinib at multiples of exposure below or in the range of 1 compared to the therapeutic human unbound exposure.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 90Source ↗

Ibtrozi

taletrectinib · ROS1
DARTAccepted with a condition
No pre- and postnatal development study despite concern for neurodevelopmental effects of Trk inhibition
Why: Not typically required for drugs treating advanced cancer; Trk-related developmental risk addressed in labeling · Within the guideline
“While embryo‐fetal development studies can detect malformations in brain structure, they are not designed to assess motor development or psychiatric function and though a pre‐ and postnatal development study may be capable of evaluating some of these endpoints, they are not typically required for a drug intended to treat patients with advanced cancer.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 47Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No margin for rabbit embryo-fetal toxicity: abortions and pregnancy loss at 0.04 times human AUC
“Taletrectinib treatment resulted in increase in abortions and total pregnancy loss at doses ≥15 mg/kg/day (≥ 0.04 times the human exposure based on AUC at the recommended dose).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 46Source ↗

Inluriyo

imlunestrant · Estrogen receptor (SERD)
DARTAccepted
No fertility/early embryonic, pre- and postnatal development or juvenile toxicity studies
Why: ICH S9 recommendations for an advanced cancer indication · Within the guideline
“No early embryonic development study, pre- and postnatal development study or juvenile toxicity study was conducted. This is in line with the recommendations for an indication falling under the ICH S9 Guideline and therefore agreed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 46Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No embryo-fetal NOAEL: embryo-fetal mortality in rats at the lowest dose, about 0.1 times human AUC
“Imlunestrant caused embryo-fetal mortality (increased resorption, reduced number of live fetuses) at ≥0.3 mg/kg/day, approximately 0.1 times the human AUC at the recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Komzifti

ziftomenib · Menin-KMT2A
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Mouse embryo-fetal skeletal malformations at all doses; lowest dose about 0.3 times human AUC
“Skeletal malformations were observed in all test article dose groups, notably in the ribs, skull, and vertebra. Exposures at the lowest dose were approximately 0.3 times the human exposure (AUC) at the recommended clinical dose of 600 mg once daily.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 38Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Multi-organ hyperplasia in 13-week mouse and dog studies at exposures as low as 0.3 and 0.05 times human AUC
“The findings in the mouse study were observed at ≥ 12 mg/kg/day at exposures as low as 0.3 times the AUC at the recommended dose, and the findings in the dog study were observed at ≥ 6 mg/kg/day at exposures as low as 0.05 times the AUC at the recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Lumakras

sotorasib · KRAS G12C
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Exposure to major human metabolite M10 not measured in any GLP toxicology study; extrapolated from rat mass balance data
Why: ICH S9 does not require metabolite studies for anticancer drugs; 3-month rat study judged to cover M10 · Within the guideline
“Non-clinical studies with metabolites for anticancer pharmaceuticals are not warranted based on ICH S9 (ICH S9, 2009) and ICH S9 Q&A clarification (ICH S9 Q&A, 2018). Therefore, exposures to key metabolites (including M10) were not directly measured within any GLP toxicology studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Clinical exposures exceed those at the dog HNSTD (1000 mg/kg/day) in the 3-month study
“The mean observed sotorasib clinical exposures from 180, 360, 720, and 960 mg once daily (QD) dosing in subjects (Study 20170543) were lower than the exposures observed at the STD10 of 180 mg/kg in rats in the 3-month GLP repeat-dose toxicology study (Study 150432), but higher than the exposures observed at the HNSTD of 1000 mg/kg/day in dogs”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Miebo

perfluorohexyloctane · Tear film evaporation barrier
Safety pharmacologyVerdict not stated
Safety pharmacology limited to a CNS Irwin test within a short oral rat study; no other endpoints assessed
“No additional safety pharmacology endpoints were assessed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 14Source ↗
CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronically used topical ocular product
“Carcinogenicity No studies were conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 17Source ↗

Orgovyx

relugolix · GnRH receptor
SpeciesVerdict not stated
Rat reproductive and developmental data discounted because of low relugolix affinity for rat GnRH receptors; rabbit EFD used for labeling
Why: Low binding affinity of relugolix to rat receptors
“The limited results noted in rats in reproductive and developmental parameters may be misleading given the low binding affinity of relugolix to rat receptors and thus, these results were not included in the label.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 34Source ↗
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
Knock-in mouse pharmacology studies did not measure LH and FSH decreases, the primary effects of GnRH antagonism
“Unexpectedly, two of the primary effects of antagonism of the GnRH receptor, i.e. decreases in LH and FSH, were not addressed in these studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗

Rasonque

daraxonrasib · RAS(ON) multi-selective
DARTAccepted
Embryo-fetal assessment limited to a dose-range-finding study in mice; no definitive or second-species study
Why: Mouse range-finder showed clear embryo-fetal lethality and teratogenicity; consistent with ICH S9 · Within the guideline
“Consistent with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use S9 guidance, since the dose-range finding (DRF) embryofetal development (EFD) study in mice showed clear evidence of EFD lethality and teratogenicity, the DRF in a single species is deemed sufficient to support marketing and a definitive study is not warranted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 66Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
13-week mouse and monkey studies give safety margins of about 1 based on AUC at the recommended dose
“The safety margins reported for the 13-week repeat-dose toxicology studies in mouse and monkey are approximately 1 based on AUC at the recommended dose.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 48Source ↗

Retevmo

selpercatinib · RET
CarcinogenicityAccepted with a condition
No carcinogenicity studies before approval although MTC patients can live long; rat and mouse studies required postmarketing
Why: Slow-growing MTC follows ICH S9 principles, but prolonged life expectancy warrants carcinogenicity studies after approval · Within the guideline
“however, as the MTC indication includes patients who can have a prolonged life expectancy, FDA has requested carcinogenicity studies for selpercatinib as postmarketing requirements (PMRs).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 66Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 91-day minipig HNSTD/NOAEL (0.2-0.3 times human AUC)
“In the 91-day study in minipig, the HNSTD and NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day (175 mg/m2/day) and exposure at this dose corresponded to approximately 0.2 to 0.3 times the human geometric mean AUC at the recommended clinical dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗

Tukysa

tucatinib · HER2
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: liver and GI toxicity in rats and monkeys at safety margins below 1 (clinically relevant doses)
“Repeat-dose toxicology studies in rats and cynomolgus monkeys showed primarily effects on liver presumably as an adaptive response to enzyme induction and GI at safety margins below 1 i.e. at clinically relevant doses leading to weight loss, dehydration and emesis.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Two human faecal metabolites (M18, M28) not observed in nonclinical species and not characterised
Why: Minor metabolites; advanced cancer indication · Within the guideline · Serious disease
“It appears that two human in vivo metabolites (M18 and M28, accounting for 6.07% and 3.86% of the dose in feces) are not observed in nonclinical species.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗

Ukoniq

umbralisib · PI3Kδ / CK1ε
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rabbit embryo-fetal study exposures only 0.03 to 0.08 times clinical exposure, with high variability and no dose-dependence
“The 30, 100, or 300 mg/kg/day doses resulted in exposures that were 0.03, 0.08, and 0.03 times the exposures at the recommended clinical dose based on AUC. There was high inter-animal variability in the toxicokinetic values in this study within each dose group, reduced exposures at high dose, and lack of dose-dependence in exposures observed in rabbits.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 30Source ↗
Safety marginVerdict not stated
Dog testicular and epididymal toxicity at about 0.1 times human exposure; no margin
“In a repeat-dose toxicology study in dogs, adverse findings in reproductive organs were observed in males and included findings in the testis (decreased weight, tubular degeneration, tubular atrophy) and epididymis (decreased weight, luminal debris) at doses ≥100 mg/kg, which is approximately 0.1 times the human exposure (AUC) at the recommended dose of 800 mg.”
✓ VerifiedUS prescribing informationSource ↗

Vizz

aceclidine · Muscarinic agonist (miotic)
Impurity or metaboliteAccepted
Potential mutagenic drug-substance impurity specified above the default ICH M7 acceptable intake, without impurity-specific safety data
Why: ICH M7 allows a higher acceptable intake for this impurity class · Within the guideline
“However, ICH M7 specifically comments on as a class and states the acceptable intake for this class of impurities could be increased by fold to µg/day”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 91Source ↗
DARTVerdict not stated
Rat pre/postnatal development study without toxicokinetics in dams or offspring
“Toxicokinetics in the dams or nursing F1 offspring were not measured in the study.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 74Source ↗

Wakix

pitolisant · Histamine H3 receptor
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No safety margin in the monkey (convulsions) at the NOAEL, whether based on Cmax or AUC
“Nevertheless, the safety margin based upon the Cmax was still 1 for monkey. Whatever based on Cmax or AUC, there was no safety margin in monkey.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗
GLPVerdict not stated
Toxicokinetic portion of the 6-month rat toxicity study deemed non-GLP compliant; separate GLP 6-month TK study conducted
Why: A subsequent GLP 6-month toxicokinetic study in rats was conducted
“Therefore, the original toxicokinetic analysis was not adjusted, however, the TK portion of the study was deemed non-GLP compliant. A subsequent GLP 6-month TK study (Study no. HHL5000, GLP) in rats was conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 53Source ↗

Adquey

difamilast · PDE4 (topical)
Safety marginVerdict not stated
39-week dermal minipig NOAEL at the maximum feasible dose gave only 0.38x (males) and 0.30x (females) MRHD by AUC
“In a 39-week dermal minipig toxicity study, the NOAEL was the maximum feasible dose (MFD), 3% ointment applied to 10% of BSA, for both males (8.1 mg/kg/day) and females (8.3 mg/kg/day) based on no systemic or local toxicity at the MFD (0.38 times the MRHD for males and 0.30 times the MRHD for females, respectively, based on AUC comparison).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗

Ensacove

ensartinib · ALK
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin for dog skin toxicity: severe skin lesions at exposures approximately equal to clinical AUC at 225 mg/day
“At exposures approximately equal to the clinical exposure based on AUC at 225 mg/day, dogs exhibited severe skin lesions particularly on the ear, which led to dose reduction.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 65Source ↗

Exkivity

mobocertinib · EGFR exon 20 insertion
DARTAccepted
Embryo-fetal development assessed only in a preliminary rat study; no definitive study and no second species
Why: Clear positive rat result at about 1.7 times clinical exposure sufficient to convey developmental risk, consistent with ICH S9 · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Based on the embryolethality observed at 10 mg/kg, a definitive embryo-fetal development study was deemed unnecessary and was not conducted.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 75Source ↗

Lynavoy

linerixibat · IBAT
Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No PBC or cholestatic pruritus model; bile acid excretion in healthy mice and dogs and a rat NEC model instead
Why: No established animal model of PBC
“PBC is a cholestatic liver disease for which animal models have not been established. The Applicant therefore evaluated the ability of linerixibat to decrease serum bile acids and increase fecal excretion of bile acids (resulting from inhibition of enterohepatic recirculation) in healthy mice and dogs and in a rat model of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 38Source ↗

Miplyffa

arimoclomol · Heat-shock response amplifier
Efficacy modelQuestioned
Nonclinical efficacy and mechanism data for arimoclomol alone in patient-derived cells and NPC animal models judged unconvincing
“Given the limitations of the data presented in the Applicant’s resubmission, the data that support the effects of arimoclomol when used alone in patient-derived cells and in animal models of NPC are unconvincing.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 622Source ↗

Rukobia

fostemsavir · HIV-1 gp120 (attachment)
Safety pharmacologyAccepted
No stand-alone CNS or respiratory safety pharmacology studies; assessed within toxicity studies
Why: Per ICH M3(R2); CNS findings only at doses not tolerated in mice and dogs, well above human exposure · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Effects on the central nervous system: Based on ICH M3(R2) guidance, no independent central nervous system (CNS) safety pharmacology studies were conducted for FTR.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗

Tazverik

tazemetostat · EZH2
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No NOAEL in the juvenile rat study: deaths, mostly from malignant lymphoma, even at 50 mg/kg, approximately equal to adult human exposure at 800 mg BID
“Sixteen animals were found dead or euthanized in extremis throughout the study and recovery period and deaths occurred even at the low dose of 50 mg/kg (approximately equal to the adult human exposure at the 800 mg BID dose).”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 33Source ↗

Ubrelvy

ubrogepant · CGRP receptor
CarcinogenicityQuestioned
Mouse 104-week carcinogenicity study inadequate: AUC margin at highest dose below 25-fold the MRHD
“However, the mouse study was not adequate because the safety margin based on AUC at the highest dose tested was less than 25-fold the MRHD.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 11Source ↗

Vivjoa

oteseconazole · Fungal CYP51
Safety marginVerdict not stated
26-week rat NOAEL exposure about 0.2 times the MRHD by AUC
“The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was considered to be 0.5 mg/kg which was associated with a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of 741 ng/mL and an AUC of 14,295 ngꞏhr/mL (about 0.2 times the MRHD based on AUC comparisons).”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 133Source ↗

Xocova

ensitrelvir · SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease
Impurity or metaboliteCriticised but accepted
Eight drug-substance impurities with carcinogenic concern classified as ICH M7 Class 5 on lack of mutagenicity
Why: Sponsor cited ICH M7 and its Q&A; FDA read the guideline differently but agreed with the assessment · Within the guideline
“The Sponsor stated that for the 8 impurities in question, “in accordance with the ICH M7 guideline and its Q&A, substances that have sufficient data demonstrating lack of mutagenicity are classified as Class 5, even if the substances have potential for non-mutagenic carcinogenicity.””
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 57Source ↗

Zavzpret

zavegepant · CGRP receptor
Juvenile toxAccepted with a condition
Juvenile animal toxicology study deferred to a post-marketing requirement to support pediatric development
Why: Needed only for future pediatric development under PREA · Within the guideline
“The nonclinical data support approval of zavegepant for the proposed indication, with appropriate labeling. A PMR for a juvenile animal toxicology study is recommended, under PREA, to support clinical development for treatment of migraine in the pediatric population.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 5Source ↗

Zegfrovy

sunvozertinib · EGFR exon 20 insertion
Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin: persistent ocular toxicity in rats at about 0.8 times the clinical AUC at 200 mg
“Ocular toxicities (hemorrhage of the anterior chamber of the eye) were observed in rats at 35 mg/kg (approximately 0.8 times the clinical AUC at the 200 mg human dose) and persisted through the recovery period.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 33Source ↗

Beqalzi

sonrotoclax · BCL-2
No departure named in the public reviews.

Brenzavvy

bexagliflozin · SGLT2
No departure named in the public reviews.

Dayvigo

lemborexant · Orexin OX1/OX2 receptors
No departure named in the public reviews.

Gemtesa

vibegron · β3-adrenergic receptor
No departure named in the public reviews.

Ohtuvayre

ensifentrine · PDE3/PDE4
No departure named in the public reviews.

Rezlidhia

olutasidenib · IDH1 (mutant)
No departure named in the public reviews.

Sofdra

sofpironium · Muscarinic receptors (topical)
No departure named in the public reviews.

Voquezna

vonoprazan · H+/K+-ATPase (potassium-competitive)
No departure named in the public reviews.

Xenleta

lefamulin · Bacterial ribosome (50S PTC)
No departure named in the public reviews.