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 ↗ “Accordingly, the applicant plans to defer carcinogenicity studies post-approval as previously agreed with the CHMP (EMA/CHMP/SAWP/545127/2019).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗ 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 ↗ “The absence of a standard battery of developmental and reproductive toxicology studies for the MAA is considered acceptable in accordance with the ICH S5 guideline and earlier CHMP protocol assistance (EMA/CHMP/SAWP/545127/2019).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗ 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 ↗ “Nevertheless, oral vamorolone doses up to 50 mg/kg did not impair cardiovascular and respiratory function in telemetered dogs.”
✓ 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 ↗ “This limits the predictive value of the toxicology programme and has meanwhile been considered in section 5.3 of the SmPC.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗