CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity study for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence assessment using mepolizumab and literature data
Why: Carcinogenicity information available from the mepolizumab program; updated weight of evidence agreed · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“After reviewing the nonclinical data, it was decided that conducting a carcinogenicity study in monkeys for depemokimab would not be necessary. Carcinogenicity information can be taken from the mepolizumab program.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 75Source ↗ “The applicant’s updated weight of evidence is agreed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 56Source ↗ DARTAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No DART studies, including no monkey enhanced pre- and postnatal development study; mepolizumab reproductive data used instead
Why: Monkey ePPND study provides hazard identification only; postmarketing pregnancy safety study (DPSS) required · Class precedent · Weight of evidence
“After reviewing the nonclinical data, it was decided that conducting an enhanced pre- and postnatal development (PPND) study in monkeys would not be necessary as the study only provides hazard identification.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 74Source ↗ “Additionally, based on the prolonged half-life with potential for increased fetal exposure in utero, the lack of pregnancy related nonclinical data for depemokimab, and the potential risk of adverse fetal outcomes with anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies, a PMR to conduct a worldwide DPSS will also be issued.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 31Source ↗ DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
In silico placental-transfer model, calibrated on a mepolizumab ePPND study, used to replace an in vivo study for the YTE-modified antibody
Why: Margins of safety adequate even if fetal concentrations exceed maternal maximal levels up to twofold · Class precedent · Pharmacology or kinetics
“The presented in silico model is intended to replace an in vivo study, it is therefore essential that all underlying assumptions are transparently described, thoroughly justified, and any potential concerns adequately addressed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 57Source ↗ “Even if foetal concentrations were to exceed maternal maximal levels by up to twofold, the margins of safety are considered adequate.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 58Source ↗