CarcinogenicityVerdict not stated
2-year rat carcinogenicity study still ongoing at approval; only the 26-week Tg-rasH2 mouse study completed
“There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the 26-week conducted in f Tg-rasH2 mice. A longer, 2-year carcinogenicity study in Sprague Dawley rats (AS1-GLP18-007), currently ongoing, will be submitted upon its completion.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗ Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No dedicated juvenile animal studies; young monkeys (13 to 17 months old) in the 39-week study used to support adolescents
Why: Monkeys aged 13 to 17 months at study start cover the developmental age of adolescents 12 years and older · Weight of evidence
“Dedicated studies were not conducted in juvenile animals. In the chronic monkey GLP toxicology study, givosiran was administered once weekly at dose levels between 10 and 100 mg/kg for 39 weeks, followed by a 13-week recovery phase.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗ “At initiation of the treatment, monkeys were 13 to 17 months old. Monkeys at 24 to 36 months old are generally considered the corresponding development age of adolescent up to 12 years of age in human.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 47Source ↗ OtherVerdict not stated
Repeat-dose toxicity studies dosed once weekly rather than the once-monthly clinical schedule
“The studies were conducted using the subcutaneous route of administration, which is consistent with the intended clinical route of administration; however, animals were dosed once weekly instead of the once monthly dose schedule used to treat patients.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 27Source ↗ SpeciesVerdict not stated
Rabbit embryo-fetal study conducted in a pharmacologically inactive species (no hepatic ALAS1 knockdown)
“Pharmacodynamics measurement on GD 22 indicated that givosiran did not reduce hepatic ALAS1 transcript levels in pregnant rabbits at any dose level, confirming that givosiran is not pharmacologically active in rabbits.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 28Source ↗