SpeciesAccepted
Toxicity evaluated in a single species (wild-type mice) only
Why: In accordance with EU gene therapy guidelines · Within the guideline
“The use of a single species for toxicity evaluation is in accordance with the guideline for gene therapy medicinal products EMEA/CHMP/GTWP/587488/2007 and the guideline on the non-clinical studies required before first clinical use of gene therapy”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗ “The use of a single species for toxicity evaluation can be accepted for Glybera.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 26Source ↗ CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo carcinogenicity studies; vector integration analyses and literature review instead
Why: No relevant study design exists for insertional mutagenesis and oncogenicity; integration and literature data do not substantiate a tumourigenicity concern · Weight of evidence
“The applicant argued that there is no existing study design that would be accepted as relevant to assess insertional mutagenesis and the risk of oncogenicity: the validity of any study design is questionable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗ “Overall, the CAT and CHMP finally agreed with the applicant that the data do not substantiate a concern for tumourigenicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 31Source ↗ OtherQuestioned
Nonclinical bridging between plasmid-derived and baculovirus-derived vector used too few mice to be conclusive
“Different batches of AMT-010 were compared and the applicant intended to compare AMT-010 and AMT-011 in bridging studies, but as so few mice were used in each test, the conclusions from these tests very limited.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 23Source ↗ Safety marginVerdict not stated
No margin: progressive dose-related muscle toxicity in mice at the recommended clinical dose
Why: Muscle toxicity shown to be reversible
“There appears to be progressive and dose-related muscle toxicity at the recommended clinical dose. This has been shown to be reversible.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No study with a control AAV to separate LPL overexpression from vector effects in muscle toxicity
Why: Such a study would not remove the evidence of concern · Other reason
“The CAT did not fully agree with the applicant’s justification for lack of further experimental evidence to compare the effect of a control adeno-associated virus and AMT-011 to study the significance of LPL overexpression.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗ “Such a study would however not remove the evidence of concern and therefore was finally not further requested and the issue considered solved.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗