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 ↗ “Additional combination studies were not conducted due to the disparate toxic dose levels of decitabine and cedazuridine.”
✓ 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 ↗ “The Regulatory Authorities’ Assessment: We agree with the Applicant’s conclusions for the safety pharmacology studies conducted with cedazuridine. We note that no safety pharmacology studies were conducted with ASTX727 or decitabine.”
✓ 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 ↗