Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margins: NOAEL AUC margins in 4- and 13-week rat and dog studies and rat embryo-fetal study generally below 1
“The AUC exposure margins NOAELs in the 4- and 13-week repeat-dose rat and dog studies, and in the preliminary EFD study in rats were generally below 1 indicating a lack of exposure margins to the adverse effects observed in the non-clinical studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗ RecoveryAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No recovery assessment in the 3-month rat study (reproductive organ findings)
Why: Reversibility shown in the 4-week study; reflected in SmPC section 5.3 · Weight of evidence
“Findings in the uterus, vagina, and estrous cycle observed in the 4-week toxicity study were not observed following a 4-week recovery period. Recovery was not assessed in the 3-month study in rats.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 42Source ↗ “Recovery was not assessed in the 3-month study in rats. This is reflected in SmPC section 5.3.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗ Impurity or metaboliteAcceptedBeyond the letter
Impurity RO7304403 qualified for genotoxicity without testing (inconclusive in silico); RO7304383 qualified by non-GLP Ames only
Why: Structural similarity to inavolisib, no structural alerts, and presence at 1.1% in batches used in genotoxicity studies · Weight of evidence
“For genotoxicity, one impurity RO7304383 was tested in Ames test in a non-GLP study, whereas the other impurity, RO7304403, was investigated in silico analysis of genotoxicity and is considered qualified.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 30Source ↗ “However, considering structural similarity to inavolisib, the absence of structural alerts, as well as the fact that the impurity was present (at 1.1%) in the batch of inavolisib tested in the Ames study and the in vivo genotoxicity study, this impurity is considered qualified for genotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗