GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No in vitro chromosomal aberration test with the major human metabolite M6-SUZ; clastogenicity covered by parent in vivo micronucleus assay
Why: Negative M6-SUZ Ames, negative parent genotoxicity battery and QSAR data · Weight of evidence
“An in vitro chromosomal aberration test was not conducted with M6-SUZ. However, the chromosomal aberration potential of M6-SUZ was assessed through the in vivo micronucleus assay that tested the parent SUZ, which was negative for genotoxicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 139Source ↗ “Together with the negative Ames result of M6-SUZ, negative genetic toxicology battery of SUZ, and in silico quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) data with M6-SUZ, the weight of evidence supported minimal concern for clastogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 140Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Longer-duration monkey studies with few animals and no recovery groups could not adequately assess male reproductive organ weight decreases
Why: Organ weight changes not toxicologically significant and not relevant for the proposed acute indication · Other reason
“Because of the low number of monkeys in the study, the lack of recovery groups, and known variability in male reproductive organ weights in this species, the nonhuman primate data do not provide an ideal model to evaluate the potential risk of SUZ to male reproductive tissues in these longer duration studies.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 139Source ↗ “Therefore, the organ weight changes do not appear to be toxicologically significant and do not appear to have relevance for the proposed acute indication.”
✓ VerifiedFDA integrated review, p. 139Source ↗