DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicology studies
Why: Low systemic exposure, well-characterised mechanism, median AMD patient age over 70; segment II study needed for a younger population · Pharmacology or kinetics · Other reason
“No reproduction toxicology studies were performed. This was justified by the low systemic exposure of a compound for which the mechanism of action is well characterised during development, and the median age of the AMD-population (over 70 years).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗ “The justifications are considered to be acceptable, but if ranibizumab should be intended in an indication in a younger population, a segment II study is needed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗ Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No formal safety pharmacology studies; endpoints incorporated into repeat-dose toxicity studies
Why: Endpoints in repeat-dose studies; human systemic exposure below levels with meaningful VEGF-related effect; no systemic toxicity at high exposure · Pharmacology or kinetics
“This was justified by the incorporation of safety pharmacology endpoints in repeat-dose toxicity studies, and the human systemic exposure being below levels where any meaningful effect of a VEGF-related activity is expected.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗ “The absence of systemic toxicity at exposure levels highly above maximum clinical exposure (see Toxicology) is further reassuring and the lack of formal safety pharmacology studies is accepted.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 9Source ↗ OtherAcceptedBeyond the letter
No standard systemic toxicology studies; single-dose ocular studies not to current guidelines and MTD not determined
Why: Knowledge of VEGF inhibition plus repeat-dose ocular studies; sufficient systemic safety margins · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“The single dose studies were not according to present guidelines, and the maximum tolerated systemic dose was not determined. It is considered that with the present knowledge of the effects of VEGF-inhibition together with the information from repeat dose ocular toxicity studies, additional studies would not add to the safety evaluation of ranibizumab.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 10Source ↗ “Consequently, from a systemic view-point there are sufficient margins of safety and therefore, the lack of standard systemic toxicology studies is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗ Safety marginCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No ocular NOAEL: all doses tested (0.25-2 mg) caused ocular inflammation
Why: Ocular inflammation in the clinic appears non-serious and easily manageable · Human data
“The NOEL or NOAEL were not identified in any of the studies, since all doses tested (0.25-2 mg) resulted in an ocular inflammation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 11Source ↗ “Furthermore, in the clinic, the ocular inflammation appears to be non-serious and easily manageable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 12Source ↗