DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No reproductive toxicity studies; gonadal biodistribution in dogs and primates used instead
Why: No vector in gonads of dogs and primates; limited systemic distribution after subretinal dosing · Weight of evidence
“The CHMP previously gave scientific advice that such studies would not be needed if ‘biodistribution data in two species and two sexes demonstrate lack of vector distribution to the gonads’. The applicant considers its dataset to be in line with this advice from CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗ “Ultimately, no explanation for these errors was identified, but gonadal tissues from 18 animals (dogs and primates) were examined with no positive results, which is reassuring.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗ GenotoxicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No genotoxicity studies; literature-based discussion of AAV integration instead
Why: Integration expected at random sites; retinal pigment epithelium post-mitotic, so insertional mutagenesis risk limited · Pharmacology or kinetics · Weight of evidence
“The position at the conclusion of these was that the applicant need provide no experimental data with voretigene neparvovec and that a discussion could suffice, if judged adequate.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗ “AAV integration requires the cells to be dividing and as a consequence, the risk of insertional mutagenesis seems limited: it would not be further understood by requiring experimental work with voretigene neparvovec.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗ CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No carcinogenicity or tumorigenicity studies
Why: Two-year rodent studies would not contribute meaningful data; vector administered to post-mitotic retinal tissue · Pharmacology or kinetics
“CHMP also advised that in vivo testing in 2-year carcinogenicity studies in mice or rats would not contribute meaningful data to assessing the risk of carcinogenicity.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 21Source ↗ Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No safety pharmacology studies
“Separate safety pharmacology studies were not conducted and are not deemed to be necessary.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 19Source ↗