CarcinogenicityAcceptedBeyond the letter
No rodent carcinogenicity study; weight-of-evidence assessment instead
Why: Rodents not pharmacologically relevant; no proliferative or immunotoxicity signals; CDER carcinogenicity committee concurred · Weight of evidence · No relevant species
“Conventional rodent carcinogenicity studies were not conducted for the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of mirikizumab as rodents are not a pharmacologically relevant species. Concurrence has been received from the Executive Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee of CDER that a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study is not needed.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 74Source ↗ “The absence of proliferative signals in repeat dose toxicity studies also supports the lack of carcinogenic potential of mirkizumab as does the absence of any significant immunotoxicity or immunomodulatory activity in these studies. Thus, the applicant’s approach and conclusions are acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
Higher ePPND embryo/fetal loss 26.7% vs 6.7% in concurrent controls
Why: Atypically low concurrent control loss; treated incidence within historical control range · Weight of evidence
“The applicant has argued that the study is confounded by the atypically low level of embryo/fetal loss in the control group and that the levels seen in the mirikizumab treated group are within the bounds of historical control data and hence are not mirikizumab related.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 29Source ↗ “However, incidences of embryo/fetal loss were higher in the treated groups compared to control (6.7% [1 of 15] in controls vs 26.7% [4 of 15] at 300 mg/kg) but were within the range of historical control data.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 66Source ↗