GLPCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal repeat-dose toxicity study in rats not GLP-compliant
Why: Study reliable on audit; considerable safe human experience with the vaccine, including infants · Human data
“The Applicant provided a clear justification for the absence of GLP for the pivotal 4-week repeat-dose toxicity study in rats and potential consequences of non-compliance. The study was considered to be reliable without restrictions.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ “Together with availability of considerable human experience with PreHevbri, showing a safe and well-tolerated profile in varying age groups including infants, consistent with these nonclinical toxicity studies, the CHMP agreed that additional GLP-compliant repeat-dose toxicity study with PreHevbri is not necessary.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Main repeat-dose study lacked full-organ histology and reversibility assessment; groups not adequately sized
Why: Considerable human experience showing a safe, well-tolerated profile · Human data
“The CHMP considered that the main repeat-dose toxicity study did not include histology analysis of the full list of organs and tissues or assessment of reversibility of the microscopic changes in selected vital organs, and study groups were not adequately sized.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ “Together with availability of considerable human experience with PreHevbri, showing a safe and well-tolerated profile in varying age groups including infants, consistent with these nonclinical toxicity studies, the CHMP agreed that additional GLP-compliant repeat-dose toxicity study with PreHevbri is not necessary.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Two of three toxicity studies used a non-clinical formulation and dosing regimen; no conclusions could be drawn
Why: Prior clinical experience outside the U.S. for several years · Human data
“In the first two toxicity studies, the dosing regimen did not mimic the proposed trial and the test article was not the intended clinical formulation, therefore no conclusions could be drawn.”
✓ VerifiedFDA summary basis for approval, p. 12Source ↗ “Despite the deficiencies in the general toxicology studies, prior clinical experience with the vaccine outside the U.S. for several years was sufficient to support further development under the U.S. IND.”
✓ VerifiedFDA summary basis for approval, p. 13Source ↗ Safety pharmacologyAccepted
No safety pharmacology, secondary pharmacodynamic or drug interaction studies
Why: In line with applicable regulatory guidelines · Within the guideline
“The omission of secondary pharmacodynamic and safety pharmacology studies and of the pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies are in line with the applicable regulatory guidelines.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ BiodistributionAccepted
No pharmacokinetic studies
Why: Not a new vaccine (antigens described in Ph. Eur.); in accordance with CPMP, WHO and ICH S6 guidelines · Within the guideline · Class precedent
“According to the Applicant, pharmacokinetic studies were not performed or required, as this vaccine is not considered a new vaccine (containing antigens that have been previously described in the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.)).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗ “This is in accordance with relevant regulatory guidelines (CPMP/SWP/465/95, WHO 2005, WHO 2014, ICH S6). Overall, it is supported that no pharmacokinetic studies are warranted with PreHevbri.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 27Source ↗