OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No in vivo phototoxicity follow-up after a positive in vitro 3T3 NRU assay, contrary to ICH S10 and CHMP advice
Why: Photosensitivity seen in patients; precautionary measures would remain regardless; similar restrictions for the class · Human data · Class precedent
“The justification is basically that there is no need for a follow up. This statement is in contrast to the ICH S10 Guidance on photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals as well as the advice given by CHMP.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗ “However, it is considered unlikely that the currently proposed precautionary measures would be removed as a consequence of a negative in vivo phototoxicity study since photosensitivity reactions have been observed in 2 patients. Furthermore, similar restrictions are included for substances in the same class.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗ Safety marginVerdict not stated
Exposure margins at rat and dog NOAELs below 1 relative to patient exposure
“The revised margins did not change the conclusion that exposure margins between NOAEL and patient exposures were below 1.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗ Safety marginVerdict not stated
Rat embryo-fetal NOAEL exposure only 0.02 times clinical exposure
“The exposure margin based on AUC at NOAEL in the pivotal embryo-foetal development study in rat vs clinical exposure in humans was 0.02.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 37Source ↗