SpeciesAccepted
No relevant species: no repeat-dose, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity studies submitted
Why: Absence of suitable animal models · No relevant species · Within the guideline
“Repeated-dose toxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have not been performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 50Source ↗ “The absence of many non-clinical studies is considered acceptable for an antibody, given the absence of suitable animal models.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicity assessed only with the mouse-CD3 surrogate antibody BiLu, considered of limited value; safety assessment relies on clinical data
Why: Lack of a relevant animal model; safety assessment depends on clinical data · No relevant species · Human data
“BiLu may thus not have similar toxicological and dynamic effects in the mouse as catumaxomab has in the human leaving the safety assessment of catumaxomab largely to the clinical studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 14Source ↗ “Due to the lack of a relevant animal model, safety assessment of catumaxomab mainly depend on the clinical safety assessment.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 16Source ↗ Impurity or metaboliteVerdict not stated
No toxicity studies with trace impurities
Why: No animal model permits testing of the full pharmacological activity · No relevant species
“"Since no animal model is available which permits toxicological testing of the full pharmacological activity of catumaxomab, toxicity studies with trace impurities were not performed."”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗ GLPVerdict not stated
Most pharmacokinetic studies not fully GLP-compliant
Why: Studies subjected to quality assurance evaluation
“Although not fully complying with GLP, most pharmacokinetic studies were subjected to quality assurance evaluation.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 15Source ↗