CarcinogenicityAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
2-year rat carcinogenicity study ongoing at approval; report deferred to post-marketing
Why: Agreed at a pre-submission meeting as a post-marketing commitment
“A long–term rat 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats is ongoing and will be submitted post-marketing. During a Pre-submission meeting held on 17 April 2024, the rapporteur agreed that it is acceptable to submit the report of the 2-year rat carcinogenicity study as a post-marketing commitment.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 35Source ↗ “The Applicant is currently conducting a 104-week carcinogenicity study in Sprague Dawley rats to be submitted as a PMR.”
✓ VerifiedFDA multi-discipline review, p. 39Source ↗ DARTAccepted
No definitive rabbit embryo-fetal study; rabbit dose-range-finding study only
Why: Rabbit maternal toxicity and abortions plus rat teratogenicity; consistent with ICH S5(R3) · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“Based on maternal toxicity and abortions observed at ≥2.5 mg/kg and ≥5 mg/kg, respectively, following administration of vimseltinib in New Zealand White rabbits, and in conjunction with teratogenicity observed in rats at 15 mg/kg/day, a definitive EFD assessment was not conducted in rabbits, consistent with ICH S5(R3) guidance.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 36Source ↗ “The package of developmental and reproductive toxicology studies is considered adequate.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗ Safety marginVerdict not stated
No exposure margin at the 13-week dog NOAEL (free and total vimseltinib)
“It is important to notice that no margins of exposure were observed in the 13-week dog study at NOAEL (for free and total vimseltinib) whereas in rats, margins of exposure were around 4 at NOAEL.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗ Juvenile toxAcceptedBeyond the letter
No juvenile animal studies
Why: Product-specific paediatric waiver for all subsets · Other reason
“The lack of juvenile animal studies is acceptable. The medicinal product has been granted a product-specific waiver for all subsets of the paediatric population.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 43Source ↗ Efficacy modelVerdict not stated
No tenosynovial giant cell tumour animal model; efficacy in the indication rests on clinical data
“However, information on its efficacy in the proposed indication can only be taken from clinical data as no animal models of TGCT were employed in the non-clinical development of vimseltinib.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 44Source ↗