CarcinogenicityAccepted
No carcinogenicity studies for a chronic non-oncology indication; weight-of-evidence carcinogenicity risk assessment instead
Why: Carcinogenicity risk assessment in line with ICH S6(R1) supports omitting conventional studies · Weight of evidence · Within the guideline
“In line with ICH S6(R1) a carcinogenicity risk assessment has been provided, discussing the relevance and need for in vivo carcinogenicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗ “The applicant did not provide carcinogenicity studies which is supported. The provided carcinogenicity assessment supports the lack of any conventional carcinogenicity studies.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal 26-week monkey study with a single treated dose group, so no dose-response for fertility endpoints
Why: Menstrual cycle changes linked to clinical or group-dynamic causes; no direct effect on female fertility expected · Other reason
“It should however also be noted that only 1 treated group was included in the 26-week study, hence the number of animals exposed was limited, and any dose relationship would not be possible to ascertain.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗ “However, it is agreed that, as the observed changes in menstrual cycling appear to be linked with clinical or group dynamic reasons, any direct effect of rozanolixizumab on female fertility is not expected.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 48Source ↗