CarcinogenicityAccepted with a condition
No completed carcinogenicity studies at submission; rasH2 mouse and 2-year rat studies ongoing, submitted post-approval
Why: Intended patient population allows post-approval submission; no clear warning signals for oncogenicity · Within the guideline · Weight of evidence
“No carcinogenicity studies have been submitted except a dose-range finding transgenic RasH2 study (which did not find any signs of neoplasia).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗ “As the intended patient population allows the option of post-approval submission, and there are no clear warnings signals for oncogenicity, the post-approval submission approach is acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗ Safety pharmacologyAcceptedBeyond the letter
No GLP hERG assay because lenacapavir precipitated in the patch clamp vehicle
Why: No cardiovascular effects in dogs at 20-fold clinical free Cmax; negative human thorough QT study · Human data · Weight of evidence
“As lenacapavir became a suspension at concentrations ≥ 0.1 µM in the DMSO/buffer vehicle used for the patch clamp technique no GLP hERG assay was performed.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗ “As no adverse cardiovascular effects were observed in dogs at exposures 20-fold the clinical free Cmax and a human thorough QT study without significant effects at supratherapeutic doses of lenacapavir is available, the lack of a hERG study is however considered acceptable.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 20Source ↗ OtherCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Toxicology program mostly not run with the exact clinical subcutaneous formulation; several vehicle variations used
Why: All subcutaneous formulations produced more or less the same toxicity findings · Weight of evidence
“It should be noted that the toxicological programme has in most cases not been conducted with the exact clinical formulations - especially the SC formulation (lenacapavir sodium 26.46% [w/w], PEG300 50.13% [w/w] and water) where several variations have been used in the toxicological studies (containing variations of combinations of PEG200, PEG300, P188, ethanol and/or NaOH).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗ “This is considered a weakness but still acceptable as all SC exposure independent of exact formulation generated more or less the same toxicity findings.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 24Source ↗ DARTCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Rat embryofetal study by oral route with low bioavailability; only rabbit achieved higher systemic exposure
Why: Absence of adverse DART signals · Weight of evidence
“With regard to the DART studies, the choice of conducting repeated oral exposure in rat (which has low bioavailability) and IV exposure in rabbit means that, in practice, a setup where only one animal model has achieved a higher systemic exposure (i.e., rabbit).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗ “It is agreed that the there is an absence of adverse DART signals.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 34Source ↗