SpeciesCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
Pivotal toxicity in neonatal mice only; no adequate safety study in a species closer to human (NHP study non-GLP, low-dose pilot)
Why: Human clinical data available and preferred for defining the safety profile · Human data
“As in mice a dose of ~≥ 2.2 fold the clinical dose results in mortality, a safety study in an animal species more close to human would have been helpful to determine the safety profile of the product in relation to the dose.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗ “As currently human data from clinical studies are available, these data are preferred for determining the safety and efficacy profile of the product.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗ Safety marginAccepted with a conditionBeyond the letter
No margin: liver and ventricle lesions in mice at 0.7- to 1.4-fold the clinical dose; mortality at 2-3-fold
Why: Clinical monitoring of vital organ function and an intervention protocol required · Other reason
“The clinical relevance of the observed Zolgensma related effects in animals, with special attention to occurrence of tissue lesions (primarily liver and ventricle) already found in doses 0.7- to 1.4-fold the clinical dose and the striking mortality in mice at doses 2-3 the clinical dose required discussion.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 39Source ↗ “An appropriate monitoring system for the functionality of vital organs and a functional intervention protocol when (life-threatening) toxic events would occur should be in place.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 40Source ↗ CarcinogenicityCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No genotoxicity, tumorigenicity or vector integration studies
Why: Non-integrative AAV vector; integration expected only to a very low extent · Low-risk modality
“Neither studies on vector integration nor a justification for omission of such studies has been provided in the dossier.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗ “As Zolgensma is a non-integrative vector, it can theoretically integrate into DNA to a very low extent. Consequently, the risk for mutagenic and the tumorigenic potential is regarded to be very limited.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 41Source ↗ BiodistributionCriticised but acceptedBeyond the letter
No germline transmission studies despite low but persistent vector DNA in gonads
Why: SMA1 patients treated at a very young age; further germline studies judged possibly unnecessary · Weight of evidence · Other reason
“The low but persistent levels of vector DNA observed in gonads should have triggered further non-clinical analyses in accordance with the Guideline on non-clinical testing for inadvertent germline transmission of gene transfer vectors (EMEA/273974/2005).”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗ “Based on these considerations and the fact that SMA1 patients are treated at a very young age, it may be acceptable that no further non-clinical studies were conducted on inadvertent germline transmission.”
✓ VerifiedEMA assessment report, p. 42Source ↗ DARTAcceptedBeyond the letter
No developmental and reproductive toxicity, safety pharmacology, genotoxicity or tumorigenicity studies
Why: Not warranted given product characteristics, toxicology results and the target patient population · Low-risk modality · Other reason
“Studies to evaluate the safety pharmacology, developmental and reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity/tumorigenicity of AVXS-101 were not conducted for AVXS-101. These studies were not warranted based on the product characteristics, results from the toxicology studies, and target patient population.”
✓ VerifiedFDA pharmacology/toxicology review, p. 2Source ↗