INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE

ICH HARMONISED TRIPARTITE GUIDELINE

THE COMMON TECHNICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE

REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE:
SAFETY – M4S(R2)
NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW AND NONCLINICAL SUMMARIES OF
MODULE 2
ORGANISATION OF MODULE 4

Current Step 4 version

dated 20 December 2002

This Guideline has been developed by the appropriate ICH Expert Working
Group and has been subject to consultation by the regulatory parties, in
accordance with the ICH Process. At Step 4 of the Process the final draft is
recommended for adoption to the regulatory bodies of the European Union,
Japan and USA.
 M4S(R2)
Document History
New
First Codification
History Date
Codification November
2005

M4S Approval by the Steering Committee under Step 2 20 M4S

and release for public consultation. July
2000

M4S Approval by the Steering Committee under Step 4 8 M4S

and recommendation for adoption to the three ICH Novembe
regulatory bodies. r 2000

M4S Approval by the Steering Committee of Numbering 12 M4S(R1)

and Section Headers changes for consistency Septemb
directly under Step 4 without further public er 2002
consultation.

Current Step 4 version

M4S Approval by the Steering Committee of a minor 20 M4S(R2)

editorial correction. Decembe
r 2002

In order to facilitate the implementation of the M4S guideline, the ICH Experts have
developed a series of Q&As which can be downloaded from the ICH web site:
[Link]

M4S Questions & Answers History

M4S Q&As Approval by the Steering Committee. 24 M4S Q&As

May
2001

M4S Q&As Approval by the Steering Committee of the newly 12 M4S Q&As
added questions. Septemb (R1)
er 2002

M4S Q&As Approval by the Steering Committee of the newly 6 M4S Q&As
added questions. February (R2)
2003

M4S Q&As Approval by the Steering Committee of the newly 18 M4S Q&As
added questions. July (R3)
2003

Current M4S Questions & Answers posted on the web site

M4S Q&As Approval by the Steering Committee of the newly 11 M4S Q&As
added questions. Novembe (R4)
r 2003
 THE COMMON TECHNICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE
REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE:
SAFETY
NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW AND NONCLINICAL SUMMARIES OF
MODULE 2
ORGANISATION OF MODULE 4
ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline
Having reached Step 4 of the ICH Process at the ICH Steering Committee
meeting
on 9 November 2000, this guideline is recommended for
adoption to the three regulatory parties to ICH
(Numbering and Section Headers have been edited for consistency and use in e-
CTD as agreed at the Washington DC Meeting, September 11-12, 2002)
(This document includes the typographic correction on page 46 : to read point
[Link], agreed by the Steering Committee on 20 December 2002).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MODULE 2 : COMMON TECHNICAL DOCUMENT SUMMARIES............1

General Principles of Nonclinical Overview and Summaries................................1
2.4 NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW.............................................................1
General Aspects .......................................................................................... 1
Content and Structural Format........................................................................... 2
2.6 NONCLINICAL WRITTEN AND TABULATED SUMMARIES..................3
Nonclinical Written Summaries.......................................................................... 3
Introduction................................................................................................. 3
General Presentation Issues.........................................................................4
2.6.1 Introduction....................................................................................... 5
2.6.2 Pharmacology Written Summary........................................................5
[Link] Brief Summary.......................................................................... 5
[Link] Primary Pharmacodynamics......................................................6
[Link] Secondary Pharmacodynamics..................................................6
[Link] Safety Pharmacology.................................................................6
[Link] Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions.........................................6
[Link] Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................6
[Link] Tables and Figures....................................................................6
2.6.3 Pharmacology Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B).........................6
2.6.4 Pharmacokinetics Written Summary...................................................6
[Link] Brief Summary.......................................................................... 7

i
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Methods of Analysis...................................................................7

[Link] Absorption................................................................................. 7
[Link] Distribution............................................................................... 7
[Link] Metabolism (interspecies comparison).......................................7
[Link] Excretion................................................................................... 7
[Link] Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions............................................7
[Link] Other Pharmacokinetic Studies..................................................8
[Link] Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................8
[Link] Tables and Figures....................................................................8
2.6.5 Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B)...................8
2.6.6 Toxicology Written Summary.............................................................8
[Link] Brief Summary.......................................................................... 8
[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity..................................................................9
[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity (including supportive
toxicokinetics evaluation)..........................................................9
[Link] Genotoxicity.............................................................................. 9
[Link] Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)
................................................................................................. 9
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity (including range-
finding studies and supportive toxicokinetics evaluations).......10
[Link] Local Tolerance....................................................................... 10
[Link] Other Toxicity Studies (if available).........................................10
[Link] Discussion and Conclusions.....................................................10
[Link] Tables and Figures..................................................................10
2.6.7 Toxicology Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B)............................10
MODULE 4: NONCLINICAL STUDY REPORTS...................................12
4.1 Table of Contents of Module 4..........................................................12
4.2 Study Reports.................................................................................. 12
4.3 Literature References.......................................................................13
APPENDIX A.....................................................................................14
Examples of Tables and Figures for Written Summaries...................................14
APPENDIX B.....................................................................................22
The Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries - Templates..........................................22
APPENDIX C.....................................................................................71
The Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries - Examples............................................71

ii
 MODULE 2 : COMMON TECHNICAL DOCUMENT SUMMARIES

General Principles of Nonclinical Overview and Summaries

This guideline provides recommendations for the harmonisation of the Nonclinical
Overview, Nonclinical Written Summary, and Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries.
The primary purpose of the Nonclinical Written and Tabulated Summaries should be to
provide a comprehensive factual synopsis of the nonclinical data. The interpretation of
the data, the clinical relevance of the findings, cross-linking with the quality aspects of
the pharmaceutical, and the implications of the nonclinical findings for the safe use of
the pharmaceutical (i.e., as applicable to labeling) should be addressed in the
Overview.

2.4 NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW

The Nonclinical Overview should provide an integrated overall analysis of the
information in the Common Technical Document. In general, the Nonclinical Overview
should not exceed about 30 pages.

General Aspects
The Nonclinical Overview should present an integrated and critical assessment of the
pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicologic evaluation of the pharmaceutical.
Where relevant guidelines on the conduct of studies exist, these should be taken into
consideration, and any deviation from these guidelines should be discussed and
justified. The nonclinical testing strategy should be discussed and justified. There
should be comment on the GLP status of the studies submitted. Any association
between nonclinical findings and the quality characteristics of the human
pharmaceutical, the results of clinical trials, or effects seen with related products
should be indicated, as appropriate.
Except for biotechnology-derived products, an assessment of the impurities and
degradants present in the drug substance and product should be included along with
what is known of their potential pharmacologic and toxicologic effects. This
assessment should form part of the justification for proposed impurity limits in the drug
substance and product, and be appropriately cross-referenced to the quality
documentation. The implications of any differences in the chirality, chemical form, and
impurity profile between the compound used in the nonclinical studies and the product
to be marketed should be discussed. For biotechnology-derived products,
comparability of material used in nonclinical studies, clinical studies, and proposed for
marketing should be assessed. If a drug product includes a novel excipient, an
assessment of the information regarding its safety should be provided.
Relevant scientific literature and the properties of related products should be taken
into account. If detailed references to published scientific literature are to be used in
place of studies conducted by the applicant, this should be supported by an
appropriate justification that reviews the design of the studies and any deviations from
available guidelines. In addition, the availability of information on the quality of
batches of drug substance used in these referenced studies should be discussed.
The Nonclinical Overview should contain appropriate reference citations to the
Tabulated Summaries, in the following format: (Table X.X, Study/Report Number).

1
Content and Structural Format
The Nonclinical Overview should be presented in the following sequence:
Overview of the nonclinical testing strategy
Pharmacology
Pharmacokinetics
Toxicology
Integrated overview and conclusions
List of literature references
Studies conducted to establish the pharmacodynamic effects, the mode of action, and
potential side effects should be evaluated and consideration should be given to the
significance of any issues that arise.
The assessment of the pharmacokinetic, toxicokinetic, and metabolism data should
address the relevance of the analytical methods used, the pharmacokinetic models,
and the derived parameters. It might be appropriate to cross-refer to more detailed
consideration of certain issues within the pharmacology or toxicology studies (e.g.
impact of the disease states, changes in physiology, anti-product antibodies, cross-
species consideration of toxicokinetic data). Inconsistencies in the data should be
discussed. Inter-species comparisons of metabolism and systemic exposure
comparisons in animals and humans (AUC, Cmax, and other appropriate parameters)
should be discussed and the limitations and utility of the nonclinical studies for
prediction of potential adverse effects in humans highlighted.
The onset, severity, and duration of the toxic effects, their dose-dependency and
degree of reversibility (or irreversibility), and species- or gender-related differences
should be evaluated and important features discussed, particularly with regard to:
 pharmacodynamics
 toxic signs
 causes of death
 pathologic findings
 genotoxic activity - the chemical structure of the compound, its mode of action,
and its relationship to known genotoxic compounds
 carcinogenic potential in the context of the chemical structure of the compound,
its relationship to known carcinogens, its genotoxic potential, and the exposure
data
 the carcinogenic risk to humans - if epidemiologic data are available, they should
be taken into account
 fertility, embryofetal development, pre-and post-natal toxicity
 studies in juvenile animals
 the consequences of use before and during pregnancy, during lactation, and
during pediatric development
 local tolerance
 other toxicity studies/ studies to clarify special problems

2
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

The evaluation of toxicology studies should be arranged in a logical order so that all
relevant data elucidating a certain effect / phenomenon are brought together.
Extrapolation of the data from animals to humans should be considered in relation to:
 animal species used
 numbers of animals used
 routes of administration employed
 dosages used
 duration of treatment or of the study
 systemic exposures in the toxicology species at no observed adverse effect
levels and at toxic doses, in relation to the exposures in humans at the
maximum recommended human dose. Tables or figures summarising this
information are recommended.
 the effect of the drug substance observed in nonclinical studies in relation to
that expected or observed in humans
If alternatives to whole-animal experiments are employed, their scientific validity
should be discussed.
The Integrated Overview and Conclusions should clearly define the characteristics of
the human pharmaceutical as demonstrated by the nonclinical studies and arrive at
logical, well-argued conclusions supporting the safety of the product for the intended
clinical use. Taking the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology results into
account, the implications of the nonclinical findings for the safe human use of the
pharmaceutical should be discussed (i.e., as applicable to labeling).

2.6 NONCLINICAL WRITTEN AND TABULATED SUMMARIES

Nonclinical Written Summaries
Introduction
This guideline is intended to assist authors in the preparation of nonclinical
pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology written summaries in an acceptable
format. This guideline is not intended to indicate what studies are required. It merely
indicates an appropriate format for the nonclinical data that have been acquired.
The sequence and content of the Nonclinical Written Summary sections are described
below. It should be emphasised that no guideline can cover all eventualities, and
common sense and a clear focus on the needs of the regulatory authority assessor are
the best guides to constructing an acceptable document. Therefore, applicants can
modify the format if needed to provide the best possible presentation of the
information, in order to facilitate the understanding and evaluation of the results.
Whenever appropriate, age- and gender-related effects should be discussed. Relevant
findings with stereoisomers and/or metabolites should be included, as appropriate.
Consistent use of units throughout the Summaries will facilitate their review. A table
for converting units might also be useful.
In the Discussion and Conclusion sections, information should be integrated across
studies and across species, and exposure in the test animals should be related to
exposure in humans given the maximum intended doses.

3
The Common Technical Document - Safety

General Presentation Issues

Order of Presentation of Information within Sections
When available, in vitro studies should precede in vivo studies.
Where multiple studies of the same type need to be summarised within the
Pharmacokinetics and Toxicology sections, studies should be ordered by species, by
route, and then by duration (shortest duration first).
Species should be ordered as follows:
 Mouse
 Rat
 Hamster
 Other rodent
 Rabbit
 Dog
 Non-human primate
 Other non-rodent mammal
 Non-mammals
Routes of administration should be ordered as follows :
 The intended route for human use
 Oral
 Intravenous
 Intramuscular
 Intraperitoneal
 Subcutaneous
 Inhalation
 Topical
 Other
Use of Tables and Figures
Although the Nonclinical Written Summaries are envisaged to be composed mainly of
text, some information contained within them might be more effectively and/or
concisely communicated through the use of appropriate tables or figures. Examples of
formats that might be included in the Written Summaries are shown in Appendix A.
To allow authors flexibility in defining the optimal structure for the Written Summaries,
tables and figures should preferably be included within the text. Alternatively, they
could be grouped together at the end of each of the Nonclinical Written Summaries.
Throughout the text, reference citations to the Tabulated Summaries should be
included, in the following format: (Table X.X, Study/Report Number).

4
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Length of Nonclinical Written Summaries

Although there is no formal limit to the length of the Nonclinical Written Summaries, it
is recommended that the total length of the three Nonclinical Written Summaries in
general not exceed 100-150 pages.

Sequence of Written Summaries and Tabulated Summaries

The following order is recommended:
 Introduction
 Written Summary of Pharmacology
 Tabulated Summary of Pharmacology
 Written Summary of Pharmacokinetics
 Tabulated Summary of Pharmacokinetcs
 Written Summary of Toxicology
 Tabulated Summary of Toxicology

Content of Nonclinical Written and Tabulated Summaries

2.6.1 Introduction
The aim of this section should be to introduce the reviewer to the pharmaceutical and
to its proposed clinical use. The following key elements should be covered:
 Brief information concerning the pharmaceutical’s structure (preferably, a
structure diagram should be provided) and pharmacologic properties.
 Information concerning the pharmaceutical’s proposed clinical indication, dose,
and duration of use.

2.6.2 Pharmacology Written Summary

Within the Pharmacology Written Summary, the data should be presented in the
following sequence:
 Brief Summary
 Primary Pharmacodynamics
 Secondary Pharmacodynamics
 Safety Pharmacology
 Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions
 Discussion and Conclusions
 Tables and Figures (either here or included in text)

[Link] Brief Summary

The principal findings from the pharmacology studies should be briefly summarized in
approximately 2 to 3 pages. This section should begin with a brief description of the
content of the pharmacologic data package, pointing out any notable aspects such as
the inclusion/exclusion of particular data (e.g., lack of an animal model).

5
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Primary Pharmacodynamics

Studies on primary pharmacodynamics* should be summarised and evaluated. Where
possible, it would be helpful to relate the pharmacology of the drug to available data
(in terms of selectivity, safety, potency, etc.) on other drugs in the class.

[Link] Secondary Pharmacodynamics

Studies on secondary pharmacodynamics* should be summarised by organ system,
where appropriate, and* evaluated in this section.

[Link] Safety Pharmacology

Safety pharmacology studies* should be summarised and evaluated in this section. In
some cases, secondary pharmacodynamic studies can contribute to the safety
evaluation when they predict or assess potential adverse effect(s) in humans. In such
cases, these secondary pharmacodynamic studies should be considered along with
safety pharmacology studies.

[Link] Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions

If they have been performed, pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies should be
briefly summarised in this section.

[Link] Discussion and Conclusions

This section provides an opportunity to discuss the pharmacologic evaluation and to
consider the significance of any issues that arise.

[Link] Tables and Figures

Text tables and figures can be included at appropriate points throughout the summary
within the text. Alternatively, tables and figures can be included at the end of the
summary.

2.6.3 Pharmacology Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B)

2.6.4 Pharmacokinetics Written Summary
The sequence of the Pharmacokinetics Written Summary should be as follows:
 Brief Summary
 Methods of Analysis
 Absorption
 Distribution
 Metabolism
 Excretion
 Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions
 Other Pharmacokinetic Studies
 Discussion and Conclusions
 Tables and Figures (either here or included in text)

*
See ICH Guideline S7, Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals, Note 2. p. 8,
for definitions.
6
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Brief Summary

The principal findings from the pharmacokinetics studies should be briefly summarized
in approximately 2 to 3 pages. This section should begin with a description of the
scope of the pharmacokinetic evaluation, emphasising, for example, whether the
species and strains examined were those used in the pharmacology and toxicology
evaluations, and whether the formulations used were similar or identical.

[Link] Methods of Analysis

This section should contain a brief summary of the methods of analysis for biological
samples, including the detection and quantification limits of an analytical procedure. If
possible, validation data for the analytical method and stability of biological samples
should be discussed in this section. The potential impact of different methods of
analysis on the interpretation of the results should be discussed in the following
relevant sections.

[Link] Absorption
The following data should be summarised in this section:
 Absorption (extent and rate of absorption, in vivo and in situ studies)
 Kinetic parameters, bioequivalence and/or bioavailability (serum/plasma/blood
PK studies)

[Link] Distribution
The following data should be summarised in this section:
 Tissue distribution studies
 Protein binding and distribution in blood cells
 Placental transfer studies

[Link] Metabolism (interspecies comparison)

The following data should be summarised in this section:
 Chemical structures and quantities of metabolites in biological samples
 Possible metabolic pathways
 Pre-systemic metabolism (GI/hepatic first-pass effects)
 In vitro metabolism including P450 studies
 Enzyme induction and inhibition

[Link] Excretion
The following data should be summarised in this section:
 Routes and extent of excretion
 Excretion in milk

[Link] Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions

If they have been performed, nonclinical pharmacokinetic drug-interaction studies (in
vitro and/or in vivo) should be briefly summarised in this section.

7
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Other Pharmacokinetic Studies

If studies have been performed in nonclinical models of disease (e.g., renally impaired
animals), they should be summarised in this section.

[Link] Discussion and Conclusions

This section provides an opportunity to discuss the pharmacokinetic evaluation and to
consider the significance of any issues that arise.

[Link] Tables and Figures

Text tables and figures can be included at appropriate points throughout the summary
within the text. Alternatively, there is the option of including tables and figures at the
end of the summary.

2.6.5 Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B)

2.6.6 Toxicology Written Summary
The sequence of the Toxicology Written Summary should be as follows:
 Brief Summary
 Single-Dose Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genotoxicity
 Carcinogenicity
 Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity
 Studies in Juvenile Animals
 Local Tolerance
 Other Toxicity Studies
 Discussion and Conclusions
 Tables and Figures (either here or included in text)

[Link] Brief Summary

The principal findings from the toxicology studies should be briefly summarized in a
few pages (generally not more than 6). In this section, the extent of the toxicologic
evaluation can be indicated by the use of a table listing the principal toxicologic studies
(results should not be presented in this table), for example:

8
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

TOXICOLOGY PROGRAMME
Study type and Route of Species Compound
duration administration administered*
Single-dose po and iv Rat and mouse Parent drug
toxicity po and iv Rat and mouse Metabolite X
Single-dose
toxicity
Repeat-dose po Rat and dog Parent drug
toxicity po Rat “ “
1 month po Dog “ “
6 months
9 months,
etc.
* This column required only if metabolite(s) are investigated.

The scope of the toxicologic evaluation should be described in relation to the proposed
clinical use. A comment on the GLP status of the studies should be included.

[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity

The single-dose data should be very briefly summarised, in order by species, by route.
In some instances, it may be helpful to provide the data in the form of a table.

[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluation)

Studies should be summarised in order by species, by route, and by duration, giving
brief details of the methodology and highlighting important findings (e.g., nature and
severity of target organ toxicity, dose (exposure)/response relationships, no observed
adverse effect levels, etc.). Non-pivotal studies can be summarized in less detail
(pivotal studies are the definitive GLP studies specified by ICH Guideline M3).

[Link] Genotoxicity
Studies should be briefly summarised in the following order:
 in vitro non-mammalian cell system
 in vitro mammalian cell system
 in vivo mammalian system (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluation)
 other systems

[Link] Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)

A brief rationale should explain why the studies were chosen and the basis for high-
dose selection. Individual studies should be summarised in the following order:
 Long-term studies (in order by species; including range-finding studies that
cannot appropriately be included under repeat-dose toxicity or
pharmacokinetics)
 Short- or medium-term studies (including range-finding studies that cannot
appropriately be included under repeat-dose toxicity or pharmacokinetics)

9
The Common Technical Document - Safety

 Other studies

[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity (including range-finding studies and

supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)
Studies should be summarised in the following order, giving brief details of the
methodology and highlighting important findings:
 Fertility and early embryonic development
 Embryo-fetal development
 Prenatal and postnatal development, including maternal function
 Studies in which the offspring (juvenile animals) are dosed and/or further
evaluated, if such studies have been conducted.
If modified study designs are used, the sub-headings should be modified accordingly.

[Link] Local Tolerance

If local tolerance studies have been performed, they should be summarised in order by
species, by route, and by duration, giving brief details of the methodology and
highlighting important findings.

[Link] Other Toxicity Studies (if available)

If other studies have been performed, they should be summarised. When appropriate,
the rationale for conducting the studies should be provided.
 Antigenicity
 Immunotoxicity
 Mechanistic studies (if not reported elsewhere)
 Dependence
 Studies on metabolites
 Studies on impurities
 Other studies

[Link] Discussion and Conclusions

This section should provide an opportunity to discuss the toxicologic evaluation and the
significance of any issues that arise. Tables or figures summarizing this information
are recommended.

[Link] Tables and Figures

Text tables and figures can be included at appropriate points throughout the summary
within the text. Alternatively, tables and figures can be included at the end of the
summary.

2.6.7 Toxicology Tabulated Summary (see Appendix B)

Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries
It is recommended that summary tables for the nonclinical information in the Common
Technical Document be provided in the format outlined in this Guideline. Applicants

10
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

can modify the format if needed to provide the best possible presentation of the
information and to facilitate the understanding and evaluation of the results.
This Guideline is not intended to indicate what studies are requested, but solely to
advise how to tabulate study results if a study is performed. Applicants might need to
add some items to or delete some items from the cited format where appropriate. One
tabular format can contain results from several studies. Alternatively, it may be
appropriate to cite the data resulting from one study in several tabular formats.
The recommended formats for the tables in the Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries are
provided in Appendices B and C, which follow. Appendix B contains templates for use
in preparation of the tables. The templates are annotated (in italics) to provide
guidance on their preparation. (The italicized information should be deleted when the
tables are prepared.) Appendix C provides examples of the summary tables. The
purpose of the examples is to provide additional guidance on the suggested content
and format of the Tabulated Summaries. However, it is the responsibility of the
applicant to decide on the best possible presentation of the data for each product.
Authors should keep in mind that, in some regions, a review of the Tabulated
Summaries (in conjunction with the Written Summaries) represents the primary review
of the nonclinical information. Presentation of the data in the formats provided as
templates and examples should ensure that a sufficient level of detail is available to
the reviewer and should provide concise overviews of related information.
When a juvenile-animal study has been conducted, it should be tabulated using the
template appropriate for the type of study.
The order of presentation given for the Nonclinical Written Summaries should be
followed for the preparation of the tables for the Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries.

11
The Common Technical Document - Safety

MODULE 4: NONCLINICAL STUDY REPORTS

This guideline presents an agreed format for the organisation of the nonclinical reports
in the Common Technical Document for applications that will be submitted to
Regulatory Authorities. This guideline is not intended to indicate what studies are
required. It merely indicates an appropriate format for the nonclinical data that have
been acquired.
The appropriate location for individual-animal data is in the study report or as an
appendix to the study report.

4.1 Table of Contents of Module 4

A Table of Contents should be provided that lists all of the nonclinical study reports
and gives the location of each study report in the Common Technical Document.

4.2 Study Reports

The study reports should be presented in the following order:
4.2.1 Pharmacology
[Link] Primary Pharmacodynamics
[Link] Secondary Pharmacodynamics
[Link] Safety Pharmacology
[Link] Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions
4.2.2 Pharmacokinetics
[Link] Analytical Methods and Validation Reports (if separate reports are
available)
[Link] Absorption
[Link] Distribution
[Link] Metabolism
4 2.2.5 Excretion
[Link] Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions (nonclinical)
[Link] Other Pharmacokinetic Studies
4.2.3 Toxicology
[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity (in order by species, by route)
[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity (in order by species, by route, by duration;
including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)
[Link] Genotoxicity
[Link].1 In vitro
[Link].2 In vivo (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)
[Link] Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)
[Link].1 Long-term studies (in order by species; including range-
finding studies that cannot appropriately be included under
repeat-dose toxicity or pharmacokinetics)
12
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link].2 Short- or medium-term studies (including range-finding

studies that cannot appropriately be included under repeat-
dose toxicity or pharmacokinetics)
[Link].3 Other studies
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity (including range-finding
studies and supportive toxicokinetics evaluations) (If modified study
designs are used, the following sub-headings should be modified
accordingly.)
[Link].1 Fertility and early embryonic development
[Link].2 Embryo-fetal development
[Link].3 Prenatal and postnatal development, including maternal
function
[Link].4 Studies in which the offspring (juvenile animals) are dosed
and/or further evaluated.
[Link] Local Tolerance
[Link] Other Toxicity Studies (if available)
[Link].1 Antigenicity
[Link].2 Immunotoxicity
[Link].3 Mechanistic studies (if not included elsewhere)
[Link].4 Dependence
[Link].5 Metabolites
[Link].6 Impurities
[Link].7 Other

4.3 Literature References

13
The Common Technical Document - Safety

APPENDIX A

Examples of Tables and Figures for Written Summaries

The tables and figures in Appendix A are presented merely as examples. Applicants
should provide tables and figures using a format appropriate to the product.

Study references should be included in the table or text.

Tables should include statistics, if appropriate.

14
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Table X

Binding of X and its Major Metabolites and Comparators

to Human X2 and X3 Receptors

Compound X2 X2 X3 X3
Ki1(nM) Ki2(nM) Ki1(nM) Ki2(nM)
1 538 2730 691 4550
2 2699 1050 2.0 181
3 578 14.4 141 10400
4 20 100 10.7 7.9
5 2100 3.1 281 28
6 7.5 8.4 44 2.8
7 3.11 3.76 1.94 1.93

Ki1 and Ki2 represent the high and low affinity binding sites respectively (Data from Study Number).

15
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Figure X

Blood pressure following chronic dosing with X to SHRa

Blood pressure following chronic dosing with X to SHR a[ref]. Hypotensive effect of saline i.v. infusion
over 5 min (s) compared to X, 3 mg/kg i.v. infusion to SHR pretreated twice daily with saline, 1 mL/kg
p.o., for 7 (m) or 14 (p) days or X, 25 mg/kg p.o., for 7 ( l) or 14 (n) days. Saline pretreated statistical
significances: p<0.05, all other points after challenge p<0.01. Values represent mean ± s.e.m.
a
SHR= spontaneous hypertensive rat (n=5 per group)

16
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Table X

Model-independent pharmacokinetic parameters for X in mice following single oral doses at 2,

10 and 30 mg/kg [ref]

Parameter Parameter value

(units)
Sex Males Females
Dose 2 10 30 2 10 30
(mg/kg)
Cmax 4.9 20.4 30.7 5.5 12.9 28.6
(ng/mL)
Tmax (h) 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3
AUC0-t 21.6 80.5 267 33.3 80 298
(ng.h/mL)
AUC0-inf 28.3 112 297 40.2 90 327
(ng.h/mL)
Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined in pooled plasma from three animals at each
time

Table X

Excretion of radioactive material following single doses of [ 14C]X to male mice [ref]

Dose (mg/kg)/ Percentage of administered dose

route Urine* Faeces Total+
2.8 i.v. 88.1 ± 7.4 5.5 ± 0.7 93.6 ± 6.9
8.8 p.o. 89.4 ± 4.7 6.9 ± 1.4 95.3 ± 3.4
Excretion was determined over 168 hours after dosing
Values are means ± S.D. (n= 5 for p.o. and 5 for i.v.)
* - includes radioactivity in cage wash (22.1% after p.o. and 21.7% after i.v.)
+ - includes radioactivity in the carcass

17
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Table X
Concentrations of radioactive material in the tissues of male rats after a single intravenous
dose of [14C]X at 1.75 mg/kg [refs]

Tissue Concentration (ng equiv.*/g)

1h 6h 24 h 48 h 72 h
Blood 105 96.6 2.34 2.34 3.65

Plasma 142 175 3.12 ND ND

Adrenals 656 49.2 14.3 9.63 ND

Bone 359 31.5 ND ND ND

marrow

Brain 116 9.37 ND ND ND

Eyes 124 28.9 4.69 ND ND

Fat 490 44.0 10.2 6.25 5.47

Heart 105 26.6 ND ND ND

Kidneys 1280 651 21.6 13.3 9.63

Large 570 2470 39.3 12.0 ND

intestine

Liver 875 380 133 87.7 64.6

Lungs 234 59.1 7.55 ND ND

* - ng of X free base equivalent/g.

N= 5 animals/time point
ND - Not detected

18
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Table X

Excretion of radioactive material following single doses of [ 14C]X to male rats [refs]

Dose (mg/kg)/ Percentage of administered dose

route Urine Faeces Bile Total
1.75 i.v. 61.3 ± 9.3 30.3 ± 4.1 - 95.2 ± 5.0
1.75 p.o. 57.4 ± 3.8 37.0 ± 3.4 - 95.2 ± 1.5
2 p.o. 72.3 ± 0.8 26.9 ± 1.9 - 99.5 ± 1.1
20 p.o. 23.5 ± 6.3 0.5 ± 0.2 76.0 ± 5.9 100 ± 0.8
220 p.o. 67.1 ± 9.0 24.8 ± 5.0 - 93.3 ± 6.8
Excretion was determined over 168 h period in Wistar rats:Values are means ± S.D.
(n=5); - not assayed; Total includes radioactivity in the carcass and cage washings

19
 Table X

Comparative pharmacokinetic data and systemic exposure to X following oral administration to mice, rats, dogs and
patients [ref]

Species (formulation) Dose (mg/kg/day) Systemic (plasma) exposure References

Cmax AUC (ng.h/mL)#
(ng/mL)
Man (tablet) 0.48$ 36.7 557 X
Mouse (solution) 8.8 68.9 (1.9)* 72.7 (0.2)* Y
21.9 267 (7.3)* 207 (0.5)*
43.8 430 (11.7)* 325 (0.7)*
Rat (solution) 50 479 (13.0)* 1580 (2.8)* Z
Dogs (solution) 1.5 5.58 (0.2)* 15.9 (<0.1)* V
5 24.8 (0.7)* 69.3 (0.1)*
15 184 (5.0)* 511 (0.9)*
Data presented are for male and female animals and are after daily repeated oral administration (at the end of the 60-day mouse
study, 14 day rat study, and 1 year dog study). Data for man are extrapolated from dose normalised data obtained in male and
female patients following t.i.d regimen.
# - AUC0-6 in the mouse, AUC0-t in the rat and in the dog and dose normalised AUC0-t x 24 in man. $ - calculated from the
total daily dose assuming a bodyweight of 50 kg for man. * - Numbers in parentheses represent ratios of exposure in animals to
those in patients

20
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Table X

Incidence of Proliferative Interstitial (Leydig) Cell Lesions in Rats [ref]

Dose Groups

Lesion Control 3 mg/kg 30 mg/kg 100 mg/kg

Hyperplasia x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%)
(only)
Adenoma x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%)
(only)
Adenoma + x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50(%) x/50 (%)
Hyperplasia
Total* x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%) x/50 (%)

* Adenoma and/or Hyperplasia

21
The Common Technical Document - Safety

APPENDIX B

The Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries - Templates

22
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

The Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries – Templates

2.6.3 Pharmacology
[Link] Pharmacology: Overview
[Link] Primary Pharmacodynamics*
[Link] Secondary Pharmacodynamics*
[Link] Safety Pharmacology
[Link] Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions*

2.6.5 Pharmacokinetics
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Overview
[Link] Analytical Methods and Validation Reports*
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Absorption after a Single Dose
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Absorption after Repeated Doses
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Organ Distribution
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Plasma Protein Binding
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Study in Pregnant or Nursing Animals
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Other Distribution Study
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Metabolism In Vivo
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Metabolism In Vitro
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Possible Metabolic Pathways
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Induction/Inhibition of Drug-Metabolizing
Enzymes
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion into Bile
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Drug-Drug Interactions
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Other

2.6.7 Toxicology
[Link] Toxicology: Overview
[Link] Toxicokinetics: Overview of Toxicokinetics Studies
[Link] Toxicokinetics: Overview of Toxicokinetics Data
[Link] Toxicology: Drug Substance
[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity

23
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity: Non-Pivotal Studies

[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity: Pivotal Studies
[Link] Genotoxicity: In Vitro
[Link] Genotoxicity: In Vivo
[Link] Carcinogenicity
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity: Non-Pivotal Studies
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity – Fertility and Early
Embryonic Development to Implantation (Pivotal)
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity – Effects on Embryo-
Fetal Development (Pivotal)
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity – Effects on Pre- and
Postnatal Development, Including Maternal Function (Pivotal)
[Link] Studies in Juvenile Animalsa
[Link] Local Tolerance
[Link] Other Toxicity Studies

* : Tabulated Summary is optional. It is preferable to include text tables and figures

with the Nonclinical Written Summary.
a
: When a juvenile animal study has been conducted, it should be tabulated
using the template appropriate for the type of study and located in
Section [Link].

24
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacology Overview Test Article: (1)

Test Method of Testing Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Facility Number(4) Vol. Section
Primary Pharmacodynamics (3)
(2)
Secondary Pharmacodynamics

Safety Pharmacology

Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN)

(2) There should be one line for each pharmacology report, in the same order as the CTD. Reports that contain a GLP Compliance
Statement should be identified in a footnote.
(3) The location of the Technical Report in the CTD should be indicated.
(4) Or Report Number (on all tables).

25
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Safety Pharmacology(1) Test Article: (2)

Organ Gender
Systems Species/ Method of Dosesa and No. GLP Study
Evaluated Strain Admin. (mg/kg) per Group Noteworthy Findings Compliance Number(3)

Notes: (1) All safety-pharmacology studies should be summarized.

(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).
(3) Or Report Number (on all tables).
a - Single dose unless specified otherwise.

26
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics Overview Test Article: (1)

Test Method of Testing Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Facility Number Vol.
Section
(3)
Absorption
(2)
Distribution

Metabolism

Excretion

Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions

Other

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) There should be one line for each pharmacokinetics report, in the same order as the CTD. Reports that contain a GLP Compliance
Statement should be identified in a footnote.
(3) The location of the Technical Report in the CTD should be indicated.

27
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Absorption after a Single Dose Test Article: (1)

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.
Species __________ __________ __________ __________ _________
Gender (M/F) / Number of animals (4)
Feeding condition
Vehicle/Formulation
Method of Administration
Dose (mg/kg)
Sample (Whole blood, plasma, serum etc.)
Analyte
Assay (2)
PK parameters:

Additional Information: (3)

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) For example, HPLC, LSC with 14C-labeled compound.
(3) For example, brief textual results, species differences, gender differences, dose dependency, or special comments.
(4) There should be one column for each study conducted. For comparison, representative information on humans at the
maximum recommended dose should be included.

28
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Absorption after Repeated Doses Test Article:

[Data may be tabulated as in the format of [Link] if applicable.]

29
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Format A

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Organ Distribution Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.
Species:
Gender (M/F)/Number of animals:
Feeding condition:
Vehicle/Formulation:
Method of Administration:
Dose (mg/kg):
Radionuclide:
Specific Activity:
Sampling time:
Concentration (unit)
Tissues/organs T(1) T(2) T(3) T(4) T(5) t1/2?

Additional information:

30
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Alternate Format B

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Organ Distribution Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.
Species:
Gender (M/F) / Number of animals:
Feeding condition:
Vehicle/Formulation:
Method of Administration:
Dose (mg/kg):
Radionuclide:
Specific Activity:
Analyte/Assay (unit):
Sampling time:
Ct Last time-point
Tissues/organs conc. T/P1) conc. T/P1) Time AUC t1/2?

Additional information:

1)
[Tissue]/[Plasma]

31
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Plasma Protein Binding Test Article:

Study system:
Target entity, Test system and method:
Study Location in CTD
Species Conc. tested % Bound No. Vol. Section

Additional Information:

32
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Study in Pregnant or Nursing Animals (1) Test Article: (2)
Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Placental transfer Study No.
Species:
Gestation day / Number of animals:
Vehicle/Formulation:
Method of Administration:
Dose (mg/kg):
Analyte:
Assay:
Time (hr) __________ _________ _________ __________ __________
Concentration / Amount (% of dose)
Dam (3):
Fetus (3):
Additional Information:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section

Excretion into milk Study No.
Species:
Lactating date / Number of animals:
Feeding condition:
Vehicle/Formulation:
Method of Administration:
Dose (mg/kg):
Analyte:
Assay:
Time [hr] __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
Concentration:
Milk:
Plasma:
Milk / plasma:
Neonates:
Additional Information:

33
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Notes for Table [Link]

(1) Even if the data are obtained in reproduction toxicology studies, they should be presented in this table.
(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).
(3) The tissue sampled should be described; e.g., plasma for dams, fetal concentrations.

34
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Other Distribution Study Test Article:

35
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Metabolism In Vivo Test Article:

Gender(M/F) / Number of animals:

Feeding condition:
Vehicle/Formulation:
Method of Administration:
Dose (mg/kg):
Radionuclide:
Specific Activity:

% of Compound in Sample Location in CTD

Sampling Time % of Dose Study
Species Sample or Period in Sample Parent M1 M2 No. Vol Section

Plasma
Urine
Bile
Feces

Plasma
Urine
Bile
Feces

Plasma
Urine
Bile
Feces

Additional Information:

Note: Human data should be included for comparison, if available.

36
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Metabolism In Vitro Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.
Study system:

Time __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

Concentration:
Compounds
Parent
M-1
M-2

Additional Information:

Note: Human data should be included for comparison, if available.

37
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Possible Metabolic Pathways Test Article:

(Illustrate possible metabolic map indicating species in which metabolic reactions occur.)

38
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Induction/Inhibition of Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.

Note: Nonclinical studies only.

Type of study:

Method:

Tabulated results:

Additional Information:

39
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion Test Article: (1)

Species __________ __________ __________ _________

Gender (M/F) / Number of animals (3)
Feeding condition
Vehicle/Formulation
Method of Administration
Dose (mg/kg)
Analyte
Assay
Excretion route (4) Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total
Time
0 - T hr

Study number
Location in CTD

40
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Additional Information: (2)

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) For example, brief textual results, species differences, gender differences, dose dependency, or special comments.
(3) There should be one column for each study conducted. For comparison, representative information on humans at the maximum
recommended dose should be included. May be combined with the Absorption Table, if appropriate.
(4) Other routes (e.g., biliary, respiratory) should be added, if performed.

41
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion into Bile Test Article:

[Data may be tabulated as in the format of [Link] if applicable.]

42
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Drug-Drug Interactions Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.

Type of study:

Method:

Tabulated results:

Additional Information:

43
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Other Test Article:

Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Study No.

Type of study:

Method:

Tabulated results:

Additional Information:

44
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Toxicology Overview Test Article: (1)

Species and Method of Duration GLP Testing Study Location

Type of Study Strain Administration of Dosing Doses (mg/kga) Complianc Facility Number Vol.
e Section

Single-Dose (2) (3)

Toxicity
Repeat-Dose
Toxicity
Genotoxicity
Carcinogenicity
Reproductive and
Developmental
Toxicity
Local Tolerance
Other
Toxicity Studies

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) There should be one line for each toxicology report, in the same order as the CTD.
(3) The location of the Technical Report in the CTD should be indicated.

a - Unless otherwise specified. For Repeat-Dose Toxicity, the highest NOAEL (No Observed Adverse-Effect Level) is underlined.

45
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Toxicokinetics Overview of Toxicokinetics Studies Test Article: (1)

Test Method of GLP Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Doses (mg/kg) Compliance Number Vol.
Section
(2) (3)

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) There should be one line for each toxicokinetics report, in the same order as the CTD (Section 3, Toxicology).
(3) The location of the Technical Report in the CTD should be indicated.

46
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Toxicokinetics Overview of Toxicokinetics Data Test Article: (1)

(2)

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) A one- to three-page summary (tables and/or figures) of steady-state toxicokinetic data should be prepared in a format that facilitates
comparisons across species, including humans.

47
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Toxicology Drug Substance Test Article: (1)

Study
Batch No. Purity (%) Specified Impurities ( ) Number Type of Study
PROPOSED
SPECIFICATION:
(2) (3)

Notes: (1) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(2) All batches used in the Toxicology studies should be listed, in approximate chronological order.
(3) The Toxicology studies in which each batch was used should be identified.

48
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity (1) Test Article: (2)

Method of Observed
Administration Gender Maximum Non- Approximate
Species/ (Vehicle/ Doses and No. Lethal Dose Lethal Study
Strain Formulation) (mg/kg) per Group (mg/kg) Dose (mg/kg) Noteworthy Findings Number

Notes: (1) All single-dose toxicity studies should be summarized, in the same order as the CTD. Footnotes should be used to indicate special
features, such as unusual duration, infusion rate, or age of test subjects.
(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

49
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity Non-Pivotal Studies (1) Test Article: (2)

Method of
Administratio Gender
Species/ n Duration Doses and No. NOAELa Study
Strain (Vehicle/ of Dosing (mg/kg) per Group (mg/kg) Noteworthy Findings Number
Formulation)

Notes: (1) All repeat-dose toxicity studies (including all range-finding toxicity studies), other than the definitive GLP studies specified by ICH
Guideline M3, should be summarized, in the same order as the CTD. Footnotes should be used to indicate special features, such as
unusual age of test subjects.
(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

________
a - No Observed Adverse-Effect Level.

50
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Repeat-Dose Toxicity (2) Report Title: Test Article: (3)

Species/Strain: Duration of Dosing: Study No.

Initial Age: Duration of Postdose: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Date of First Dose: Method of Administration:
Vehicle/Formulation: GLP Compliance:
Special Features:
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Number of Animals M: F: M: F: M: F: M: F:
Toxicokinetics: AUC ( ) (4) (5)
Noteworthy Findings
Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Body Weight (%a)
Food Consumption (%a) (5)
Water Consumption ( ) (5)
Clinical Observations
Ophthalmoscopy
Electrocardiography

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++ Moderate +++ Marked (6)

(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of dosing period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

51
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Repeat-Dose Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Number of Animals M: F: M: F: M: F: M: F:
Hematology
Serum Chemistry
Urinalysis
Organ Weightsa (%)
Gross Pathology
Histopathology
Additional Examinations
Postdose Evaluation:
Number Evaluated
(8)

- No noteworthy findings.
(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - Both absolute and relative weights differed from controls in the direction indicated. Number indicates percent difference for the absolute organ
weights.

52
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

Notes for Table [Link]

(1) The tables should be numbered consecutively: 2.6.7.7A, 2.6.7.7B, 2.6.7.7C etc.

(2) There should be one table for each of the repeat-dose toxicity studies specified by ICH Guideline M3, as well as any other repeat-dose toxicity
studies that could be considered pivotal.

(3) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(4) Steady-state AUC, Cmax, Css, or other toxicokinetic information supporting the study. If from a separate study, the Study Number should be
given in a footnote.

(5) ONLY NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS SHOULD BE PRESENTED. If additional parameters (other than those in the Template) showed noteworthy
changes, these should be added to the tables. In general, data at end of dosing period can be shown; however, if there were additional
noteworthy findings at earlier timepoints, these should be included. Footnotes should be used as needed to provide additional information about
the tests or the results.

(6) Or other scale, as appropriate.

(7) Methods of statistical analyses should be indicated.

(8) All parameters that still show drug-related changes should be listed. This section should be deleted if the study does not include a Postdose
Evaluation.

(9) When appropriate, information on animals that were necropsied early should be presented separately.

53
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Genotoxicity: In Vitro Report Title: Test Article: (2)

Test for Induction of: No. of Independent Assays: Study No.

Strains: No. of Replicate Cultures: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Metabolizing System: No. of Cells Analyzed/Culture:
Vehicles: For Test Article: For Positive Controls: GLP Compliance:
Treatment: Date of Treatment:
Cytotoxic Effects:
Genotoxic Effects:

Concentration or
Metabolic Test Dose Level
Activation Article ( (3) ) _____________ _____________ _____________ ____________ _____________
Without
Activation

(4)
With
Activation

Notes: (1) The tables should be numbered consecutively: 2.6.7.8A, 2.6.7.8B, etc. Results of replicate assays should be shown on subsequent
pages.
(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).
(3) Units should be inserted.
(4) If precipitation is observed, this should be inserted in a footnote.
(5) Methods of statistical analyses should be indicated.

(5) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

54
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Genotoxicity: In Vivo Report Title: Test Article: (2)

Test for Induction of: Treatment Schedule: Study No.

Species/Strain: Sampling Time: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Age: Method of Administration:
Cells Evaluated: Vehicle/Formulation: GLP Compliance:
No. of Cells Analyzed/Animal: Date of Dosing:
Special Features:
Toxic/Cytotoxic Effects:
Genotoxic Effects:
Evidence of Exposure:

Dose No. of
Test Article (mg/kg) Animals ______________ ______________ ______________ _____________

Notes: (1) The tables should be numbered consecutively: 2.6.7.9A, 2.6.7.9B, etc.
(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).
(3) Methods of statistical analysis should be indicated.

(3) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01).

55
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1)Carcinogenicity Report Title: Test Article: (2)

Species/Strain: Duration of Dosing: Study No.

Initial Age: Method of Administration: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Date of First Dose: Vehicle/Formulation:
Treatment of Controls: GLP Compliance:
Basis for High-Dose Selection: (3)
Special Features:

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Gender M F M F M F M F
Toxicokinetics: AUC ( ) (4)
Number of Animals
At Start
Died/Sacrificed Moribund
Terminal Sacrifice
Survival (%) (5)
Body Weight (%a)
Food Consumption (%a)

(6) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

a - At 6 months. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical significance is
based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

56
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Carcinogenicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) (Control) 0 (Control)

Number Evaluated M: F: M: F: M: F: M: F: M: F:
Number of Animals
with Neoplastic Lesions:
(7)
Noteworthy Findings:
Gross Pathology
Histopathology - Non-Neoplastic
Lesions

- No noteworthy findings.
* - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

57
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Notes for Table [Link].

(1) Tables should be numbered consecutively: 2.6.7.10A, 2.6.7.10B, , etc. There should be one table for each carcinogenicity study.

(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(3) From ICH Guideline S1C.

(4) Steady-state AUC, Cmax, Css, or other toxicokinetic information supporting the study. If the information is from a separate study, the Study
Number should be given in a footnote.

(5) If additional parameters showed drug-related changes, these should be added to the tables. Footnotes should be used as needed to provide
additional information about the tests or the results.

(6) Methods of statistical analysis should be indicated.

(7) Drug-related lesions should be listed first. Then other lesions should be listed by alphabetically ordered organs/tissues.

58
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Non-Pivotal Studies (1) Test Article: (2)

Method of
Administration
Species/ (Vehicle/ Dosing Doses Study
Strain Formulation) Period mg/kg No. per Group Noteworthy Findings Number

Notes: (1) All reproduction toxicity studies (including all relevant range-finding studies) other than the definitive GLP studies specified by ICH
Guideline M3 should be summarized, in the same order as the CTD. However, investigative studies should be summarized using a more
detailed template.
(2)International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

59
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title : Test Article: (2)
Fertility and Early Embryonic
Development to Implantation (3)
Design similar to ICH 4.1.1? Duration of Dosing: M: Study No.
Species/Strain: Day of Mating: (8) F: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Initial Age: Day of C-Section:
Date of First Dose: Method of Administration: GLP Compliance:
Special Features: Vehicle/Formulation:
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:
F0 Males:
F0 Females:
F1 Litters:

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Males Toxicokinetics: AUC ( ) (4)

No. Evaluated
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Body Weight (%a)
Food Consumption (%a)
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating
No. of Males that Mated
No. of Fertile Males (5)

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6)

(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - After 4 weeks of dosing. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

60
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Females Toxicokinetics: AUC ( ) (4)

No. Evaluated
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Premating Body Weight (%a)
Gestation Body Weight (%a)
Premating Food Consumption (%a)
Gestation Food Consumption (%a)
Mean No. Estrous Cycles/14 days
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating
No. of Females Sperm-Positive
No. of Pregnant Females
No. Aborted or with Total Resorption of Litter
Mean No. Corpora Lutea
Mean No. Implantations
Mean % Preimplantation Loss
Mean No. Live Conceptuses
Mean No. Resorptions
No. Dead Conceptuses
Mean % Postimplantation Loss

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6)

(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of premating or gestation period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).

61
The Common Technical Document - Safety

Notes for Tables [Link], [Link] and [Link]

(1) If there are multiple studies of this type, the tables should be numbered consecutively: 2.6.7.12A, 2.6.7.12B, 2.6.7.13A, 2.6.7.13B, etc.

(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

(3) If a modified study design is used, tables should be modified accordingly.

(4) Steady-state AUC, Cmax, or other toxicokinetic information supporting the study. If the information is from a separate study, the Study Number
should be given in a footnote.

(5) POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS OF THE RESULTS ARE SHOWN IN THESE TEMPLATES. DATA PRESENTATION SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE
AND APPROPRIATE ACCORDING TO OPTIMAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY. If additional parameters
showed drug-related changes, these should be added to the tables. Footnotes should be used as needed to provide additional information about
the tests or the results.

(6) Or other scale as appropriate.

(7) Methods of statistical analysis should be indicated.

(8) Day of mating should be indicated; e.g., Day 0 or Day 1

62
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title: Test Article: (2)
Effects on Embryo-Fetal
Development (3)
Design similar to ICH 4.1.3? Duration of Dosing: Study No.
Day of Mating: (8)
Species/Strain: Day of C-Section: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Initial Age: Method of Administration:
Date of First Dose: Vehicle/Formulation: GLP Compliance:
Special Features:
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:
F0 Females:
F1 Litters:

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Dams/Does: Toxicokinetics: AUC () (4)

No. Pregnant
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund (5)
No. Aborted or with Total Resorption of Litter
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Body Weight (%a)
Food Consumption (%a)
Mean No. Corpora Lutea
Mean No. Implantations
Mean % Preimplantation Loss

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6) G = Gestation day

(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of dosing period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences). (Continued)

63
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

Litters: No. Litters Evaluated
No. Live Fetuses
Mean No. Resorptions
No. of Litters with Dead Fetuses
Mean % Postimplantation Loss
Mean Fetal Body Weight (g)
Fetal Sex Ratios
Fetal Anomalies:
Gross External

Visceral Anomalies
Skeletal Anomalies
Total Affected Fetuses (Litters)

- No noteworthy findings.
* - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

64
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title: Test Article: (2)
Effects on Pre- and Postnatal
Development, Including Maternal Function (3)
Design similar to ICH 4.1.2? Duration of Dosing: Study No.
Day of Mating: (8)
Species/Strain: Method of Administration: Location in CTD: Vol. Section
Initial Age Vehicle/Formulation:
Date of First Dose: Litters Culled/Not Culled: GLP Compliance:
Special Features:
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:
F0 Females:
F1 Males:
F1 Females:

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

F0 Females: Toxicokinetics: AUC ( ) (4)

No. Pregnant
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
No. Aborted or with Total Res. Of Litter
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations (5)
Gestation Body Weight (%a)
Lactation Body Weight (%a)
Gestation Food Consumption (%a)
Lactation Food Consumption (%a)
Mean Duration of Gestation (days)
Abnormal Parturition

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6) G = Gestation day

(7) * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01) L = Lactation day
a - At end of gestation or lactation. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences). (Continued)

65
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

F1 Litters: No. Litters Evaluated
(Preweaning) Mean No. of Implantations
Mean No. Pups/Litter
Mean No. Liveborn Pups/Litter
No. of Litters with Stillborn Pups
Postnatal Survival to Day 4
Postnatal Survival to Weaning
No. of Total Litter Losses
Change in Pup Body Weightsa (g)
Pup Sex Ratios
Pup Clinical Signs
Pup Necropsy Obs.

F1 Males: No. Evaluated Postweaning

(Postweaning) Per Litter
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Body-Weight Changeb (g)
Food Consumption (%c)
Preputial Separation
Sensory Function
Motor Activity
Learning and Memory
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating
No. of Males that Mated
No. of Fertile Males
- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6)
(7)* - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - From birth to weaning.
b - From weaning to mating.
c - At end of postweaning period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).

66
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

F1 Females: No. Evaluated Postweaning
(Postweaning) No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Premating Body-Weight Changea (g)
Gestation Body-Weight Change (g)
Premating Food Consumption (%b)
Gestation Food Consumption (%b)
Mean Age of Vaginal Patency (days)
Sensory Function
Motor Activity
Learning and Memory
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating
No. of Females Sperm-Positive
No. of Pregnant Females
Mean No. Corpora Lutea
Mean No. Implantations
Mean % Preimplantation Loss

F2 Litters: Mean No. Live Conceptuses/Litter

Mean No. Resorptions
No. of Litter with Dead Conceptuses
No. Dead Conceptuses
Mean % Postimplantation Loss
Fetal Body Weights (g)
Fetal Sex Ratios (% males)
Fetal Anomalies
- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6)
(7)* - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - From weaning to mating
b - At end of premating or gestation period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).

67
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] (1) Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control)

F1 Females: No. Evaluated Postweaning
(Postweaning) No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund
Clinical Observations
Necropsy Observations
Premating Body-Weight Changea (g)
Gestation Body-Weight Change (g)
Premating Food Consumption (%b)
Gestation Food Consumption (%ab) Note: Alternate
Mean Age of Vaginal Patency (days) Format for
Sensory Function Natural Parturition.
Motor Activity
Learning and Memory
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating
No. of Females Sperm-Positive
No. of Pregnant Females
Mean Duration of Gestation
Abnormal Parturition

F2 Litters: No. Litters Evaluated

Mean No. of Implantations
Mean No. Pups/Litter
Mean No. Liveborn Pups/Litter
Mean No. Stillborn Pups/Litter
Postnatal Survival to Day 4
Postnatal Survival to Weaning
Change in Pup Body Weightsa (g)
Pup Sex Ratios
Pup Clinical Signs
Pup Necropsy Obs.
- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked (6)
(7)* - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - From birth to mating.
b - At end of premating or gestation period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).

68
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Local Tolerance (1) Test Article: (2)

Species/ Method of Doses Gender and Study

Strain Administration (mg/kg) No. per Group Noteworthy Findings Number

Notes: (1) All local-tolerance studies should be summarized.

(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

69
The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Other Toxicity Studies (1) Test Article: (2)

Species/ Method of Duration Doses Gender and Study

Strain Administratio of Dosing (mg/kg) No. per Group Noteworthy Findings Number
n

Notes: (1) All supplementary toxicity studies should be summarized.

(2) International Nonproprietary Name (INN).

70
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

APPENDIX C

The Nonclinical Tabulated Summaries - Examples

71
The Common Technical Document - Safety

EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacology Overview Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Test Method of Testing Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Facility Number Vol. Section
1.1 Primary Pharmacodynamics
Antiviral activity vs. VZV Human embryonic lung In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95401 1
Antiviral activity vs. VZV fibroblasts In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95402 1
Antiviral activity vs. HSV Clinical isolates In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95406 1
Antiviral activity vs. CMV Human embryonic lung In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95408 1
Antiviral activity vs. VZV fibroblasts Gavage Sponsor Inc. 95411 1
Antiviral activity vs. SVV Human embryonic lung Nasogastric Sponsor Inc. 95420 1
fibroblasts Intubation
ICR mice
African Green monkeys
Secondary Pharmacodynamics
Antimicrobial activity Gram-positive and gram- In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95602 1
negative bacteria; yeasts
Safety Pharmacology
Effects on central nervous systema Mice, rats, rabbits, and cats Gavage Sponsor Inc. 95703 2
Effects on cardiovascular system Dogs Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 95706 2

Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions

Interactions with anti-HIV activity of AZT Human T lymphocytes In vitro Sponsor Inc. 95425 2

a - Report contains a GLP Compliance Statement.

72
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Safety Pharmacology Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Organ Gender
Systems Species/ Method of Dosesa and No. GLP Study
Evaluated Strain Admin. (mg/kg) per Group Noteworthy Findings Compliance Number
CNS CD-1 Mice Gavage 0, 10, 50, 10M Slight prolongation of hexobarbital Yes 92201
250 anesthesia (10 mg/kg). No analgesic,
anticonvulsive, or cataleptic properties.
No effects on coordination, traction, or
spontaneous motility.
Renal, GI, CNS, CD-1 Mice Gavage 0, 10, 50, 6M Slight increases in urinary excretion of No 92205
and Hemostasis 250 sodium and potassium (50 mg/kg). No
effects on GI transit time (charcoal meal),
pupillary diameter, blood coagulation time,
or urine volume.
Cardiovascular Mongrel Intravenous 0, 3, 10, 30 3M Dose-related transient decreases in blood Yes 92210
Dogs pressure and increases in heart rate and
respiratory rate (all doses). Minor ECG
changes at 30 mg/kg. No effects on
cardiac output, stroke volume, or total
peripheral resistance.

a - Single dose unless specified otherwise.

73
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Pharmacokinetics Overview Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Test Method of Testing Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Facility Number Vol.
Section
Absorption
Absorption and excretion Rats Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93302 1
Absorption and excretion Dogs Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93304 1
Absorption and excretion Monkeys Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93306 1

Distribution
Single-dose tissue distribution Rats Gavage Sponsor Inc. 93307 1
Repeat-dose tissue distribution Rats Gavage Sponsor Inc. 93308 1
Plasma protein binding Mice, rats, dogs, In vitro Sponsor Inc. 93311 1
Plasma protein binding monkeys, Humans, Tablets/Gavage/ Sponsor Inc. 93312 1
rats, dogs Capsules

Metabolism
Metabolites in blood, urine, and feces Rats Gavage Sponsor Inc. 93402 1
Metabolites in blood, urine, and feces Dogs Gavage Sponsor Inc. 93407 1

Excretion
Absorption and excretion Rats Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93302 1
Absorption and excretion Dogs Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93304 1
Absorption and excretion Monkeys Gavage, i.v. Sponsor Inc. 93306 1

Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions

Interaction with AZTa Rats Gavage Sponsor Inc. 94051 1

a - Report contains a GLP Compliance Statement.

74
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Absorption after a Single Dose Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Location in CTD Volume 1, Section
Study number 95104

Species Mouse Rat Dog Monkey Human

Gender (M/F) / Number of animals 4M 3M 4F 2M 6M
Feeding condition Fed Fasted Fasted Fed Fasted
Vehicle/Formulation Suspension Suspension Capsule Suspension Tablet
10% acacia 10% acacia 10% acacia
Method of Administration Gavage Gavage Capsule Gavage Oral
Dose (mg/kg) 15 8 5 5 4 mg
Sample (Whole blood, plasma, serum etc.) Plasma Plasma Plasma Plasma Plasma
Analyte TRAa MM-180801 MM-180801 MM-180801 MM-180801
Assay LSC HPLC HPLC HPLC HPLC
PK parameters:
Tmax (hr) 4.0 1.0 3.3 1.0 6.8
Cmax (ng/ml or ng-eq/ml) 2,260 609 172 72 8.2
AUC (ng or ng-eq x hr/ml) 15,201 2,579 1,923 582 135
(Time for calculation – hr) (0-72) (0-24) (0.5-48) (0-12) (0-24)
T 1/2 (hr) 10.6 3.3 9.2 3.2 30.9
(Time for calculation – hr) (7-48) (1-24) (24-96) (1-12) (24-120)

Additional Information:

A single oral dose was well absorbed in mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys.

In a study examining the concentration of compound in the portal vein and inferior vena cava, 30 minutes after a dose to rats, the concentration of
compound was approximately 15-fold higher in the portal circulation compared to systemic circulation. This result indicated extensive metabolism
and/or biliary secretion of compound in the rat.

a - Total radioactivity, 14C

75
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

Format A

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Organ Distribution Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Location in CTD: Vol. 21, Section

Study No. 95207
Species: Rat
Gender (M/F)/Number of animals: 3M/each time point
Feeding condition: Fasted
Vehicle/Formulation: Solution/Water
Method of Administration: Oral Gavage
Dose (mg/kg): 10
Radionuclide: 14C
Specific Activity: 2x105 Bq/mg
Sampling time: 0.25, 0.5, 2, 6, 24, 96, and 192 hr
Concentration (mcg/mL)
Tissues/organs 0.25 0.5 2 6 24 t1/2
Blood 9.2 3.7 1.8 0.9 0.1
Plasma 16.5 7.1 3.2 1.6 0.2
Brain 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 nd
Lung 9.6 14.1 7.3 2.9 0.1
Liver 73.0 54.5 19.9 12.4 3.2
Kidney 9.6 13.2 4.9 3.8 0.6
Testis 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1
Muscle 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.3 nd

Additional information:

Heart, thymus, adrenal, spleen, stomach, intestine,….are examined but not shown.

nd = Not detected.

76
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

Alternate Format B

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Organ Distribution Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Location in CTD: Vol. 21, Section

Study No. 95207
Species: Rat
Gender (M/F) / Number of animals: 3M/each time point
Feeding condition: Fed
Vehicle/Formulation: Solution/Saline
Method of Administration: Intravenous
Dose (mg/kg): 1
Radionuclide: Non-labeled compound
Specific Activity: -
Analyte/Assay: Unchanged compound (mcg/mL)/HPLC
Sampling time: 10 min, 1, 4, 8, 24, 48, 96, and 168 hr
C1hr Last time-point
Tissues/organs conc. T/P1) conc. T/P1) Time AUC t1/2

Heart 1.4 0.08 0.44 22 48 57.3 37.3

Liver 4.5 6 1.85 92.5 48 290 51.7
Kidney 2.8 0.20 1.07 53.5 48 126 36.3
Spleen 6.5 8.6 3.5 175 48 410 46.9

Additional information:

1)
[Tissue]/[Plasma]

77
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Protein Binding Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Study system: In vitro

Target entity, Test system and method: Plasma, Ultrafiltration
Study Location in CTD
Species Conc. tested % Bound No. Vol. Section
Rat 1 - 100uM 82.1 - 85.4 95301 21
Dog 1 - 100uM 83.5 - 88.2 95301 21
Human 1 - 100uM 75.2 - 79.4 96-103-03 45

Additional Information:

78
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Study in Pregnant or Nursing Animals Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Location in CTD: Vol. 22, Section

Placental transfer Study No. 95702
Species: Rat
Gestation day / Number of animals: 14 and 19 days gestation/3 animals at each time point
Vehicle/Formulation: Solution/Water
Method of Administration: Oral gavage
Dose (mg/kg): 5
Analyte: Total radioactivity, 14C
Assay: LSC
Time (hr) 14 days/30 min 14 days/24 hr 19 days/30 min 19 days/24 hr
Concentration / Amount (% of dose)
Maternal plasma 12.4 0.32 13.9 0.32
Placenta 3.8 0.14 3.3 0.32
Amniotic fluid 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.13
Whole fetus 0.54 0.03 0.39 0.10
Additional Information:
Maternal blood, liver, kidney, ovary, uterus were also examined but not shown.
Location in CTD: Vol. 22 Section
Excretion into milk Study No. 95703
Species: Rat
Lactating date / Number of animals: day 7/3
Feeding condition: Fed
Vehicle/Formulation: Solution/Water
Method of Administration: Oral gavage
Dose (mg/kg): 5
Analyte: Total radioactivity, 14C
Assay: LSC
Time [hr] 1 2 4 6 8 24
Concentration:
Milk: 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.4
Plasma: 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.1
Milk / plasma: 0.40 0.57 0.83 1.4 2.2 4.0
Neonates
Additional Information:

79
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Metabolism In Vivo Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Gender (M/F) / Number of animals: Rats: 4M Dogs: 3F Humans: 8M

Feeding condition: Fed
Vehicle/Formulation: Rats: Solution/water Dogs: Capsules Humans: 75-mg tablets
Method of Administration: Rats: Gavage* Dogs: Oral Capsule* Humans: Oral Tablet
Dose (mg/kg): Rats: 5 mg/kg Dogs: 5 mg/kg Humans: 75 mg
Radionuclide: 14C
Specific Activity: 2 x 105 Bq/mg

% of Compound in Sample Location in CTD

Sampling Time % of Dose Study
Species Sample or Period in Sample Parent M1 M2 Number Vol. Section

Rats Plasma 0.5 hr - 87.2 6.1 3.4 95076 26

Urine 0-24 hr 2.1 0.6 n.d. 0.2
Bile 0-4 hr 28.0 15.5 7.2 5.1
Feces - - - - -

Dogs Plasma 0.5 hr - 92.8 n.d. 7.2 95082 26

Urine 0-24 hr 6.6 6.4 n.d. n.d.
Bile 0-4 hr 32.0 28.5 2.8 n.d.
Feces - - - - -
Humans Plasma 1 hr - 87.5 trace 12.5 CD-102 42
Urine 0-24 hr 5.5 2.4 2.9 n.d.
Bile - - - - -
Feces - - - - -
Additional Information

* - Intraduodenal administration for collection of bile.

n.d. - None detected.

80
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species Rat Rat Dog Dog

Gender (M/F) / Number of animals 4M 4M 3M 3M
Feeding condition Fasted Fasted Fasted Fasted
Vehicle/Formulation Solution Solution Capsule Solution
Water Saline Saline
Method of Administration Oral Intravenous Oral Intravenous
Dose (mg/kg) 10 5 10 5
Analyte TRAa TRAa TRAa TRAa
Assay LSC LSC LSC LSC
Excretion route Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total Urine Feces Total
Time
0 - 24 hr 26 57 83 22 63 85 20 29 49 23 42 65
0 - 48 hr 30 65 95 27 69 96 25 65 90 28 78 96
0 - 72 hr 31 65 97 28 70 98 26 73 99 29 72 101
0 - 96 hr 31 67 98 29 70 99 26 74 100 29 73 102

Study number 95102 95156

Location in CTD Volume 20, Section Volume 20, Section
Additional Information:

a - Total radioactivity; percent recovery, 14C

81
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE

[Link] Pharmacokinetics: Excretion into Bile Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species Rat Rat

Gender (M/F) / Number of animals 4M 4M
Feeding condition Fasted Fasted
Vehicle/Formulation Solution Solution
Water Saline
Method of Administration Oral Intravenous
Dose (mg/kg) 10 5
Analyte TRAa TRAa
Assay LSC LSC
Excretion route Bile Urine Total Bile Urine Total
Time
0 - 2 hr 37 - 37 75 - 75
0 - 4 hr 50 - 50 82 - 82
0 - 8 hr 62 - 62 86 - 86
0 - 24 hr 79 9 86 87 11 98
0 - 48 hr 83 10 93 88 11 99

Study number 95106

Location in CTD Volume 20, Section

a - Total radioactivity; percent recovery, 14C

82
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Toxicology Overview Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species and Method of Duration GLP Testing Study Location

Type of Study Strain Administration of Dosing Doses (mg/kga) Compliance Facility Number Vol.
Section
Single-Dose CD-1 Mice Gavage - 0, 1000, 2000, 5000 Yes Sponsor Inc. 96046 1
Toxicity Intravenous - 0, 100, 250, 500 Yes CRO Co. 96047 1

Wistar Rats Gavage - 0, 1000, 2000, 5000 Yes Sponsor Inc. 96050 1
Intravenous - 0, 100, 250, 500 Yes CRO Co. 96051 1

Repeat-Dose CD-1 Mice Diet 3 Months 0, 62.5, 250, 1000, Yes CRO Co. 94018 2
Toxicity 4000, 7000

Wistar Rats Diet 2 Weeks 0, 1000, 2000, 4000 No Sponsor Inc. 94019 3
Gavage 2 Weeks 0, 500, 1000, 2000 No Sponsor Inc. 94007 3
Gavage 3 Months 0, 200, 600, 1800 Yes Sponsor Inc. 94214 4
Gavage 6 Months 0, 100, 300, 900 Yes Sponsor Inc. 95001 5

Beagle Dogs Capsules 1 Month 0, 10, 40, 100 Yes Sponsor Inc. 94020 6
Capsules 9 Months 0, 5, 20, 50 Yes Sponsor Inc. 96041 7

Cynomolgus Gavage 5 Days 0, 500, 1000 No CRO Co. 94008 8

Monkeys

Genotoxicity S. In Vitro - 0, 500, 1000, 2500, Yes Sponsor Inc. 96718 9

typhimurium and/or
and E. coli 5000 mcg/plate
In Vitro - Yes CRO Co. 97634 9
Human 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, and
Lymphocytes 40 mcg/ml
Gavage 3 Days Yes Sponsor Inc. 96037 9
Wistar Rats 0, 1000, 2000
a - Unless otherwise specified. For Single-Dose Toxicity and Repeat-Dose Toxicity, the highest NOAEL (No Observed Adverse-Effect Level)
is underlined.
(Continued)

83
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Toxicology Overview (Continued) Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species and Method of Duration GLP Testing Study Location

Type of Study Strain Administratio of Dosing Doses (mg/kg) Complianc Facility Number Vol.
n e Section
Carcinogenicity CD-1 Mice Diet 21 Months 0, 0, 25, 100, 400 Yes CRO Co. 95012 10
Wistar Rats Gavage 24 Months 0, 0, 25, 100, 400 Yes Sponsor Inc. 95013 12

Reproduction Wistar Rats Gavage a 0, 5, 30, 180 Yes CRO Co. 96208 14
Toxicity Wistar Rats Gavage F: G6 - G15b 0, 10, 100, 1000 Yes Sponsor Inc. 94211 15
NZW Rabbits Gavage F: G6 - G18b 0, 1, 5, 25 Yes CRO Co. 97028 16
Wistar Rats Gavage F: G6 - L21b 0, 7.5, 75, 750 Yes Sponsor Inc. 95201 17
Local Tolerance NZW Rabbits Dermal 1 Hour 0, 15 mg No Sponsor Inc. 95015 18
Other Toxicity
Studies
Antigenicity Guinea Pigs Subcutaneous Weekly for 3 0, 5 mg No CRO Co. 97012 18
weeks
Impurities Wistar Rats Gavage 2 Weeks 0, 1000, 2000 Yes Sponsor Inc. 97025 18

________
a - Males: 4 weeks prior to mating. Females - 2 weeks prior to mating through Gestation Day 7.
b - G = Gestation Day L = Lactation Day

84
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

EXAMPLE

[Link] Toxicokinetics Overview of Toxicokinetics Studies Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Test Method of GLP Study Location

Type of Study System Administration Doses (mg/kg) Compliance Number Vol. Section
Three-month range-finding study Mice Diet 62.5, 250, 1000, 4000, 7000 Yes 94018 2
Two-week toxicity study Rats Gavage 500, 1000, 2000 No 94007 3
Six-month toxicity study Rats Gavage 100, 300, 900 Yes 95001 5
One-month toxicity study Dogs Capsules 10, 40, 100 Yes 94020 6
Nine-month toxicity study Dogs Capsules 5, 20, 50 Yes 96041 7
Carcinogenicity study Mice Diet 25, 100, 400 Yes 95012 10
Carcinogenicity study Rats Gavage 25, 100, 400 Yes 95013 12
Toxicokinetics study Rabbits Gavage 1, 5, 25 No 97231 16

85
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Toxicokinetics Overview of Toxicokinetics Data Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Steady-State AUC (mcg-hr/ml)

Daily Dose Micea Ratsb Female
(mg/kg) M F M F Dogsc Rabbitsb Humansf
1 9 3
5 3 25
10 4
20 10
25 10 12 6 8 273
40 10
50 12
62.5 35 40
100 40 48 25d, 20e 27d, 22e 40
250 120 135
300 68 72
400 815 570 90 85
500 125 120
900 200 190
1000 2,103 1,870 250 240
2000 327 321
4000 4,975 3,987
7000 8,241 7,680

__________
a - In diet.
b - By gavage.
c - In capsules. Males and females combined.
d - Six-month toxicity study.
e - Carcinogenicity study.
f - Protocol 147-007.

86
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

EXAMPLE

[Link] Toxicokinetics Overview of Toxicokinetics Data Test Article : Curitol Sodium

AUC24hr (ug x hr/ml)

Steady-state AUC24hr values of unchanged MM-180801 in humans after repeated oral administration of 1, 2.5, and 5 mg OD, in comparison with those
in mice in the carcinogenicity study, rats in the 6-month toxicity study, and dogs in the 9-month toxicity study.

87
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Toxicology Drug Substance Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Specified Impuritiesa Study

Batch No. Purity (%) Number Type of Study
A B C
PROPOSED
SPECIFICATION: >95  0.1  0.2  0.3 - -

LN125 98.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 94007 Two-Week Oral Range-Finding Study in Rats
94008 Five-Day Oral Range-Finding Study in Monkeys
96718 Ames Test
94NA103 99.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 96046 Single-Dose Oral Study in Mice
96050 Single-Dose Oral Study in Rats
94214 Three-Month Oral Study in Rats
94020 One-Month Oral Study in Dogs
97634 Human Lymphocytes Assay In Vitro
95NA215 97.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 96047 Single-Dose Intravenous Study in Mice
96051 Single-Dose Intravenous Study in Rats
96037 Micronucleus Test in Rats
94211 Embryo-Fetal Development Study in Rats
97028 Embryo-Fetal Development Study in Rabbits
95NB003 94.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 94019 Two-Week Palatability Study in Rats
97012 Antigenicity Study in Hamsters
96NB101 99.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 94018 Three-Month Dietary Range-Finding Study in Mice
95001 Six-Month Oral Study in Rats
95002 One-Year Oral Study in Dogs
95012 Dietary Carcinogenicity Study in Mice
95013 Oral Carcinogenicity Study in Rats
96208 Fertility and Early Embryonic Development Study in Rats
95015 Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits
a - Area percent.

88
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Single-Dose Toxicity Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Method of Observed
Administration Gender Maximum Non- Approximate
Species/ (Vehicle/ Doses and No. Lethal Dose Lethal Study
Strain Formulation) (mg/kg) per Group (mg/kg) Dose (mg/kg) Noteworthy Findings Number
CD-1 Mice Gavage 0, 10M 5000 >5000 2000: Transient body-weight 96046
(Water) 1000, 10F 5000 losses.
2000,
5000 5000: Decreased activity,
convulsions, collapse.

Intravenous 0, 10M 250 >250 250: Body-weight losses. 96047

(Saline) 100, 10F 250 <500 500: 3M and 2F died.
250,
500
Wistar Gavage 0, 5M 2000 >2000 2000: Transient body-weight 96050
Rats (CMC 1000, 5F 5000 <5000 losses; inactivity;
Suspension) 2000, chromorhinorrhea.
5000 5000: 2M died.

Intravenous 0, 5M 250 >250 250: Body-weight losses in 96051

(5% Dextrose) 100, 5F 500 <500 males.
250, 500: 3M died.
500

89
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Repeat-Dose Toxicity Non-Pivotal Studies Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Method of
Administratio Gender
Species/ n Duration Doses and No. NOAELa Study
Strain (Vehicle/ of Dosing (mg/kg) per Group (mg/kg) Noteworthy Findings Number
Formulation)
CD-1 Mice Diet 3 Months 0, 62.5, 10M, 10F M:4000 4000: Lower body weights; gastric 94018
250, 1000, F: 1000 erosions/ulcers in some mice.
4000, and 7000: 4M and 6F died/ sacrificed;
7000 lower body weights; single-cell necrosis
in liver.

Wistar Diet 2 Weeks 0, 1000, 5M, 5F 1000 2000: Lower body weights. 94019
Rats 2000, and 4000: 2M and 1F sacrificed moribund.
4000

Gavage 2 Weeks 0, 500, 5M, 5F 1000 2000: Lower body weights; single-cell 94007
(Water) 1000, and necrosis in liver.
2000

Beagle Gavage 5 Days 0, 500, 1M, 1F <500 500: Weight losses, inappetence. 94008
Dogs (CMC and 1000
Suspension)

________
a - No Observed Adverse-Effect Level.

90
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #1
2.6.7.7A Repeat-Dose Toxicity Report Title: MM-180801: Three-Month Oral Toxicity Study in Rats Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species/Strain: Wistar Rats Duration of Dosing: 3 Months Study No. 94214

Initial Age: 5 Weeks Duration of Postdose: 1 Month Location in CTD: Vol. 4, Section
Date of First Dose: 15 Jan 94 Method of Administration: Gavage
Vehicle/Formulation: Aqueous Solution GLP Compliance: Yes
Special Features: None
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level: 200 mg/kg

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 200 600 1800

Number of Animals M:30 F:30 M:20 F:20 M:20 F:20 M:30 F:30
Toxicokinetics: AUC (mcg-hr/ml):
Day 1 - - 30 28 130 125 328 302
Day 28 - - 52 47 145 140 400 380
Day 90 - - 50 51 160 148 511 475
Noteworthy Findings
Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Body Weight (%a) 394 g 244 g 0 -1 -10* -11* -25** -45**
Food Consumption (%a) 20.4 g 17.2 g 0 -1 -1 -8* -30** -50**
Clinical Observations
Hyperactivity - - - - - + - ++
Chromorhinorrhea, reddish-
stained coat, white feces - - - - - - ++ ++
Emaciated, piloerection, stilted - - - - - - - ++
gait - - - - - - - -
Ophthalmoscopy

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++ Moderate +++ Marked

Dunnett's Test: *- p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of dosing period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

91
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #1
2.6.7.7A Repeat-Dose Toxicity Study No. 94214 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 200 600 1800

Number of Animals M:30 F:30 M:20 F:20 M:20 F:20 M:30 F:30
Hematology
Hemoglobin (g/dl) 15.8 15.0 15.7 14.9 15.8 14.6 14.0* 13.1*
Erythrocyte Count (x106/mm3) 8.1 - 7.9 - 8.1 - 7.4* -
MCH - 22 - 21 - 22 - 19*
MCHC - 34 - 34 - 34 - 30*
Platelet Count (x103/mm3) 846 799 825 814 914 856 931* 911*

Serum Chemistry
Creatinine (IU/L) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.1* 1.1*
Proteins g/dl) - 6.7 - 6.6 - 6.6 - 5.0**
Cholesterol (mg/dl) 96 - 86 - 90 - 105* -
ALT (IU/L) 67 56 60* 52 55* 47* 53* 58
AST (IU/L) 88 92 96 90 87* 84* 85* 93
Bilirubin (mg/dl) 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.22** 0.26**
Calcium (mEq/L) - 10.7 - 10.8 - 10.8 - 9.8**
Phosphorus (mEq/L) 9.3 - 9.3 - 9.3 - 8.2* -

Urinalysis
Protein Conc. (mg/dl) 260 49 102 34 123 54 126* 22*
pH 7.5 - 7.5 - 7.2 - 6.3** -
Glucose (mg/dl) - 0 - 0 - 20 - 98**
Urine Volume (ml) - 18 - 18 - 16 - 12*

- No noteworthy findings.
Dunnett's Test: *- p<0.05 **- p<0.01
(Continued)

92
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #1
2.6.7.7A Repeat-Dose Toxicity Study No. 94214 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 200 600 1800

Number of Animals M:30 F:30 M:20 F:20 M:20 F:20 M:30 F:30
Organ Weightsb (%)
Kidney 3.01 g 1.75 g 0 +5* +1 +8** +12** +20**
Liver 15.9 g 8.01 g 0 +1 +10* +12* +12* +20**
Gross Pathology
Number examined 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Kidneys: Pallor 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 2
Glandular Stomach: Discoloration 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Histopathology
Number examined 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Kidneys: Tubular dilatation 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 4
Mild 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0
Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
Glandular Stomach: Erosions 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9
Additional Examinations - - - - - - - -
Postdose Evaluation:
Number Evaluated 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 10
Body Weight a (%) 422 g 265 g -1 -2 -3 -4 -10* -20**
Kidney Weightb (%) 3.24 g 1.81 g 0 -1 -1 0 +8* +10

- No noteworthy findings.
Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 **- p<0.01
a - At end of postdose recovery period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
b - Both absolute and relative weights differed from controls in the direction indicated. Number indicates percent difference for the absolute organ
weights.

93
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #2
2.6.7.7B Repeat-Dose Toxicity Report Title: MM-180801: One-Month Oral Toxicity Study in Dogs Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species/Strain: Beagle Dogs Duration of Dosing: 1 Month Study No. 94020

Initial Age: 5-6 Months Duration of Postdose: None Location in CTD: Vol. 6, Section
Date of First Dose: 2 Feb 94 Method of Administration: Oral
Vehicle/Formulation: Gelatin Capsules GLP Compliance: Yes
Special Features: Hepatic enzyme induction evaluated at termination.
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level: 10 mg/kg

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 10 40 100

Number of Animals M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3
Toxicokinetics: AUC (mcg-hr/ml):
Day 1 - - 5 6 10 12 40 48
Day 28 - - 4 5 8 11 35 45

Noteworthy Findings
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Body Weight (%a) 9.8 kg 9.2 kg 0 0 -1 -19** 0 -18**
Clinical Observations:
Hypoactivity (after dosing) - - - - - - + ++
Ophthalmoscopy - - - - - - - -
Electrocardiography - - - - - - - -
Hematology - - - - - - - -
Serum Chemistry
ALT (IU/L): Week 2 22 25 24 27 21 24 48* 69**
Week 4 25 27 26 25 23 25 54* 84**

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++ Moderate +++ Marked

Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of dosing period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

94
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #2
2.6.7.7B Repeat-Dose Toxicity Study No. 94020 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 10 40 100

Number of Animals M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3 M:3 F:3
Organ Weightsa (%)
Liver 339 g 337 g +1 -1 +17** +16** +23** +21**
Gross Pathology - - - - - - - -
Histopathology
Number Examined 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Liver: Centrilobular hypertrophy 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
Additional Examinations
Hepatic Enzyme Induction - - - - - - - -

- No noteworthy findings.
Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - Both absolute and relative weights differed from controls in the direction indicated. Number indicates percent difference for the absolute organ
weights.

95
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #1
2.6.7.8A Genotoxicity: In Vitro Report Title: MM-180801: Ames Reverse-Mutation Study in Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Salmonella and E. Coli
Test for Induction of: Reverse mutation in bacterial cells No. of Independent Assays: 2 Study No. 96669
Strains: S. typhimurium and E. coli No. of Replicate Cultures: 3 Location in CTD: Vol. 10, Section
Metabolizing System: Aroclor-induced rat liver S9, 7.1% No. of Cells Analyzed/Culture: -
Vehicles: Test Article: DMSO Positive Controls: DMSO GLP Compliance: Yes
Treatment: Plate incorporation for 48 hr. Date of Treatment: Feb. 1996
Cytotoxic Effects: None.
Genotoxic Effects: None.

Assay #1
Metabolic Test Dose Level Revertant Colony Counts (Mean ±SD)
Activation Article (mcg/plate)
TA 98 TA 100 TA 1535 TA 1537 WP2 uvrA
Without DMSO 100 mcl/plate 24 ± 9 129 ± 4 15 ± 4 4±2 17 ± 3
Activation MM-180801 312.5 24 ± 6 128 ± 11 12 ± 4 4±2 14 ± 2
625 32 ± 9 153 ± 9 9±2 8±2 17 ± 5
1250 30 ± 4 152 ± 12 9±3 9±2 18 ± 4
2500 27 ± 5 140 ± 6 9±3 5±1 19 ± 1
5000a 30 ± 3 137 ± 21 15 ± 1 7±2 13 ±4
2-Nitrofluorene 2 696
Sodium azide 1 542 468
9-Aminoacridine 100 515
MMS 2.5 mcl/plate 573
With DMSO 100 mcl/plate 27 ± 6 161 ± 12 12 ± 5 5±1 21 ± 8
Activation MM-180801 312.5 31 ± 4 142 ± 8 12 ± 5 4±2 17 ± 3
625 30 ± 1 156 ± 15 17 ± 2 9±5 23 3
1250 33 ± 2 153 ± 13 13 ± 3 8±2 18 ± 3
2500 35 ± 8 160 ± 4 10 ± 2 8±2 19 ± 5
5000a 31 ± 4 153 ± 5 9±4 7±1 17 ±4
2-Aminoanthracene 2.5 1552 1487 214 61
10 366
a - Precipitation.

96
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #2
2.6.7.8B Genotoxicity: In Vitro Report Title: MM-180801: Cytogenetics Study in Primary Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Human Lymphocytes
Test for Induction of: Chromosome aberrations No. of Independent Assays: 1 Study No. 96668
Strains: Primary human lymphocytes No. of Replicate Cultures: 2 Location in CTD: Vol. 10, Section
Metabolizing System: Aroclor-induced rat liver S9, 5% No. of Cells Analyzed/Culture: 100
Vehicles: Test Article: DMSO Positive Controls: DMSO GLP Compliance: Yes
Treatment: Continuous treatment for 24-hr without S9; pulse treatment 5 hr Date of Treatment: Aug. 1996
and recovery time 24 hr with and without S9.
Cytotoxic Effects: Dose-related decreases in mitotic indices.
Genotoxic Effects: Chromosome aberrations without S9 at 10 and 20 µg/ml, and with S9 at 50 and 200 µg/ml.

Metabolic Test Concentration Cytotoxicitya Aberrant Cells Total polyploid

Activation Article (mcg/ml) (% of control) Mean % Abs/Cell cells
Without DMSO - 100 2.0 0.02 4
Activation
MM-180801 2.5 78 3.0 0.03 3
5 59 4.0 0.05 4
10 36 16.5** 0.20 2
20 32 35.0** 0.55 3

Mitomycin 0.10 52 38.5** 0.64 5

With DMSO - 100 4.0 0.04 3

Activation
MM-180801 2.5 91 4.5 0.05 3
10 88 4.5 0.05 2
50 80 9.5* 0.10 4
200 43 34.0** 0.66 3

Cyclophosphamide 4 68 36.5** 0.63 6

Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

a - Based on mitotic indices.

97
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #1
2.6.7.9A Genotoxicity: In Vivo Report Title: MM-180801: Oral Micronucleus Study in Rats Test Article: Curitol Solution

Test for Induction of: Bone-marrow micronuclei Treatment Schedule: Three daily doses. Study No: 96683
Species/Strain: Wistar Rats Sampling Time: 24 hr after last dose. Location in CTD: Vol. 10, Section
Age: 5 Weeks Method of Administration: Gavage.
Cells Evaluated: Polychromatic erythrocytes Vehicle/Formulation: Aqueous solution. GLP Compliance: Yes
No. of Cells Analyzed/Animal: 2000 Date of Dosing: July 1996
Special Features: None.
Toxic/Cytotoxic Effects: At 2000 mg/kg, clinical signs, two deaths, and decreases in bone-marrow PCEs.
Genotoxic Effects: None.
Evidence of Exposure: Overt toxicity at 2000 mg/kg.

Dose No. of Mean % PCEs Mean % MN-PCEs

Test Article (mg/kg) Animals (±SD) (±SD)

Vehicle 0 5M 52 ± 1.9 0.20 ± 0.12

MM-180801 2 5M 54 ± 3.7 0.25 ± 0.16
20 5M 49 ± 3.1 0.20 ± 0.07
200 5M 50 ± 2.1 0.26 ± 0.08
2000 3M 31 ± 2.5 0.12 ± 0.03
Cyclophosphamide 7 5M 51 ± 2.3 2.49 ± 0.30**

Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

98
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE #2
2.6.7.9B Genotoxicity: In Vivo Report Title: MM-180801: Oral DNA Repair Study in Rats Test Article: Curitol Solution

Test for Induction of: Unscheduled DNA synthesis Treatment Schedule: Single dose. Study No: 51970
Species/Strain: Wistar Rats Sampling Time: 2 and 16 hr. Location in CTD: Vol. 11, Section
Age: 5 Weeks Method of Administration: Gavage.
Cells Evaluated: Hepatocytes. Vehicle/Formulation: Aqueous solution. GLP Compliance: Yes
No. of Cells Analyzed/Animal: 100 Date of Dosing: Jan. 1997
Special Features: None.
Toxic/Cytotoxic Effects: None.
Genotoxic Effects: None.
Evidence of Exposure: Toxicokinetics - See Study No. 94007, Two-Week Oral Toxicity Study in Rats.

Dose No. of Time Nuclear Cytoplasm NG % IR NGIR

Test Article (mg/kg) Animals hr Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Vehicle 0 3M 16 3.5 ± 0.2 7.3 ± 0.3 -3.8 ± 0.4 0±0 -
MM-180801 2 3M 2 3.0 ± 1.1 5.5 ± 1.4 -2.6 ± 0.4 0±0 -
2 3M 16 4.1 ± 0.5 6.5 ± 0.8 -2.4 ± 0.2 0±0 -
20 3M 2 3.9 ± 0.2 6.9 ± 0.3 -3.0 ± 0.1 1±0 5.7 ± 0.4
20 3M 16 3.6 ± 0.3 6.3 ± 0.4 -2.7 ± 0.2 0±0 -
200 3M 2 4.2 ± 0.2 7.5 ± 0.3 -3.4 ± 0.2 0±0 -
200 3M 16 3.1 ± 0.3 5.3 ± 0.3 -2.2 ± 0.1 0±0 -
2000 3M 2 4.8 ± 0.4 8.2 ± 0.7 -3.4 ± 0.4 0±0 -
2000 3M 16 2.7 ± 0.1 4.8 0.3 -2.1 ± 0.3 0±0 -
DMN 10 3M 2 10.7 ± 3.0 5.8 ± 1.0 4.9 ± 2.1 41 ±15 11.4 ± 0.4

Nuclear = Nuclear grain count; the number of grains over the nucleus.
Cytoplasm = Cytoplasmic grain count; the highest grain count from 2 nuclear-sized areas adjacent to the nucleus.
NG = Net grains/nucleus; the nuclear count minus the cytoplasmic count.
% IR = Percentage of cells with at least 5 NG.
NGIR = Average net grains/nucleus of cells in repair.

99
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Carcinogenicity Report Title: MM-180801: Dietary Carcinogenicity Study in Mice Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species/Strain: CD-1 Mice Duration of Dosing: 21 months Study No. 95012

Initial Age: 6 Weeks Method of Administration: Diet Location in CTD: Vol. 4, Section
Date of First Dose: 20 Sep 95 Vehicle/Formulation: In Diet
Treatment of Controls: Drug-Free Diet GLP Compliance: Yes
Basis for High-Dose Selection: Toxicity-based endpoint.
Special Features: 12 additional males and 12 additional females per drug-treated group bled at 6 months for toxicokinetic monitoring and then
removed from the study.

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 25 100 400

Gender M F M F M F M F
Toxicokinetics:
AUC on Day 28 (mcg-hr/mla) - - 10 12 40 48 815 570
Css on Day 180 (mcg/ml) - - 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.3 34 24
Number of Animals:
At Start 60 60 60c 60 60 60 60 60
Died/Sacrificed Moribund 16 16 15 13 18 20 27 25
Terminal Sacrifice 44 44 44c 47 42 40 33 35
Survival (%) 67 73 75 80 71 68 56 59
Body Weight (%b) 33g 31g 0 0 -7* 0 -13** -19**
Food consumption (%b) 6g/day 5g/day 0 0 -9* -8* -17** -15**

Dunnett's Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

a - From Study No. 95013.
b - At 6 months. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical significance is
based on actual data (not on the percent differences)
c - One missing mouse could not be evaluated. (Continued)

100
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Carcinogenicity Study No. 95012 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 25 100 400

Number Evaluated M: 60 F: 60 M: 59 F: 60 M: 60 F: 60 M: 60 F: 60

Number of Animals
with Neoplastic Lesions:
Skin: Hemangioma 0 1 1 0 6b 1 13b 0
Hemangiosarcoma 1 3 2 2 9 11 18a 24a
Adrenal: Adrenocortical adenoma 4 1 2 0 4 3 3 1
Adrenocortical adenocarcinoma 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Adenoma + Adenocarcinoma 4 1 2 0 4 3 3 1
Pheochromocytoma 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Bone: Osteochondrosarcoma 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Osteoma 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Epididymis: Sarcoma, undifferentiated 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Gallbladder: Adenoma 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Harderian gland: Adenoma 4 2 3 1 3 4 3 1
Kidney: Renal cell adenoma 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Liver: Hepatocellular adenoma 3 1 4 2 3 1 4 1
Hepatocellular carcinoma 2 1 1 2 3 1 0 1
Hepatocellular adenoma + carcinoma 3 2 4 3 5 2 4 1
Lung: Alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma 13 10 11 11 14 7 13 4
Alveolar/bronchiolar carcinoma 4 0 1 1 2 2 1 1
Adenoma + carcinoma 15 10 11 12 15 9 13 5

a - Trend analysis, p<0.005

b - Trend analysis, p<0.025
(Continued)

101
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Carcinogenicity Study No. 95012 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 25 100 400

Number Evaluated M: 60 F: 60 M: 59 F: 60 M: 60 F: 60 M: 60 F: 60

Mediastinum: Sarcoma, undifferentiated 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Oviduct: Adenoma 1 1 0 0
Pancreas: Islet cell adenoma 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peritoneum: Osteosarcoma 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Seminal vesicle: Adenoma 0 1 0 0
Stomach: Osteochondrosarcoma 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Thymus: Thymoma 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thyroid: Follicular cell adenoma 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Uterus: Papillary cystadenoma 1 0 2 0
Whole animal: Lymphosarcoma 6 13 4 11 3 12 5 11
Whole animal: Histiocytic sarcoma 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Noteworthy Findings:
Gross Pathology - - - - - - - -

Histopathology - Non-Neoplastic
Lesions
Liver: Hepatocellular hypertrophy 4 2 3 2 4 1 40** 45**
Testes: Hypospermatogenesis 1 2 15* 30**

- No noteworthy findings.
Fisher Exact Test: * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

102
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Non-Pivotal Studies Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Method of
Administration
Species/ (Vehicle/ Dosing Doses Study
Strain Formulation) Period mg/kg No. per Group Noteworthy Findings Number
Wistar Rats Gavage G6 through 0, 500, 1000, 8 Pregnant 1000: Deaths; weight losses; 94201
(Water) G15 2000 Females decreased food consumption; clinical
signs; resorptions.
NZW Gavage 13 Days 0, 5,15, 45 6 Nonpregnant 15: Decreased weight gain and food 97020
Rabbits (CMC Females consumption.
Suspension) 45: Four does died.
G – Gestation day

103
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title: MM-180801: Oral
Study of Effects on Fertility and Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Fertility and Early Embryonic Early Embryonic Development in Rats
Development to Implantation
Design similar to ICH 4.1.1? Yes Duration of Dosing: M: 4 weeks prior to mating Study No. 97072
Species/Strain: Wistar Rats F: 2 weeks prior to mating, Location in CTD: Vol. 6, Section
Initial Age: 10 Weeks through day 7 of gestation
Day of Mating: Day 0
Date of First Dose: 3 Mar 97 Day of C-Section: Day 16 of gestation GLP Compliance: Yes
Special Features: None Method of Administration: Gavage
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level: Vehicle/Formulation: Aqueous solution.
F0 Males: 100 mg/kg
F0 Females: 100 mg/kg
F1 Litters: 1000 mg/kg

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 10 100 1000

Males Toxicokinetics: AUCb (mcg-hr/ml) - 1.8 25 320

No. Evaluated 22 22 22 22
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 0 0 0
Clinical Observations:
Salivation - - + ++
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Body Weight (%a) 452 g 0 0 -12*
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.8
No. of Males that Mated 22 21 22 22
No. of Fertile Males 21 21 21 21

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - After 4 weeks of dosing. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
b - From Study No. 94220. (Continued)

104
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. 97072 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 10 100 1000

Females Toxicokinetics: AUCb (mcg-hr/ml) - 2.1 27 310

No. Evaluated 22 22 22 22
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 1 0 0
Clinical Observations
Salivation - - - +
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Premating Body Weight (%a) 175 g 0 0 -5*
Gestation Body Weight (%a) 225 g 0 0 -12**
Premating Food Consumption (%a) 14 g 0 0 -6*
Gestation Food Consumption (%a) 15 g 0 0 -15**
Mean No. Estrous Cycles/14 days 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.9
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2
No. of Females Sperm-Positive 21 22 22 21
No. of Pregnant Females 21 21 22 20
Mean No. Corpora Lutea 15.9 15.8 16.8 15.3
Mean No. Implantations 14.5 14.0 15.3 13.8
Mean % Preimplantation Loss 8.8 11.4 8.9 9.8
Mean No. Live Conceptuses 13.3 13.3 14.3 12.8
Mean No. Resorptions 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.0
No. Dead Conceptuses 0 0 0 0
Mean % Postimplantation Loss 8.3 5.0 6.5 7.2

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of premating or gestation period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
b - From Study No. 94220.

105
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title: MM-180801: Oral Study of Effects on Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Effects on Embryo-Fetal Embryo-Fetal Development in Rabbits
Development
Design similar to ICH 4.1.3? Yes Duration of Dosing: G6-G18 Study No. 97028
Day of Mating: Day 0
Species/Strain: NZW Rabbits Day of C-Section: G29 Location in CTD: Vol. 6, Section
Initial Age: 5 months Method of Administration: Gavage
Date of First Dose: 7 Aug 97 Vehicle/Formulation: Aqueous Solution GLP Compliance: Yes
Special Features: None.
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:
F0 Females: 1 mg/kg
F1 Litters: 5 mg/kg

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 1 5 25

Dams/Does: Toxicokinetics: AUC (mcg-hr/ml)
b
- 2.6 31 345

No. Pregnant 20 19 20 20
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 1 1 0
No. Aborted or with Total Resorption of Litter 0 0 0 3
Clinical Observations - - - ++
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Body Weight (%a) 3.2 kg 0 -15* -20**
Food Consumption (%a) 60 g/day 0 -9* -16**
Mean No. Corpora Lutea 9.4 9.3 9.4 10.4
Mean No. Implantations 7.9 8.1 9.1 9.4
Mean % Preimplantation Loss 15.8 13.1 4.0 8.9

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked G = Gestation day

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - At end of dosing period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
b - From Study No. 97231. (Continued)

106
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. 97028
(Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 1 5 25

Litters: No. Litters Evaluated 18 16 17 18
No. Live Fetuses 140 126 148 86*
Mean No. Resorptions 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.7**
No. Dead Fetuses 1 0 0 0
Mean % Postimplantation Loss 4.3 2.8 5.4 49.0**
Mean Fetal Body Weight (g) 44.82 42.44 42.14 42.39
Fetal Sex Ratios (% males) 46.3 57.7 57.4 52.8
Fetal Anomalies:
Gross External
Lower jaw: Short
No. Fetuses (%) 0 0 0 7 (8.0)*
No. Litters (%) 0 0 0 5 (27.8)**
Visceral Anomalies
Tongue: Absent
No. Fetuses (%) 0 0 0 6 (6.9)*
No. Litters (%) 0 0 0 6 (33.3)**
Skeletal Anomalies
Mandible: Cleft
No. Fetuses (%) 0 0 0 10 (11.5)**
No. Litters (%) 0 0 0 8 (44.4)**
Ribs: Cervical
No. Fetuses (%) 2 (1.4) 0 1 (0.7) 0
No. Litters (%) 1 (5.6) 0 1 (5.9) 0
Sternebrae: Misshapen
No. Fetuses (%) 2 (1.4) 1 (0.8) 0 1 (1.2)
No. Litters (%) 2 (11.1) 1 (6.3) 0 1 (5.6)
Total Affected Fetuses (Litters) 2 (2) 1 (1) 0 15 (10)

- No noteworthy findings.
Fisher Exact Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01

107
The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity - Report Title: MM-180801: Oral Study of Effects on Test Article: Curitol Sodium
Effects on Pre- and Postnatal Pre- and Postnatal Development in Rats
Development, Including Maternal Function
Design similar to ICH 4.1.2? Yes Duration of Dosing: G6 - L21 Study No. 95201
Day of Mating: Day 0
Species/Strain: Wistar Rats Method of Administration: Gavage Location in CTD: Vol. 10, Section
Initial Age: 9-10 Weeks Vehicle/Formulation: Water
Date of First Dose: 8 Oct 95 Litters Culled/Not Culled: Culled to 4/sex/litter GLP Compliance: Yes
Special Features: None
No Observed Adverse-Effect Level:
F0 Females: 7.5 mg/kg
F1 Males: 75 mg/kg
F1 Females: 75 mg/kg

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 7.5 75 750

F0 Females: Toxicokinetics: AUCb (mcg-hr/ml) - 2.4 21 150

No. Pregnant 23 21 22 23
No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 0 0 8
Clinical Observations - - ++ +++
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Gestation Body Weight (%a) 225 g 0 0 -25**
Lactation Body Weight (%a) 210 g 0 0 0
Gestation Food Consumption (%a) 15 g 0 0 -12*
Lactation Food Consumption (%a) 16 g 0 0 0
Mean Duration of Gestation (days) 22.1 22.2 22.1 23.5+
Abnormal Parturition - - - -

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked G = Gestation day

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01 L = Lactation day
Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's procedure + - p<0.05
a - At end of gestation or lactation. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown.
Statistical significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
b - From Study No. 97227. (Continued)

108
 The Common Technical Document - Safety
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. 95201
(Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 7.5 75 750

F1 Litters: No. Litters Evaluated 23 21 22 15
(Preweaning) Mean No. Pups/Litter 13.6 13.8 14.9 11.2++
Mean No. Liveborn Pups/Litter 13.5 13.8 14.6 9.4++
Mean No. Stillborn Pups/Litter 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.8+
Postnatal Survival to Day 4 - - - -
Postnatal Survival to Weaning - - - -
Change in Pup Body Weightsa (g) 60 58 62 53*
Pup Sex Ratios (% males) 51 53 49 51
Pup Clinical Signs - - - -
Pup Necropsy Obs. - - - -

F1 Males: No. Evaluated Postweaning 23 21 22 15

(Postweaning) No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund - - - -
Clinical Observations - - - -
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Body Weight Changeb (g) 200 195 195 186*
Food Consumption (%b) 15 g 0 0 -11*
Preputial Separation - - - -
Sensory Function - - - -
Motor Activity - - - -
Learning and Memory - - - -
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating 2.4 3.3 2.9 3.5
No. of Males that Mated 23 21 21 23
No. of Fertile Males 23 21 19 20

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's procedure + - p<0.05 ++ - p<0.01
a - From birth to weaning.
b - From weaning to mating. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences).
(Continued)

109
EXAMPLE
[Link] Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study No. 95201 (Continued)

Daily Dose (mg/kg) 0 (Control) 7.5 75 750

F1 Females: No. Evaluated Postweaning 23 21 22 23
(Postweaning) No. Died or Sacrificed Moribund 0 1 0 0
Clinical Observations - - - -
Necropsy Observations - - - -
Premating Body-Weight Changea (g) 226 230 235 196*
Gestation Body-Weight Change (g) 153 160 144 158
Premating Food Consumption (%b) 15 g 0 0 -13*
Gestation Food Consumption (%b) 16 g 0 0 0
Mean Age of Vaginal Patency (days) - - - -
Sensory Function - - - -
Motor Activity - - - -
Learning and Memory - - - -
Mean No. Days Prior to Mating 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.5
No. of Females Sperm-Positive 23 21 21 23
No. of Pregnant Females 23 21 20 21
Mean No. Corpora Lutea 16.4 16.2 15.8 15.5
Mean No. Implantations 15.8 15.2 14.4 14.9
Mean % Preimplantation Loss 3.8 6.3 12.3 3.7

F2 Litters: Mean No. Live Conceptuses/Litter 15.0 14.9 13.6 14.4

Mean No. Resorptions 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5
No. Dead Conceptuses 0 0 0 0
Mean % Postimplantation Loss 5.1 2.2 5.2 3.4
Fetal Body Weights (g) 3.69 3.65 3.75 3.81
Fetal Sex Ratios (% males) 53 49 54 54
Fetal Anomalies - - - -

- No noteworthy findings. + Mild ++Moderate +++Marked

Dunnett's Test * - p<0.05 ** - p<0.01
a - From weaning to mating
b - During postweaning period. For controls, group means are shown. For treated groups, percent differences from controls are shown. Statistical
significance is based on actual data (not on the percent differences). (Continued)

EXAMPLE

110
 The Common Technical Document - Safety

[Link] Other Toxicity Studies Test Article: Curitol Sodium

Species/ Method of Duration Doses Gender and Study

Strain Administratio of Dosing (mg/kg) No. per Group Noteworthy Findings Number
n
Antigenicity
Guinea Subcutaneous Weekly for 0, 5 mg 5M, 5F Mildly positive delayed hypersensitivity 97012
Pigs 3 weeks; reaction. No evidence of passive
challenge 1 cutaneous anaphylaxis or systemic
week later. anaphylaxis.
Impurities
WISTAR Gavage 2 Weeks 0, 1000, 10M, 10F MM-180801 fortified with 2% of the Z- 97025
Rats 2000 isomer impurity; toxicologic effects
comparable to MM-180801 without
impurity.

111