Literature DB >> 15189536

Differences between study-specific and subject-specific heart rate corrections of the QT interval in investigations of drug induced QTc prolongation.

Marek Malik1, Katerina Hnatkova, Velislav Batchvarov.   

Abstract

A computational study was designed to investigate the differences between the so-called study-specific and subject-specific heart rate corrections of QT interval. In 53 healthy subjects (25 women, mean age 26.7 +/- 8.7 years), serial 10-second electrocardiograms (ECG) were obtained during daytime hours. In each subject, 200 ECGs were selected representative of the individual QT/RR relationship. Of the population of 53 subjects, 30,000 different subgroups of 16 subjects were considered and their data used to model drug induced QT interval prolongation by 0, 5, 10, and 20 ms combined with drug induced heart rate acceleration and deceleration. In each modeled study, QTc changes were assessed by: (1) Six study-specific heart rate corrections designed by regression modeling of the baseline QT/RR data pooled from all subjects; (2) Six subject-specific heart rate corrections designed by the same regression modeling of the baseline QT/RR data in each subject separately; (3) subject optimized correction that selected the best fitting regression model for each individual; and (4) by Bazett and Fridericia corrections. In each modeled study, the errors of the correction approaches were estimated and statistically summarized over all modeled studies. The subject-specific corrections led to maximum errors in single milliseconds (error range of 2.4, 5.7, and 2.6 ms with linear, log/log linear, and exponential models, respectively) while the study-specific corrections led to substantially greater errors (error range of 17.8, 19.4, and 16.9 ms with linear, log/log linear, and exponential models, respectively). Both Bazett and Fridericia corrections led not only to substantial errors (error range of 28.3 and 16.9 ms) but also to regular bias with systematically false negative and false positive conclusions dependent on modeled heart rate acceleration and deceleration. Thus, subjects-specific corrections should be used in the intensive and definite studies aimed at providing the final answer on the ability of a drug to prolong the QT interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15189536     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00530.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  10 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of QT interval prolongation following citalopram overdoses.

Authors:  Lena E Friberg; Geoffrey K Isbister; Stephen B Duffull
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Correction for QT/RR hysteresis in the assessment of drug-induced QTc changes--cardiac safety of gadobutrol.

Authors:  Marek Malik; Katerina Hnatkova; Anna Schmidt; Peter Smetana
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 3.  Early investigation of QTc liability: the role of multiple ascending dose (MAD) study.

Authors:  Rashmi R Shah; Joel Morganroth
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Scientific white paper on concentration-QTc modeling.

Authors:  Christine Garnett; Peter L Bonate; Qianyu Dang; Georg Ferber; Dalong Huang; Jiang Liu; Devan Mehrotra; Steve Riley; Philip Sager; Christoffer Tornoe; Yaning Wang
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 5.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling in the data analysis and interpretation of drug-induced QT/QTc prolongation.

Authors:  Vladimir Piotrovsky
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-24       Impact factor: 4.009

6.  The DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin does not prolong the QT interval at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses.

Authors:  Arne Ring; Andreas Port; E Ulrike Graefe-Mody; Ivette Revollo; Mario Iovino; Klaus A Dugi
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Prevalence and prognostic significance of long QT interval among patients with chest pain: selecting an optimum QT rate correction formula.

Authors:  Amer A Hasanien; Barbara J Drew; Jill Howie-Esquivel; Gordon Fung; Patricia Harris
Journal:  J Electrocardiol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 1.438

8.  Comparison of Electrocardiographic Biomarkers for Differentiating Drug-Induced Single vs. Multiple Cardiac Ion Channel Block.

Authors:  Marina Brockway; Jay W Mason; Brian P Brockway
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.689

9.  Influence of heart rate correction formulas on QTc interval stability.

Authors:  Irena Andršová; Katerina Hnatkova; Martina Šišáková; Ondřej Toman; Peter Smetana; Katharina M Huster; Petra Barthel; Tomáš Novotný; Georg Schmidt; Marek Malik
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Implications of Individual QT/RR Profiles-Part 1: Inaccuracies and Problems of Population-Specific QT/Heart Rate Corrections.

Authors:  Marek Malik; Christine Garnett; Katerina Hnatkova; Jose Vicente; Lars Johannesen; Norman Stockbridge
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 5.228

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.