AIMS: There is no consensus as to what extent the results of thorough QT interval/corrected QT interval (QT/QTc) studies need to be bridged. METHODS: The results of two studies using levofloxacin in Japanese and Caucasian subjects were compared in a post hoc analysis to investigate the similarity of dose–effect responses. RESULTS: Concentration–response analysis based on the change of QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) from time-matched placebo was planned and performed in the combined data sets. At the geometric maximum mean concentration for the two doses in the Caucasian study, a predicted effect on QTcF comparable to the effects observed was found. For the Japanese study, the predicted effect was lower, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in QTc-prolonging effect between Japanese and Caucasian subjects were observed following levofloxacin dosing. However, a trend suggests that Caucasian subjects may be more sensitive. Age and sex did not have an impact.
AIMS: There is no consensus as to what extent the results of thorough QT interval/corrected QT interval (QT/QTc) studies need to be bridged. METHODS: The results of two studies using levofloxacin in Japanese and Caucasian subjects were compared in a post hoc analysis to investigate the similarity of dose–effect responses. RESULTS: Concentration–response analysis based on the change of QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) from time-matched placebo was planned and performed in the combined data sets. At the geometric maximum mean concentration for the two doses in the Caucasian study, a predicted effect on QTcF comparable to the effects observed was found. For the Japanese study, the predicted effect was lower, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in QTc-prolonging effect between Japanese and Caucasian subjects were observed following levofloxacin dosing. However, a trend suggests that Caucasian subjects may be more sensitive. Age and sex did not have an impact.
Authors: S C Chien; A T Chow; J Natarajan; R R Williams; F A Wong; M C Rogge; R K Nayak Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: S C Chien; M C Rogge; L G Gisclon; C Curtin; F Wong; J Natarajan; R R Williams; C L Fowler; W K Cheung; A T Chow Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Syed Mohammad Afzal Sohaib; Olia Papacosta; Richard W Morris; Peter W Macfarlane; Peter H Whincup Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Juan Francisco Galan-Herrera; Jorge Luis Poo; Oscar Rosales-Sanchez; Elvira Fuentes-Fuentes; Lizbeth Cariño; Victoria Burke-Fraga; Salvador Namur; Mario González-de la Parra Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Joel Morganroth; Yaning Wang; Michael Thorn; Yuji Kumagai; Stuart Harris; Norman Stockbridge; Robert Kleiman; Rashmi Shah Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Magdalene M Assimon; Patrick H Pun; Lily Chin-Hua Wang; Sana M Al-Khatib; M Alan Brookhart; David J Weber; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Jennifer E Flythe Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Maartje N Niemeijer; Marten E van den Berg; Mark Eijgelsheim; Peter R Rijnbeek; Bruno H Stricker Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: L Kervezee; V Gotta; J Stevens; W Birkhoff; Imc Kamerling; M Danhof; J H Meijer; J Burggraaf Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2016-08-01