| Literature DB >> 24676501 |
Kamil Fijorek1, Felix C Tanner, Barbara E Stähli, Grzegorz Gielerak, Pawel Krzesinski, Beata Uzieblo-Zyczkowska, Pawel Smurzynski, Adam Stanczyk, Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek, Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz, Marek Jastrzebski, Mateusz Podolec, Grzegorz Kopec, Barbara Stanula, Maryla Kocowska, Zofia Tylutki, Sebastian Polak.
Abstract
Correlation of the thickness of the left ventricular posterior wall (LVPWd) with various parameters, including age, gender, weight and height, was investigated in this study using regression models. Multicenter derived database comprised over 4,000 healthy individuals. The developed models were further utilized in the in vitro-in vivo (IVIV) translation of the drug cardiac safety data with use of the mathematical model of human cardiomyocytes operating at the virtual healthy population level. LVPWd was assumed to be equivalent to the length of one-dimensional string of virtual cardiomyocyte cells which was presented, as other physiological factors, to be a parameter influencing the simulated pseudo-ECG (pseudoelectrocardiogram), QTcF and ∆QTcF, both native and modified by exemplar drug (disopyramide) after I Kr current disruption. Simulation results support positive correlation between the LVPWd and QTcF/∆QTc. Developed models allow more detailed description of the virtual population and thus inter-individual variability influence on the drug cardiac safety.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24676501 PMCID: PMC4098050 DOI: 10.1007/s12265-014-9558-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res ISSN: 1937-5387 Impact factor: 4.132
Summary of the physiological parameters used for the simulation study
| Parameter | Unit | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Plasma potassium concentration | mM | 4.29 (0.28) |
| Plasma sodium concentration | mM | 139.37 (1.26) |
| Plasma calcium concentration | mM | 2.36 (0.18) |
| Cardiomyocyte volume | μm3 | 7254.90 (4912.68) |
| Stimulation period | ms | 909.37 (136.20) |
| Electric capacitance | pF | 55.16 (32.91) |
All parameters derived randomly from the models (references to the models used for deriving the above listed values can be found in the text [17–19]) describing parameter distribution in the population of healthy individuals (60 virtual individuals)
Characteristics of the clinical and echocardiographic data used for the modeling purposes
| UHZ data set | Polish data set | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Males | 2,104 | 189 |
| Females | 2,368 | 128 | |
| Age (years) | Males | 42.1 (13.2, 18.0–79.8) | 36.6 (13.6; 18–75) |
| Females | 42.9 (13.1, 18.0–78.4) | 42.3 (14.1; 18–71) | |
| BSA (m2) | Males | 1.95 (0.17, 1.34–2.73) | 2.0 (0.16; 1.53–2.44) |
| Females | 1.69 (0.15, 1.28–2.34) | 1.69 (0.13; 1.44–2.04) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | Males | 24.7 (3.4, 16.2–35.0) | 26.1 (3.4; 18.4–34.3) |
| Females | 23.3 (3.9, 16.1–34.8) | 24.3 (3.9; 17.0–34.4) | |
| LVPWd (mm) | Males | 8.76 (1.04, 6.1–10.9) | 9.55 (0.97; 7–10.94) |
| Females | 7.78 (0.98, 6.1–10.9) | 8.63 (1.22; 6.1–10.9) | |
Values presented as mean (standard deviation, minimum – maximum)
Parameter estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values
| Submodel | Predictor | Parameter | Polish data | UHZ data | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point estimate | 95% CI |
| Point estimate | 95% CI |
| |||
| Mean submodel | Intercept |
| −1.428 | (−1.890 to −0.965) | 0.000 | −1.176 | (−1.269 to −1.083) | 0.000 |
| Age |
| 0.034 | (0.023 to 0.045) | 0.000 | 0.013 | (0.011 to 0.015) | 0.000 | |
| Sex |
| 2.169 | (1.558 to 2.780) | 0.000 | 0.851 | (0.799 to 0.903) | 0.000 | |
| Age and sex interaction |
| −0.029 | (−0.044 to −0.014) | 0.000 | – | – | ||
| Precision submodel | Intercept |
| 2.696 | (1.937 to 3.454) | 0.000 | 1.432 | (1.394 to 1.470) | 0.000 |
| Age |
| −0.030 | (−0.046 to −0.014) | 0.000 | – | – | ||
| Sex |
| −1.382 | (−2.315 to −0.449) | 0.004 | – | – | ||
| Age and sex interaction |
| 0.032 | (0.011 to 0.053) | 0.003 | – | – | ||
Presented data describe model with age and sex as predictors which were further used for the simulation study
β, γ are regression parameters (please see the text for further details)
Fig. 1Relationship between LVPWd and age calculated with use of the developed models. a Polish data, b UHZ data. The bold curves from the bottom to top describe 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th conditional percentiles of the LVPWd, respectively
Parameter estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values — model with BSA and sex as predictors
| Submodel | Predictor | Parameter | Polish data | UHZ data | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point estimate | 95% CI |
| Point estimate | 95% CI |
| |||
| Mean submodel | Intercept |
| −3.372 | (−4.332 to −2.413) | 0.000 | −3.201 | (−3.480 to −2.923) | 0.000 |
| BSAβ1 | β1 | 2.128 | (1.619 to 2.638) | 0.000 | 1.534 | (1.371 to 1.697) | 0.000 | |
| Sex | β2 | – | – | 0.452 | (0.387 to 0.517) | 0.000 | ||
| BSA and sex interaction | β3 | – | – | – | – | |||
| Precision submodel | Interceptγ0 | γ0 | −0.218 | (−1.481 to 1.046) | 0.736 | 1.469 | (1.431 to 1.507) | 0.000 |
| BSA | γ1 | 0.824 | (0.147 to 1.500) | 0.017 | – | – | ||
| Sex | γ2 | – | – | – | – | |||
| BSA and sex interaction | γ3 | – | – | – | – | |||
β, γ are regression parameters (please see the text for further details)
Fig. 2Relationship between LVPWd and BSA calculated with use of the developed models. a Polish data, b UHZ data. The bold curves from the bottom to top describe 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th conditional percentiles of the LVPWd, respectively
Results of the BDMM-based simulations with use of the CSS system for various string length values (constant, Sjögren model derived and newly developed ASLPM model derived)
| Simulation end-point | Scenario 1 (constant value) | Scenario 2 (Sjögren model) | Scenario 3 (ASLPM model) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Female | Male | All | Female | Male | All | Female | Male | ||
| String of cells length (mm) | mean | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 13.1 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 9.5 |
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.2 | |
| QT baseline — no drug (ms) | mean | 345.7 | 344.4 | 346.9 | 352.8 | 351.6 | 354.0 | 346.1 | 343.6 | 348.7 |
| SD | 3.7 | 2.0 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 4.8 | |
| QT — with drug (ms) | mean | 377.0 | 376.1 | 377.8 | 384.8 | 384.0 | 385.6 | 377.4 | 375.1 | 379.8 |
| SD | 2.8 | 1.9 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 3.2 | 3.7 | |
| QTcF baseline — no drug (ms) | mean | 358.3 | 359.1 | 357.4 | 365.7 | 366.7 | 364.7 | 358.8 | 358.3 | 359.2 |
| SD | 15.7 | 15.8 | 15.5 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 16.2 | 16.2 | 16.7 | 15.7 | |
| QTcF — with drug (ms) | mean | 390.7 | 392.2 | 389.3 | 398.9 | 400.4 | 397.4 | 391.2 | 391.1 | 391.3 |
| SD | 17.4 | 17.6 | 17.1 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 18.6 | 17.4 | |
| ΔQTcF (ms) | mean | 32.5 | 33.1 | 31.9 | 33.2 | 33.8 | 32.6 | 32.5 | 33.1 | 31.9 |
| SD | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 | |
Fig. 3Simulated QTcF (a baseline, b with drug) and ΔQTcF values for three tested scenarios. Diamond, circle and triangle represent three tested scenarios — average value, current model predictions, and Sjögren model predictions of the LVPWd, respectively (empty, shaded and filled symbols represent women, men and all individuals, respectively)