Joel Morganroth1, Yaning Wang2, Michael Thorn3, Yuji Kumagai4, Stuart Harris5, Norman Stockbridge6, Robert Kleiman1, Rashmi Shah7. 1. EResearch Technology Inc., Philadelphia. 2. Division of Pharmacometrics, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 3. Statistical Resources Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 4. Clinical Research Centre, Kitasato University East Hospital, Sagamihara, Japan. 5. SeaView Research Inc., Miami, Florida. 6. Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 7. Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Abstract
AIM: We investigated whether moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongations in Japanese and Caucasian healthy male volunteers were significantly different. METHODS: A two period, randomized, crossover, ICH-E14-compliant thorough QT (TQT) study compared placebo-corrected changes in QTc interval from baseline (ΔΔQTc F) and concentration-effect relationships following administration of placebo and 400 mg moxifloxacin to 40 healthy male volunteers from each ethnic population. The point estimates of ΔΔQTc F for each population, and the difference between the two, were calculated at a geometric mean Cmax of moxifloxacin using a linear mixed effects model. The concentration-effect slopes of the two populations were also compared. Equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the difference in ΔΔQTc F was contained within -5 ms to +5 ms limits and the ratio of the slopes was between 0.5 and 2. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two populations studied, Japanese vs. Caucasians, respectively, for moxifloxacin Cmax (3.27 ± 0.6 vs. 2.98 ± 0.7 µg ml(-1) ), ΔΔQTc F (9.63 ± 1.15 vs. 11.46 ± 1.19 ms at Cmax of 3.07 µg ml(-1) ) and concentration-response slopes (2.58 ± 0.62 vs. 2.34 ± 0.64 ms per µg ml(-1) ). The difference in the two ΔΔQTc F of -1.8 (90% CI -4.6, 0.9) and the ratio of the two slopes (1.1; 90% CI 0.63, 1.82) were within pre-specified equivalence limits. CONCLUSIONS:Moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongations did not differ significantly between the Japanese and Caucasian subjects. However, before our findings are more widely generalized, further studies in other populations and with other QT-prolonging drugs are needed to clarify whether inter-ethnic differences in QT sensitivity exist and whether ethnicity of the study population may affect the outcome of a TQT study.
RCT Entities:
AIM: We investigated whether moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongations in Japanese and Caucasian healthy male volunteers were significantly different. METHODS: A two period, randomized, crossover, ICH-E14-compliant thorough QT (TQT) study compared placebo-corrected changes in QTc interval from baseline (ΔΔQTc F) and concentration-effect relationships following administration of placebo and 400 mg moxifloxacin to 40 healthy male volunteers from each ethnic population. The point estimates of ΔΔQTc F for each population, and the difference between the two, were calculated at a geometric mean Cmax of moxifloxacin using a linear mixed effects model. The concentration-effect slopes of the two populations were also compared. Equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the difference in ΔΔQTc F was contained within -5 ms to +5 ms limits and the ratio of the slopes was between 0.5 and 2. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two populations studied, Japanese vs. Caucasians, respectively, for moxifloxacin Cmax (3.27 ± 0.6 vs. 2.98 ± 0.7 µg ml(-1) ), ΔΔQTc F (9.63 ± 1.15 vs. 11.46 ± 1.19 ms at Cmax of 3.07 µg ml(-1) ) and concentration-response slopes (2.58 ± 0.62 vs. 2.34 ± 0.64 ms per µg ml(-1) ). The difference in the two ΔΔQTc F of -1.8 (90% CI -4.6, 0.9) and the ratio of the two slopes (1.1; 90% CI 0.63, 1.82) were within pre-specified equivalence limits. CONCLUSIONS:Moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongations did not differ significantly between the Japanese and Caucasian subjects. However, before our findings are more widely generalized, further studies in other populations and with other QT-prolonging drugs are needed to clarify whether inter-ethnic differences in QT sensitivity exist and whether ethnicity of the study population may affect the outcome of a TQT study.
Authors: Christian K Schneider; John J Borg; Falk Ehmann; Niklas Ekman; Esa Heinonen; Kowid Ho; Marcel H Hoefnagel; Roeland Martijn van der Plas; Sol Ruiz; Antonius J van der Stappen; Robin Thorpe; Klara Tiitso; Asterios S Tsiftsoglou; Camille Vleminckx; Guenter Waxenecker; Mats Welin; Martina Weise; Jean-Hugues Trouvin Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: John C Somberg; Richard A Preston; Vasant Ranade; Ivana Cvetanovic; Janos Molnar Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 2.457
Authors: John S Lowe; Dina Myers Stroud; Tao Yang; Lynn Hall; Thomas C Atack; Dan M Roden Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Nikunjkumar Patel; Oliver Hatley; Alexander Berg; Klaus Romero; Barbara Wisniowska; Debra Hanna; David Hermann; Sebastian Polak Journal: AAPS J Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Jorg Taubel; Dominic Pimenta; Samuel Thomas Cole; Claus Graff; Jørgen K Kanters; A John Camm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Robert B Kleiman; Borje Darpo; Michael Thorn; Thomas Stoehr; Frank Schippers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Pei-Chi Yang; Kevin R DeMarco; Parya Aghasafari; Mao-Tsuen Jeng; John R D Dawson; Slava Bekker; Sergei Y Noskov; Vladimir Yarov-Yarovoy; Igor Vorobyov; Colleen E Clancy Journal: Circ Res Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 17.367