BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Exposure-response (ER) modelling (concentration-QTc analysis) is gaining as much acceptance as the traditional by-time analysis of the placebo-adjusted change from baseline in the QTc interval (ΔΔQTcF). It has been postulated that intensive ECG analysis and ER modelling during early-phase drug development could be a cost-effective approach of estimating QT liability of a new drug, in a small number of subjects. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used a highly automated analysis of ECGs from 46 subjects from a crossover thorough QT/QTc study to detect ΔΔQTcF withmoxifloxacin. Using these data, we also simulated (bootstrapped) 1000 datasets of a parallel study with eight subjects receiving moxifloxacin and eight others receiving placebo. KEY RESULTS: The slope from the concentration-QTc analysis for moxifloxacin in 46 subjects was 4.12 ms of ΔΔQTcF per μg(-1) mL(-1) ; at mean Cmax of 2.95 μg·mL(-1) , estimated ΔΔQTcF was 13.4 ms (90% confidence interval 11.3, 15.4 ms). In the 1000 simulated datasets, in 996 datasets, ER modelling showed that the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for ΔΔQTcF at geometric mean Cmax exceeded 10 ms. In 895 of these 996 datasets, the slope of the ER relationship was statistically significantly positive. Thus, with a small sample size (eight subjects on active drug and eight on placebo), moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongation was demonstrated using ER analysis with statistical power of >80%. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study adds to the growing body of data supporting intensive ECG collection and analysis in early-phase studies to estimate QT liability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Exposure-response (ER) modelling (concentration-QTc analysis) is gaining as much acceptance as the traditional by-time analysis of the placebo-adjusted change from baseline in the QTc interval (ΔΔQTcF). It has been postulated that intensive ECG analysis and ER modelling during early-phase drug development could be a cost-effective approach of estimating QT liability of a new drug, in a small number of subjects. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used a highly automated analysis of ECGs from 46 subjects from a crossover thorough QT/QTc study to detect ΔΔQTcF with moxifloxacin. Using these data, we also simulated (bootstrapped) 1000 datasets of a parallel study with eight subjects receiving moxifloxacin and eight others receiving placebo. KEY RESULTS: The slope from the concentration-QTc analysis for moxifloxacin in 46 subjects was 4.12 ms of ΔΔQTcF per μg(-1) mL(-1) ; at mean Cmax of 2.95 μg·mL(-1) , estimated ΔΔQTcF was 13.4 ms (90% confidence interval 11.3, 15.4 ms). In the 1000 simulated datasets, in 996 datasets, ER modelling showed that the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for ΔΔQTcF at geometric mean Cmax exceeded 10 ms. In 895 of these 996 datasets, the slope of the ER relationship was statistically significantly positive. Thus, with a small sample size (eight subjects on active drug and eight on placebo), moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongation was demonstrated using ER analysis with statistical power of >80%. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study adds to the growing body of data supporting intensive ECG collection and analysis in early-phase studies to estimate QT liability.
Authors: Paul Kligfield; Cynthia L Green; Justin Mortara; Philip Sager; Norman Stockbridge; Michael Li; Joanne Zhang; Samuel George; Ignacio Rodriguez; Daniel Bloomfield; Mitchell W Krucoff Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: B Darpo; C Benson; C Dota; G Ferber; C Garnett; C L Green; V Jarugula; L Johannesen; J Keirns; K Krudys; J Liu; C Ortemann-Renon; S Riley; N Sarapa; B Smith; R R Stoltz; M Zhou; N Stockbridge Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Stephen P H Alexander; O Peter Buneman; Anthony P Davenport; John C McGrath; John A Peters; Christopher Southan; Michael Spedding; Wenyuan Yu; Anthony J Harmar Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Marc Weiner; Jon Gelfond; Teresa L Johnson-Pais; Melissa Engle; Charles A Peloquin; John L Johnson; Erin E Sizemore; William R Mac Kenzie Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 5.191
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: Vipul K Gupta; Gary Maier; Paul Eckburg; Lisa Morelli; Yang Lei; Akash Jain; Erika Manyak; David Melnick Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.191
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: Kendra K Radtke; Anneke C Hesseling; J L Winckler; Heather R Draper; Belen P Solans; Stephanie Thee; Lubbe Wiesner; Louvina E van der Laan; Barend Fourie; James Nielsen; H Simon Schaaf; Radojka M Savic; Anthony J Garcia-Prats Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Mojgan Kavoosi; Terry E O'Reilly; Mehran Kavoosi; Peng Chai; Caroline Engel; Walter Korz; Christopher C Gallen; Robert M Lester Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 4.546
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