| Literature DB >> 35148401 |
Jean-Pierre Valentin1, Peter Hoffmann2, Catherine Ortemann-Renon3, John Koerner4, Jennifer Pierson5, Gary Gintant6, James Willard4, Christine Garnett4, Matthew Skinner7, Hugo M Vargas8, Todd Wisialowski9, Michael K Pugsley10.
Abstract
The content of this article derives from a Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) consortium with a focus to improve cardiac safety during drug development. A detailed literature review was conducted to evaluate the concordance between nonclinical repolarization assays and the clinical thorough QT (TQT) study. Food and Drug Administration and HESI developed a joint database of nonclinical and clinical data, and a retrospective analysis of 150 anonymized drug candidates was reviewed to compare the performance of 3 standard nonclinical assays with clinical TQT study findings as well as investigate mechanism(s) potentially responsible for apparent discrepancies identified. The nonclinical assays were functional (IKr) current block (Human ether-a-go-go related gene), action potential duration, and corrected QT interval in animals (in vivo corrected QT). Although these nonclinical assays demonstrated good specificity for predicting negative clinical QT prolongation, they had relatively poor sensitivity for predicting positive clinical QT prolongation. After review, 28 discordant TQT-positive drugs were identified. This article provides an overview of direct and indirect mechanisms responsible for QT prolongation and theoretical reasons for lack of concordance between clinical TQT studies and nonclinical assays. We examine 6 specific and discordant TQT-positive drugs as case examples. These were derived from the unique HESI/Food and Drug Administration database. We would like to emphasize some reasons for discordant data including, insufficient or inadequate nonclinical data, effects of the drug on other cardiac ion channels, and indirect and/or nonelectrophysiological effects of drugs, including altered heart rate. We also outline best practices that were developed based upon our evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: QT prolongation; Torsades de Pointes (TdP); discordance; hERG; pharmacokinetics; proarrhythmia; regulatory; sensitivity; specificity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35148401 PMCID: PMC9041548 DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfac013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxicol Sci ISSN: 1096-0929 Impact factor: 4.109
The Sensitivity, Specificity, and Concordance of Nonclinical Drug Safety In Vitro Assays Used to Predict the Clinical QTc Study Outcome
| Test System End-Point | Species | Clinical Endpoint | No. of Compounds | Exposure Multiple | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | Predictability % | Reference | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hERG | Human | Clinical QT studies designed to detect a 7–10 ms QTc change | 17 | 2 | 82 | 75 | 79 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 12 | 10 | 90 | 38 | 67 | |||||
| 10 | 30 | 90 | 14 | 59 | |||||
| hERG | Human | TQT positive study set as a mean value > 5 ms | 39 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 67 |
| FDA/EMA Approval Packages |
| 39 | 10 | 21 | 96 | 69 | |||||
| 39 | 30 | 57 | 92 | 64 | |||||
| 39 | 100 | 64 | 76 | 72 | |||||
| hERG | Human | ICH E14 criteria for TQT or based on concentration-response modeling of QTc data for SAD and MAD studies | 24 | 3 | 15 | 100 | 54 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 24 | 10 | 38 | 100 | 67 | |||||
| 24 | 30 | 69 | 91 | 79 | |||||
| hERG | Human | 5 ms evidenced by upper bound of the 95% CI around the mean effect on QTc of 10 ms | 41 | 3 | 15 | 89 | 66 |
| FDA Database |
| 66 | 10 | 33 | 91 | 73 | |||||
| 74 | 30 | 50 | 92 | 78 | |||||
| APD (Purkinje fiber) | Dog | Clinical QT studies designed to detect 7–10 ms QTc change | 17 | 2 | 20 | 100 | 50 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 12 | 10 | 33 | 80 | 53 | |||||
| 10 | 30 | 100 | 40 | 42 | |||||
| APD (Purkinje fiber, papillary muscle, isolated Heart) | Dog, rabbit, G. Pig, Sheep | 5 ms evidenced by upper bound of the 95% CI around the mean effect on QTc of 10 ms | 38 | 3 | 0 | 89 | 58 |
| FDA Database |
| 52 | 10 | 19 | 94 | 63 | |||||
| 54 | 30 | 19 | 91 | 63 |
Abbreviations: APD, action potential duration; CI, confidence interval; PF, Purkinje fiber; PM, papillary muscle; G. Pig, Guinea Pig; ms, millisecond; hERG, human ether-a-go-go related gene; QTc, corrected QT; TQT, thorough QT.
When evaluating the predictability of a model an overall predictive capacity of 65–74% is considered sufficient (denoted in red text); 75–84% is considered good (denoted in gold text) whereas accuracy > 85% is considered excellent (denoted in green text; Genschow ).
According to the Methods section in the reference paper.
The Sensitivity, Specificity, and Concordance of Nonclinical Drug Safety In Vivo Assays Used to Predict the Clinical QTc Study Outcome
| Test system end-point | Species | Clinical Endpoint | No. of Compounds | Exposure Multiple | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | Predictability % | Reference | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QTc interval prolongation | Dog | Clinical QT studies designed to detect a 7–10 ms QTc change | 17 | 2 | 83 | 86 | 85 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 12 | 10 | 83 | 33 | 58 | |||||
| 10 | 30 | 83 | – | 50 | |||||
| QTc interval | Dog | QTc increase, decrease or unchanged as judged by clinical report to be test article related and noted in conclusion | 114 | 3 | 17 | 92 | 86 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 114 | 10 | 88 | 76 | 78 | |||||
| 114 | 30 | 100 | 58 | 67 | |||||
| QTc interval | Multiple | (see note below) | 40 | NA | 91 | 88 | 90 |
| PubMed |
| QTc interval prolongation | Dog | ICHE14 criteria for TQT or based on concentration-response modeling of QTc data for SAD and MAD studies | 14 | 3 | 63 | 83 | 71 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 16 | 10 | 73 | 80 | 75 | |||||
| 11 | 30 | 89 | 50 | 82 | |||||
| QTc interval prolongation | Dog and monkey | 5 ms evidenced by an upper bound of 95% CI around mean effect on QTc of 10 ms | 46 | 3 | 18 | 100 | 80 |
| Proprietary Data |
| 43 | 10 | 15 | 100 | 74 | |||||
| 30 | 30 | 57 | 91 | 83 |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; CI, confidence interval; ms, millisecond; TQT, thorough QT; QTc, corrected QT.
According to the methods section in the reference paper.
The human QT data were included irrespective of study design, study duration, sample size, specific clinical subject population enrolled, QT data collection method, QT analysis extraction method or QT correction method used because the clinical QT evaluations were performed both before and after the implementation of ICH E14 guideline requirements. The significance of the human and animal QT findings was accepted as reported. When evaluating the predictability of a model an overall predictive capacity of 65–74% is considered sufficient (denoted in red text); 75–84% is considered good (denoted in gold text) whereas accuracy > 85% is considered excellent (denoted in green text; Genschow )
Figure 1.For Drug 157, concentration-response data from the clinical thorough QT (TQT) and nonclinical assays were plotted. The concentration-effect plots show (A) original clinical and nonclinical data for Drug 157 used in the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute/Food Drug Administration analysis by Park , and (B) data for Drug 157 with additional nonclinical data supplied by the sponsor. Stars indicate concentrations at which a positive effect occurred in each assay. TQT data are ΔΔ corrected QT (QTc). The in vitro action potential duration (APD) data are from a rabbit Purkinje fiber study (APD90% change from control), and the in vivo QTc data are from an anesthetized dog study (change from control). The addition of supplementary nonclinical data renders Drug 157 concordant with the human TQT result. The vertical clinical reference concentration (CRC) line indicates the lowest Cmax, free showing QT prolongation. The additional vertical lines indicate multiples from the CRC. Data are plasma concentrations of unbound drug.
Figure 2.For Drug 143, concentration-response data from the clinical T thorough QT (QT) and nonclinical assays were plotted. The concentration-effect plots show data for Drug 143 used in the HESI/FDA analysis by Park . Stars indicate concentrations at which a positive effect occurred in the human TQT study. Although Drug 143 was positive in the human ether-a-go-go related gene (hERG) assay, this drug was classified as nonconcordant since the hERG IC50 value was beyond the 30× threshold margin established for concordance in the analysis by Park . The use of a larger safety margin (45×) as suggested by Gintant (2011) would have resulted in this drug being classified as concordant. The vertical clinical reference concentration (CRC) line indicates the lowest Cmax, free showing QT prolongation. The additional vertical lines indicate multiples from the CRC. Data are plasma concentrations of unbound drug.
Figure 3.For Drug 12, concentration-response data from the clinical thorough QT (TQT) and nonclinical assays were plotted. The concentration-effect plots show (A) original clinical and nonclinical data for Drug 12 used in the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute/Food Drug Administration analysis by Park , and (B) data for Drug 12 with additional nonclinical data provided by the sponsor and from Lacerda . Stars indicate concentrations at which a positive effect occurred in each assay. TQT data are ΔΔ corrected QT (QTc). In vitro action potential duration (APD) data are from a rabbit Purkinje fiber study (APD90% change from control), and in vitro QT data are from a rabbit Langendorff study (QT% change from control). Patch clamp data indicating that Drug 12 increased the amplitude of the late sodium current (INaLate) is included. At 10 µM the current is increased 396% but is cropped from the y-axis for display purposes. The supplementary nonclinical data from the sponsor and Lacerda reveal a mechanism that produces QT prolongation but is not related to hERG block. These data render Drug 12 concordant with the human TQT study. The vertical clinical reference concentration (CRC) line indicates the lowest Cmax, free showing QT prolongation. The additional vertical lines indicate multiples from the CRC. Data are plasma concentrations of unbound drug.
Figure 4.Multiple mechanisms may be involved in drug-induced QT/corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation. The lack of concordance between human ether-a-go-go related gene (hERG) block (characterized by the IC50 value) and QT/QTc prolongation could be due to both direct and indirect factors. The left column lists various direct factors that may affect/modulate the extent of QT prolongation at the level of a myocyte beyond simple characterization of hERG block. These factors include the kinetics of hERG (IKr) block, multichannel block (block of other channels that mitigate or exacerbate delayed repolarization, including transporters and electrogenic exchangers), drugs altering channel expression (“trafficking”), and intracellular accumulation and second messenger systems affecting ionic currents (eg, IKs current enhancement via cyclic AMP). The right column lists various indirect factors that may affect drug-induced QT prolongation including heart rate, electrolytes, and hemodynamic changes. Other factors that may affect the sensitivity of the myocyte to hERG block include hypokalemia-altered sympathetic/parasympathetic tone and diseases, such as heart failure. Note that the cardiac currents involved include the rapid component of the delayed cardiac potassium channel (Kv11.1 or IKr,); the slow component of the delayed cardiac potassium channel (KvLQT1 + minK or IKs); the L-type calcium channel (Cav1.2 or ICaL); the fast inward sodium channel (INa); the inward rectifier potassium channel (Kir2.1 or IK1); the transient outward potassium channel (Kv4.3 or Ito); and the late sodium channel (INaLate). See the IUPHAR/BPS Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY citation for further details on these ion channels (Ion channels. Accessed on January 19, 2019. IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY, http://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/FamilyDisplayForward?familyId=689).
Figure 5.For Drug 142, concentration-response data from the clinical thorough QT (TQT) and nonclinical assays were plotted. The concentration-effect plots show (A) original clinical and nonclinical data for Drug 142 used in the HESI/FDA analysis by Park , and (B) data for Drug 142 with additional non-clinical data provided by the sponsor. Stars indicate concentrations at which a positive effect occurred in each assay. TQT data are ΔΔ corrected QT (QTc). The in vitro action potential duration (APD) is from a rabbit Purkinje fiber study (APD90 change from control). The in vivo QTc is from a monkey telemetry study. Supplementary Material failed to explain the increase in QT interval observed in the TQT study. The vertical clinical reference concentration (CRC) line indicates the lowest Cmax, free showing QT prolongation. The additional vertical lines indicate multiples from the CRC.
Figure 6.For Drug 173, concentration-response data from the clinical thorough QT (TQT) and nonclinical assays were plotted. The concentration-effect plots show (A) original clinical and nonclinical data for Drug 173 used in the HESI/FDA analysis by Park , and (B) data for Drug 173 with additional nonclinical data provided by the sponsor. Stars indicate concentrations at which a positive effect occurred in each assay. Both the TQT and in vivo corrected QT (QTc) data are ΔΔQTc. The in vivo QTc data are from dog telemetry studies where Drug 173 was given by both inhalational and intravenous routes of administration. In vivo action potential duration (APD) data are also shown from a guinea pig study. The supplementary nonclinical data provided by the sponsor for Drug 173 resulted in concordance with the clinical TQT data. The mechanism responsible for QT prolongation is considered indirect and may be related to a coincident increase in heart rate noted in both humans and dogs. The vertical clinical reference concentration (CRC) line indicates the lowest Cmax, free showing QT prolongation. The additional vertical lines indicate multiples from the CRC. Data are plasma concentrations of unbound drug.
Important Concepts and Principles for In Vitro and In Vivo Drug Safety Studies to Enhance the Overall Quality of Data and Improve the Interpretation and Translation of Nonclinical and Clinical Data
|
|
|---|
| • Testing should occur over a broad range of concentrations based upon projected/estimated clinical exposures. |
| • Test concentrations should provide a concentration-response curve. Suggestions include:
Approximately 5–6 concentrations for Approximately 4–5 concentrations for test systems, including the Langendorff isolated heart or cardiac AP. |
| • Test-appropriate control/standard/reference drugs at relevant concentrations to demonstrate assay sensitivity |
| • Actual test concentrations are considered the gold standard. |
| • Standardize assay/test conditions (eg, patch clamp protocols, assay perfusate composition). |
| • Ensure that the NCE is soluble in assay perfusion solutions; inspect solutions for particulates. |
| • Account for drugs adhering to glass/plastic as warranted |
| • Ensure that NCE-mediated effects have reached pseudo steady state. |
| • Independently test major metabolites if confirmed in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) studies, particularly in humans. |
| • Since potential species/tissue differences in expression/function of ion channels exist, assay readout/response should be standardized as a function of the channel/receptor population. |
| • Review binding and functional ion channel data for similarities/differences in assays. |
| • Extended application of an NCE in an assay such as hERG trafficking may be warranted. |
|
|
| • Use an appropriate nonclinical species based on the NCE target, pathway, and pharmacological drug class |
| • Know the statistical power of the assay (ability to detect ΔQTc = 10 ms) |
| • Test reference drugs as warranted (ie, moxifloxacin for QTc prolongation) |
| • Determine reference drug exposure levels to confirm assay sensitivity and/or translatability |
| • Study design: The pro/con of dose escalation vs parallel vs crossover study design imperative |
| • Apply and indicate the use of appropriate heart rate correction method(s). |
| • Testing should occur over a broad range of doses to achieve plasma concentrations based upon projected/estimated clinical exposures. |
| • Consider repeat vs single dose studies if effect(s) are not driven by |
| • Repeat dose studies if steady state is achieved. |
| • Measure blood/serum/plasma concentrations in test animals. |
| • Account for differences in animal plasma protein binding vs human plasma protein binding. |
| • Measure drug metabolites as warranted and include them in the interpretation of any findings. |
| • Use PKPD modeling to refine exposure-response relationship (ie, to resolve QT hysteresis). |
| • Clinical signs and hemodynamic changes can confound data and limit interpretation of results. |
| • Significant changes in animal movement/activity/behavior may introduce artifacts and should be documented (or removed) as warranted. |
| • Application of other biomarkers (ie, body temperature and electrolytes) may help elucidate a mechanism for effects inconsistent with data from |
Abbreviations: hERG, human ether-a-go-go related gene; QTc, corrected QT.