4.0 Article

Highly Automated QT Measurement Techniques in 7 Thorough QT Studies Implemented under ICH E14 Guidelines

Journal

ANNALS OF NONINVASIVE ELECTROCARDIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 13-24

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2010.00402.x

Keywords

thorough QT study; drug cardiotoxicity; moxifloxacin; QT interval; electrocardiogram; drug safety

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health [R01HL084402]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL084402] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thorough QT (TQT) studies are designed to evaluate potential effect of a novel drug on the ventricular repolarization process of the heart using QTc prolongation as a surrogate marker for torsades de pointes. The current process to measure the QT intervals from the thousands of electrocardiograms is lengthy and expensive. In this study, we propose a validation of a highly automatic-QT interval measurement (HA-QT) method. We applied a HA-QT method to the data from 7 TQT studies. We investigated both the placebo and baseline-adjusted QTc interval prolongation induced by moxifloxacin (positive control drug) at the time of expected peak concentration. The comparative analysis evaluated the time course of moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongation in one study as well. The absolute HA-QT data were longer than the FDA-approved QTc data. This trend was not different between ECGs from the moxifloxacin and placebo arms: 9.6 +/- 24 ms on drug and 9.8 +/- 25 ms on placebo. The difference between methods vanished when comparing the placebo-baseline-adjusted QTc prolongation (1.4 +/- 2.8 ms, P = 0.4). The differences in precision between the HA-QT and the FDA-approved measurements were not statistically different from zero: 0.1 +/- 0.1 ms (P = 0.7). Also, the time course of the moxifloxacin-induced QTc prolongation adjusted for placebo was not statistically different between measurements methods. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2011;16(1):13-24

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available