4.7 Review

Application of cardiac electrophysiology simulations to pro-arrhythmic safety testing

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 5, Pages 932-945

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02020.x

Keywords

arrhythmia; Torsade de Pointes; computer model; hERG; QT prolongation

Funding

  1. European Commission's Virtual Physiological Human Initiative
  2. British Heart Foundation
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Affiliates scheme
  5. GlaxoSmithKline Plc
  6. BBSRC [BB/I012117/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. EPSRC [EP/I017909/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/I012117/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/031/27221, FS/12/17/29532] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I017909/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concerns over cardiac side effects are the largest single cause of compound attrition during pharmaceutical drug development. For a number of years, biophysically detailed mathematical models of cardiac electrical activity have been used to explore how a compound, interfering with specific ion-channel function, may explain effects at the cell-, tissue- and organ-scales. With the advent of high-throughput screening of multiple ion channels in the wet-lab, and improvements in computational modelling of their effects on cardiac cell activity, more reliable prediction of pro-arrhythmic risk is becoming possible at the earliest stages of drug development. In this paper, we review the current use of biophysically detailed mathematical models of cardiac myocyte electrical activity in drug safety testing, and suggest future directions to employ the full potential of this approach. LINKED ARTICLE This article is commented on by Gintant, pp. 929931 of this issue. To view this commentary visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02096.x

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available