4.3 Article

Can an early phase clinical pharmacology study replace a thorough QT study? Experience with a novel H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 533-543

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-016-2023-3

关键词

Exposure-response analysis; ICH E14; Intersection Union Test; Pitolisant; Single ascending dose study; Thorough QT study

资金

  1. BIOPROJET PHARMA, Paris (France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of pitolisant on QTcF interval in a single ascending dose (SAD) study and a thorough QT (TQT) study. The SAD study at three dose levels of pitolisant enrolled 24 males and the TQT study at two dose levels 25 males. Both studies intensively monitored ECGs and pitolisant exposure. Effect on QTcF interval was analysed by Intersection Union Test (IUT) and by exposure-response (ER) analysis. Results from the two studies were compared. In both studies, moxifloxacin effect established assay sensitivity. IUT analysis revealed comparable pitolisant-induced maximum mean (90 % confidence interval (CI)) placebo-corrected increase from baseline (Delta Delta QTcF) in both the studies, being 13.3 (8.1; 18.5) ms at 200-mg and 9.9 (4.7; 15.1) ms at 240-mg doses in SAD study and 5.27 (2.35; 8.20) ms at 120-mg dose in TQT study. ER analysis revealed that ER slopes in SAD and TQT studies were comparable and significantly positive (0.031 vs 0.027 ms/ng/mL, respectively). At geometric mean concentrations, bootstrap predicted Delta Delta QTcF (90 % CI) were 9.23 (4.68; 14.4) ms at 279 ng/mL (240-mg dose) in the SAD study and 4.97 (3.42; 8.19) ms at 156 ng/mL (120-mg dose) in the TQT study. Pitolisant lacked an effect of regulatory concern on QTc interval in both the studies, however analysed, suggesting that the results from the SAD study could have mitigated the need for a TQT study. Our findings add to the growing evidence that intensive ECG monitoring in early phase clinical studies can replace a TQT study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据