4.4 Review

Repolarization studies using human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes: Validation studies and best practice recommendations

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104756

关键词

hSC-CM; CiPA; JiCSA; Cardiotoxicity; Cellrhythmias; Delayed repolarization; Cardiovascular safety assessment; Proarrhythmic risk assessment; Nonclinical safety; Safety pharmacology

资金

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [JP18mk0104117]
  2. Food and Drug Administration Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) contract [FDABAA-15-00121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hSC-CMs) hold great promise as in vitro models to study the electrophysiological effects of novel drug candidates on human ventricular repolarization. Two recent large validation studies have demonstrated the ability of hSC-CMs to detect drug-induced delayed repolarization and cellrhythmias (interrupted repolarization or irregular spontaneous beating of myocytes) linked to Torsade-dePointes proarrhythmic risk. These (and other) studies have also revealed variability of electrophysiological responses attributable to differences in experimental approaches and experimenter, protocols, technology platforms used, and pharmacologic sensitivity of different human-derived models. Thus, when evaluating drug-induced repolarization effects, there is a need to consider 1) the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches, 2) the need for robust functional characterization of hSC-CM preparations to define fit for purpose applications, and 3) adopting standardized best practices to guide future studies with evolving hSC-CM preparations. Examples provided and suggested best practices are instructional in defining consistent, reproducible, and interpretable fit for purpose hSC-CM-based applications. Implementation of best practices should enhance the clinical translation of hSC-CM-based cell and tissue preparations in drug safety evaluations and support their growing role in regulatory filings.

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

4.4
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