Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18035863›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2007

Cardiac repolarisation and drug regulation: assessing cardiac safety 10 years after the CPMP guidance.

Rashmi R Shah

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rashmi R ShahRashmi Shah Consultancy Ltd, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, UK. clin.safety@lineone.net
Chalfonts and Gerrards Cross Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

December 2007 marks the 10-year anniversary of the first regulatory guidance for evaluation of drug-induced QT interval prolongation. A decade on, it seems surprising that this document, which was released by the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products, caused such acrimony in the industry. Sponsors now routinely evaluate their new drugs for an effect on cardiac electrophysiology in preclinical studies, in addition to obtaining ECGs in all phases of drug development and conducting a formal thorough QT study in humans.However, concurrently, new concerns have also emerged on broader issues related to the cardiovascular safety of drugs because of their potential to shorten the QT interval as well as to induce proischaemic, profibrotic or prothrombotic effects. Drugs may also have an indirect effect by adversely affecting one or more of the cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. through fluid retention or induction of dyslipidaemia). In addition to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists and cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective inhibitors, three other drugs, darbepoetin alfa, pergolide and tegaserod, provide a more contemporary regulatory stance on tolerance of cardiovascular risk of drugs and their benefit-risk assessment. This recent, more assertive, risk-averse stance has significant implications for future drug development. These include the routine evaluation of cardiovascular safety for certain classes of drugs. Drugs that are intended for long-term use will almost certainly require long-term clinical evaluation in studies that enrol populations that most closely resemble the ultimate target population. Novel mechanisms of action and biomarkers by themselves are no guarantee of improved safety or benefits. Even some traditional biomarkers have come to be viewed with scepticism. Requirements for more extensive and earlier postmarketing assessment of clinical benefits and rare, but serious risks associated with new medicinal products should create a new standard of evidence for industry and regulators and almost certainly result in better assessment of benefit/risk, more effective and balanced regulatory actions and better care for patients.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPractice Guidelines as TopicCardiovascular DiseasesDrug DesignDrug EvaluationDrugs, InvestigationalHumansInternational CooperationInvestigational New Drug ApplicationLong QT SyndromeRisk AssessmentDrugs, Investigational

Identifiers

PMID18035863
OpenAlexW2135400595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.