Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21306581›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2011

How can we improve our understanding of cardiovascular safety liabilities to develop safer medicines?

Hg Laverty, C Benson, Ej Cartwright, Mj Cross, C Garland, T Hammond, C Holloway, N McMahon, J Milligan, Bk Park and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. PersonalizedFrontiers in physiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Large-scale synthetic data enable digital twins of human excitable cells.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

24 authors.

Hg LavertyMRC Centre for Drug Safety Science, Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, The University of Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
C Benson
Ej Cartwright
Mj Cross
C Garland
T Hammond
C Holloway
N McMahon
J Milligan
Bk Park
M Pirmohamed
C Pollard
J Radford
N Roome
P Sager
S Singh
T Suter
W Suter
A Trafford
Pga Volders
R Wallis
R Weaver
M York
Jp Valentin

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given that cardiovascular safety liabilities remain a major cause of drug attrition during preclinical and clinical development, adverse drug reactions, and post-approval withdrawal of medicines, the Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science hosted a workshop to discuss current challenges in determining, understanding and addressing 'Cardiovascular Toxicity of Medicines'. This article summarizes the key discussions from the workshop that aimed to address three major questions: (i) what are the key cardiovascular safety liabilities in drug discovery, drug development and clinical practice? (ii) how good are preclinical and clinical strategies for detecting cardiovascular liabilities? and (iii) do we have a mechanistic understanding of these liabilities? It was concluded that in order to understand, address and ultimately reduce cardiovascular safety liabilities of new therapeutic agents there is an urgent need to: • Fully characterize the incidence, prevalence and impact of drug-induced cardiovascular issues at all stages of the drug development process. • Ascertain the predictive value of existing non-clinical models and assays towards the clinical outcome. • Understand the mechanistic basis of cardiovascular liabilities; by addressing areas where it is currently not possible to predict clinical outcome based on preclinical safety data. • Provide scientists in all disciplines with additional skills to enable them to better integrate preclinical and clinical data and to better understand the biological and clinical significance of observed changes. • Develop more appropriate, highly relevant and predictive tools and assays to identify and wherever feasible to eliminate cardiovascular safety liabilities from molecules and wherever appropriate to develop clinically relevant and reliable safety biomarkers.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAnimalsCardiovascular AgentsCardiovascular SystemDrug DiscoveryDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansCardiovascular Agents

Identifiers

PMID21306581
PMCPMC3111672

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.