Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22442827›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Comparison of the effects of levofloxacin on QT/QTc interval assessed in both healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects (pages.

Atsushi Sugiyama, Yuji Nakamura, Satomi Nishimura, Satomi Adachi-Akahane, Yuji Kumagai, Juleen Gayed, Asif Naseem, Georg Ferber, Jorg Taubel, John Camm

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Time of the Day and Magnitude of the Effect of a Drug on the QTc Interval.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Atsushi SugiyamaDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Toho University,Omori-NishiOta-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuji Nakamura
Satomi Nishimura
Satomi Adachi-Akahane
Yuji Kumagai
Juleen Gayed
Asif Naseem
Georg Ferber
Jorg Taubel
John Camm

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThere is no consensus as to what extent the results of thorough QT interval/corrected QT interval (QT/QTc) studies need to be bridged.

methodsThe results of two studies using levofloxacin in Japanese and Caucasian subjects were compared in a post hoc analysis to investigate the similarity of dose–effect responses.

resultsConcentration–response analysis based on the change of QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) from time-matched placebo was planned and performed in the combined data sets. At the geometric maximum mean concentration for the two doses in the Caucasian study, a predicted effect on QTcF comparable to the effects observed was found. For the Japanese study, the predicted effect was lower, but the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionsNo statistically significant differences in QTc-prolonging effect between Japanese and Caucasian subjects were observed following levofloxacin dosing. However, a trend suggests that Caucasian subjects may be more sensitive. Age and sex did not have an impact.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleLevofloxacinWhite PeopleAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsArea Under CurveClinical Trials as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectrocardiographyFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMiddle AgedOfloxacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsLevofloxacinOfloxacin

Identifiers

PMID22442827
PMCPMC3370350

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.