ArticleDrug safety2013
Baseline correction in parallel thorough QT studies.
Article in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical guide to concentration-QTc modeling: a hands-on tutorial.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Article
- Concentration-QTc analysis with two or more correlated baselines.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2021Article
- Limited Evidence for Risk Factors for Proarrhythmia and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients Using Antidepressants: Dutch Consensus on ECG Monitoring.Drug safety · 2018Article
- Scientific white paper on concentration-QTc modeling.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Review
- Choice of baseline in parallel thorough QT studies.Drug safety · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn parallel thorough QT (TQT) studies, it has been speculated that either baseline correction should be omitted, under the assumption that it only adds noise to the data, or a time-averaged baseline instead of a time-matched baseline correction should be considered in order to reduce the study variability.
objectiveThis study characterized the assumptions and implications of different baseline correction approaches in parallel TQT studies submitted for regulatory review. DATA AND
methods57 parallel TQT studies conducted between 2002 and 2009 in 5591 healthy volunteers were evaluated. Only moxifloxacin and placebo arms, including their baselines, were considered. The options of using no baseline correction, time-averaged baseline correction, and time-matched baseline correction were examined and compared.
resultsQTc values exhibited a diurnal pattern, with longer QTc intervals during sleep preserved when correcting for a time-averaged baseline. Post-dose and baseline QTc values were highly correlated (mean ρ = 0.80, range 0.56-0.98 and mean ρ = 0.79, range 0.50-0.96 in the placebo and moxifloxacin groups, respectively). The variability of raw QTc values was substantially larger than that of baseline-adjusted QTc values. The difference in the point estimate of QTc differences between moxifloxacin and placebo differed by up to ± 4 ms between the time-averaged and the time-matched baseline corrections. Statistical tests indicate that assumptions of time-averaged baseline and no baseline correction are not appropriate.
conclusionsBaseline correction in parallel TQT studies leads to more precise QTc estimates. Because of possible inaccuracy introduced by time-averaged baseline correction, the time-matched baseline correction appears to be preferable for a parallel TQT study to both reduce the intrinsic variability due to circadian patterns and obtain more accurate point estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23620166What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.