Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26960809›Full record

ReviewBMC pharmacology & toxicology2016

Drug-drug interactions and QT prolongation as a commonly assessed cardiac effect - comprehensive overview of clinical trials.

Barbara Wiśniowska, Zofia Tylutki, Gabriela Wyszogrodzka, Sebastian Polak

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. QT monitoring in chemotherapy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Barbara WiśniowskaUnit of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Medyczna 9 Street, 30-688, Krakow, Poland. b.wisniowska@uj.edu.pl.
Zofia TylutkiUnit of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Medyczna 9 Street, 30-688, Krakow, Poland.
Gabriela WyszogrodzkaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Medyczna 9 Street, 30-688, Kraków, Poland.
Sebastian PolakUnit of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Medyczna 9 Street, 30-688, Krakow, Poland. spolak@cm-uj.krakow.pl.
Jagiellonian University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProarrhythmia assessment is one of the major concerns for regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical industry. ICH guidelines recommending preclinical tests have been established in attempt to eliminate the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias. However, in the clinic, arrhythmia occurrence is determined not only by the inherent property of a drug to block ion currents and disturb electrophysiological activity of cardiac myocytes, but also by many other factors modifying individual risk of QT prolongation and subsequent proarrhythmia propensity. One of those is drug-drug interactions. Since polypharmacy is a common practice in clinical settings, it can be anticipated that there is a relatively high risk that the patient will receive at least two drugs mutually modifying their proarrhythmic potential and resulting either in triggering the occurrence or mitigating the clinical symptoms. The mechanism can be observed either directly at the pharmacodynamic level by competing for the molecular targets, or indirectly by modifying the physiological parameters, or at the pharmacokinetic level by alteration of the active concentration of the victim drug.

methodsThis publication provides an overview of published clinical studies on pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions in humans and their electrophysiological consequences (QT interval modification). Databases of PubMed and Scopus were searched and combinations of the following keywords were used for Title, Abstract and Keywords fields: interaction, coadministration, combination, DDI and electrocardiographic, QTc interval, ECG. Only human studies were included. Over 4500 publications were retrieved and underwent preliminary assessment to identify papers accordant with the topic of this review. 76 papers reporting results for 96 drug combinations were found and analyzed.

resultsThe results show the tremendous variability of drug-drug interaction effects, which makes one aware of complexity of the problem, and suggests the need for assessment of an additional risk factors and careful ECG monitoring before administration of drugs with anticipated QT prolongation.

conclusionsDDIs can play significant roles in drugs' cardiac safety, as evidenced by the provided examples. Assessment of the pharmacodynamic effects of the drug interactions is more challenging as compared to the pharmacokinetic due to the significant diversity in the endpoints which should be analyzed specifically for various clinical effects. Nevertheless, PD components of DDIs should be accounted for as PK changes alone do not allow to fully explain the electrophysiological effects in clinic situations.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsPharmacokineticsClinical Trials as TopicHeartHumansLong QT Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID26960809
PMCPMC4785617
OpenAlexW2293166456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.