Trial reportJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2018
Assessing QT/QTc interval prolongation with concentration-QT modeling for Phase I studies: impact of computational platforms, model structures and confidence interval calculation methods.
Trial report in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computationally informed point of departure evaluation for proarrhythmic cardiotoxicity assessment using 3D engineered cardiac microtissues from human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Article
- Concentration-QT modelling shows no evidence of clinically significant QT interval prolongation with capivasertib at expected therapeutic concentrations.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Impact of Phase 1 study design on estimation of QT interval prolongation risk using exposure-response analysis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2019Article
- Thorough QT/QTc in a Dish: An In Vitro Human Model That Accurately Predicts Clinical Concentration-QTc Relationships.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modeling the relationship between drug concentrations and heart rate corrected QT interval (QTc) change from baseline (C-∆QTc), based on Phase I single ascending dose (SAD) or multiple ascending dose (MAD) studies, has been proposed as an alternative to thorough QT studies (TQT), in assessing drug-induced QT prolongation risk. The present analysis used clinical SAD, MAD and TQT study data of an experimental compound, AZD5672, to evaluate the performance of: (i) three computational platforms (linear mixed-effects modeling implemented via PROC MIXED in SAS, as well as in R using LME4 package and linear quantile mixed models (LQMM) implemented via LQMM package; (ii) different model structures with and without treatment- or time-specific intercepts; and (iii) three methods for calculating the confidence interval (CI) of QTc prolongation (analytical and bootstrap methods with fixed or varied geometric mean concentrations). We show that treatment- and time-specific intercepts may need to be included into C-∆QTc modeling through PROC MIXED or LME4, regardless of their statistical significance. With the intersection union test (IUT) in the TQT study as a reference for comparison, inclusion of these intercepts increased the feasibility for C-∆QTc modelling of SAD or MAD to reach the same conclusion as the IUT analysis based on TQT study. Compared to PROC MIXED or LME4, the LQMM method is less dependent on inclusion of treatment- or time-specific intercepts, and the bootstrap CI calculation methods provided higher likelihood for C-∆QTc modeling of SAD and MAD studies to reach the same conclusion as the IUT based on the TQT study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29556866What 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.