Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29556866›Full record

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.

Jingtao Lu, Jianguo Li, Gabriel Helmlinger, Nidal Al-Huniti

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Jingtao LuQuantitative Clinical Pharmacology, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Gatehouse Park, 35 Gatehouse Drive, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA.
Jianguo LiQuantitative Clinical Pharmacology, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Gatehouse Park, 35 Gatehouse Drive, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA.
Gabriel HelmlingerQuantitative Clinical Pharmacology, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Gatehouse Park, 35 Gatehouse Drive, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA.
Nidal Al-HunitiQuantitative Clinical Pharmacology, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Gatehouse Park, 35 Gatehouse Drive, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA. Nidal.Al-huniti@astrazeneca.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenzeneacetamidesConfidence IntervalsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodElectrocardiographyFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeart RateHumansLinear ModelsMaleSulfonamidesBenzeneacetamidesN-(1-(3-(3,5-difluorophenyl)-3-(4-methanesulfonylphenyl)propyl)piperidin-4-yl)-N-ethyl-2-(4-methanesulfonylphenyl)acetamideSulfonamidesAZD5672C-∆QTcF modelingLinear mixed-effects modelLinear quantile mixed modelMultiple-ascending dose studyQTc interval prolongationSingle-ascending dose studyThorough QT/QTc study

Identifiers

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.