ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2021
Concentration-QTc analysis for single arm studies.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2021. 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.
- Quantifying Risk of Delayed QT Prolongation of Ipatasertib in Preclinical and Clinical Studies in Cancer Patients.Clinical and translational science · 2025Trial
- Sample size determination for cardiodynamic ECG assessment using the Concentration-QTc analysis method.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Article
- No QTc prolongation with CDK 4/6 inhibitor FCN-437c: results of a concentration-QTc analysis from a dedicated study in adult healthy subjects.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- A comprehensive regulatory and industry review of modeling and simulation practices in oncology clinical drug development.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2023Review
- QTc interval analysis-an ever-evolving endeavor.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concentration-QTc (C-QTc) modeling is being increasingly used in phase 1 studies. For studies without a placebo arm (single arm studies), the scientific whitepaper by Garnett et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9558-5 ) states that time-matched baseline adjustments may minimize the effect of diurnal variation in QTc intervals, and categorical time effects are not needed in the model. However, how diurnal variations can be accounted for when only pre-dose baselines are available is unclear. This research investigates whether including categorical time effects in the model can adjust diurnal variation in single arm studies with pre-dose baselines, where QTc prolongation is evaluated at a concentration of interest based on ΔQTc at 24 h and ΔΔQTc (a model-derived difference in ΔQTc from concentration zero). To understand the operating characteristics for the models with and without categorical time effects, simulations were conducted under various scenarios considering oncology early phase studies. When the C-QTc relationship is linear, models without categorical time effects provided biased estimates for model parameters and inflated or decreased false negative rates (FNRs) depending on the pattern of diurnal variations in QTc intervals, whereas models with categorical time effects caused no biases and controlled the FNRs. For non-linear C-QTc relationships, ΔΔQTc estimations made using the model with categorical time effects were not robust. Thus, for single arm studies where only pre-dose baselines are available, we recommend collecting QTc measurements at 24 h and estimating ΔQTc at a concentration of interest at 24 h using the C-QTc model with categorical time effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33512637What 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.