ReviewJournal of clinical pharmacology2021
The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary.
Review in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- QT Prolongation Risk of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.Drug safety · 2026Pooled it
- Model informed assessment of QT prolongation during drug development: a five-year retrospective analysis of EMA scientific advices.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Review
- An Integrated Nonclinical and Clinical Risk Assessment of the Effects of Investigational ATRi Tuvusertib on QTc Interval in Patients With Solid Tumors.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- The evolving role of investigative toxicology in the pharmaceutical industry.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2023Review
- Smart devices to measure and monitor QT intervals.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Establishment and validation of a torsade de pointes prediction model based on human iPSC‑derived cardiomyocytes.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- ECG Evaluation as Part of the Clinical Pharmacology Strategy in the Development of New Drugs: A Review of Current Practices and Opportunities Based on Five Case Studies.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In August 2020, the International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) released a new draft document, which for the first time combined nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) Questions and Answers (Q&As) into 1 document. FDA describes the revision as a "value proposition": if the human ether-à-go-go assay and the in vivo study are performed in a standardized way, the number of dedicated thorough QT (TQT) studies can be reduced. In this article, we describe and discuss the Q&As that relate to clinical ECG evaluation. If supported by negative standardized nonclinical assays, Q&A 5.1 will obviate the need for a TQT study in the case that a >2-fold exposure margin vs high clinical scenario cannot be obtained. Q&A 6.1 addresses drugs that are poorly tolerated in healthy subjects and cannot be studied at high doses or in placebo-controlled studies; it therefore mainly applies to oncology drugs. It will enable sponsors to claim that a new drug has a "low likelihood of proarrhythmic effects" in the case that the mean corrected QT effect is <10 milliseconds at the time of market application. The E14 2015 revision allowed application of concentration-corrected QT analysis on data from routinely performed clinical pharmacology studies, for example, the first-in-human study and the proportion of dedicated TQT studies has since steadily decreased. It can be foreseen that the proposed new revision will further reduce the number of TQT studies. To achieve harmonization across regulatory regions, it seems important to reach consensus within the International Council on Harmonisation group on the new threshold proposed in 6.1. For this purpose, the Implementation Working Group has asked for public comments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.