ArticleClinical and translational science2023
Evaluation of levocetirizine in beagle dog and cynomolgus monkey telemetry assays: Defining the no QTc effect profile by timepoint and concentration-QTc analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2023. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive review of 20 years of progress in nonclinical QT evaluation and proarrhythmic assessment.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Review
- Black seed oil reverses chronic antibiotic-mediated depression and social behaviour deficits via modulation of hypothalamic mitochondrial-dependent markers and insulin expression.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2024Article
- Association between First-Generation Antihistamine Use in Children and Cardiac Arrhythmia and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Case-Crossover Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of levocetirizine in beagle dog and cynomolgus monkey telemetry assays: Defining the no QTc effect profile by timepoint and concentration-QTc analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In prior clinical studies, levocetirizine (LEVO) has demonstrated no effect on ventricular repolarization (QTc intervals), therefore it is a relevant negative control to assess in nonclinical assays to define low proarrhythmic risk. LEVO was tested in beagle dog and cynomolgus monkey (nonhuman primate [NHP]) telemetry models to understand the nonclinical-clinical translation of this negative control. One oral dose of vehicle, LEVO (10 mg/kg/species) or moxifloxacin (MOXI; 30 mg/kg/dog; 80 mg/kg/NHP) was administered to instrumented animals (N = 8/species) using a cross-over dosing design; MOXI was the in-study positive control. Corrected QT interval values (QTcI) were calculated using an individual animal correction factor. Blood samples were taken for drug exposure during telemetry and for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis (same animals; different day) for exposure-response (C-QTc) modeling. Statistical analysis of QTc-by-timepoint data showed that LEVO treatment was consistent with vehicle, thus no effect on ventricular repolarization was observed over 24 h in both species. PK analysis indicated that LEVO-maximum concentration levels in dogs (range: 12,300-20,100 ng/ml) and NHPs (range: 4090-12,700 ng/ml) were ≥4-fold higher than supratherapeutic drug levels in clinical QTc studies. Slope analysis values in dogs (0.00019 ms/ng/ml) and NHPs (0.00016 ms/ng/ml) were similar to the human C-QTc relationship and indicated no relationship between QTc intervals and plasma levels of LEVO. MOXI treatment caused QTc interval prolongation (dog: 18 ms; NHP: 29 ms). The characterization of LEVO in these non-rodent telemetry studies further demonstrates the value and impact of the in vivo QTc assay to define a "no QTc effect" profile and support clinical safety assessment.
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.