ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2025
FDA's insights: implementing new strategies for evaluating drug-induced QTc prolongation.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- QT Prolongation Risk of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.Drug safety · 2026Pooled it
- The Hidden Cost of QTc Assessment: A Quantitative Weight of Evidence Framework to Eliminate Structural False Positives and Restore the Lost Opportunity Cost of Abandoned Medicines.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular safety of psilocybin in psychiatric practice: a narrative review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- An open-label, single-arm, dose-escalating concentration-QT study to investigate the cardiac effects and safety of paroxetine in healthy adults.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
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
The questions and answers (Q&A) document for ICH E14/S7B provides the following advancements for QTc assessment: concentration-QTc modeling (C-QTc) as the primary analysis, accepting alternative approaches (Q&A 5.1 and 6.1) to thorough QT (TQT) studies, and incorporating an integrated nonclinical risk assessment as supporting evidence. Based on QT study reports reviewed by the FDA between 2016 and 2024, changes to the E14 guideline have resulted in a 34% decrease in the proportion of TQT studies, while the use of C-QTc analysis as the primary analysis has significantly increased. Studies using C-QTc instead of by-time analysis as the primary analysis reduced median sample sizes by 67%, 42%, and 35% for parallel, nested crossover, and crossover studies, respectively. The white paper C-QTc model was used for 60% of drugs that prolonged the QTc interval. From 2020 to 2024, reviews incorporating an integrated nonclinical risk assessment have also increased. The advancements in QTc assessments have streamlined QTc assessment and made clinical trials less resource-intensive. As the advancements continue to evolve the drug safety evaluation is likely to become even more adaptive and enable more precise and targeted QTc 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.