Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 167–182 | Cite as

Dealing with Global Safety Issues

Was the Response to QT-Liability of Non-Cardiac Drugs Well Coordinated?
  • Norman Stockbridge
  • Joel Morganroth
  • Rashmi R. Shah
  • Christine Garnett
Review Article

Abstract

Drug-induced torsade de pointes (TdP) is a potentially fatal iatrogenic entity. Its reporting rate in association with non-cardiac drugs increased exponentially from the early 1990s and was associated with an increasing number of new non-cardiac drugs whose proarrhythmic liability was not appreciated pre-marketing. This epidemic provoked a comprehensive global response from drug regulators, drug developers and academia, which resulted in stabilization of the reporting rate of TdP. This commentary reviews the chronology and nature of, and the reasons for, this response, examines its adequacy, and proposes future strategies for dealing with such iatrogenic epidemics more effectively. It is concluded that the response was piecemeal and lacked direction. No one entity was responsible, with the result that important contributions from regulators, industry and academia lacked coordination. While the process of dealing with QT crisis seemed to have worked reasonably well in this instance, it does not seem wise to expect the next crisis in drug development to be managed as well. Future crises will need better management and the challenge is to implement a system set up to respond globally and efficiently to a perceived drug-related hazard. In this regard, we discuss the roles of new tools the legislation has provided to the regulators and the value of an integrated expert assessment of all pre-approval data that may signal a potential safety issue in the postmarketing period. We also discuss the roles of other bodies such as the WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, CIOMS and the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).

Keywords

Cisapride Terfenadine Palonosetron Ranolazine Sertindole 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors have not received any financial support for writing this commentary. Norman Stockbridge and Christine Garnett have no other affiliations or interests except at the FDA. Christine Garnett’s current affiliation is Certara, Cary, NC, USA. Joel Morganroth is the Chief Cardiac Consultant of eResearch Technology Inc. (ERT), Philadelphia, PA, USA, which provides cardiac safety services to the drug development community. Rashmi Shah was formerly a Senior Clinical Assessor at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, London, UK, and the ICH E14 Topic Leader, representing the EU. Both Joel Morganroth and Rashmi Shah now provide expert consultancy services on the development of new drugs to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this review are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of their affiliate organizations, any of the regulatory authorities or their advisory committees.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellet S, Finkelstein D. Significance of QT prolongation in the electrocardiogram: based on the study of 168 cases. Am J Med Sci. 1951;222:263–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah RR. Cardiac repolarisation and drug regulation: assessing cardiac safety 10 years after the CPMP guidance. Drug Saf. 2007;30:1093–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morganroth J. QT interval prolongation: is it beneficial or harmful? Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:1–59B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipicky RJ. A viewpoint on drugs that prolong the QT interval. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:53–54B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roden DM. Current status of class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:44–49B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Botstein P. Is QT interval prolongation harmful? A regulatory perspective. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:50–52B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waldo AL, Camm AJ. deRuyter H, et al. Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. The SWORD Investigators. Survival with oral d-Sotalol. Lancet. 1996;348:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fung MC. Hsiao-hui Wu H, Kwong K, et al. Evaluation of the profile of patients with QT prolongation in spontaneous adverse event reporting over the past three decades – 1969–98. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000;9(Suppl. 1):S24–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wysowski DK, Corken A, Gallo-Torres H, et al. Postmarketing reports of QT prolongation and ventricular arrhythmia in association with cisapride and Food and Drug Administration regulatory actions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1698–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yap YG, Camm AJ. Drug-induced QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Heart. 2003;89:1363–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohets H, Lavrijsen K, Hendrickx J, et al. Identification of the cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the metabolism of cisapride: in vitro studies of potential co-medication interactions. Br J Pharmacol. 2000;129:1655–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shah RR. Can pharmacogenetics help rescue drugs withdrawn from the market? Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7:889–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke A, Deeks JJ, Shakir SAW. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf. 2006;29:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olivier P, Montastruc J-L. The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:808–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia. Update on TGA decision to cancel prescription pain-killers. 21 Jun 2012. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/newsroom/media-2012-dextropropoxyphen-120621.htm. Accessed 20 Jul 2012.
  16. 16.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Opinion following an article 31 referral (cisapride). EMEA/CPMP/24844/02. London, 7 Oct 2002. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Referrals_document/Cisapride_31/WC500013943.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  17. 17.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider: the assessment of the potential for QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular medicinal products. CPMP/986/96. London, 17 Dec 1997. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/pubs/cpmp.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  18. 18.
    Pratt CM, Ruberg S, Morganroth J, et al. Dose-response relation between terfenadine (Seldane) and the QTc interval on the scalar electrocardiogram: distinguishing a drug effect from spontaneous variability. Am Heart J. 1996;131:472–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Food and Drug Administration. Briefing document for NDA 20-644 (Serdolect) Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) Meeting. 7 Apr 2009. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/PsychopharmacologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM161901.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2012.
  20. 20.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Opinion of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products pursuant to article 10 of Council Directive 75/319/EEC as amended. Mizollen (CPMP/1034/96-EN). London, 18 Dec 1996. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Referrals_document/Mizollen_29/WC500011164.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  21. 21.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on the investigation of drug interactions. CPMP/EWP/560l95. London, 17 Dec 1997. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002966.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  22. 22.
    Lessons from cisapride [editorial]. CMAJ 2001; 164: 1269.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fenichel RR. Development of drugs that alter ventricular repolarization. Am J Ther. 2002;9:127–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Specification for annotated electrocardiographic waveform data in electronic format: request for comments. Fed Register 2003; 68: 22719.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Food and Drug Administration. The clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs. Preliminary concept paper for discussion purposes only (Nov 15, 2002). Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/pubs%5Cprelim.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2012.
  26. 26.
    International Conference on Harmonization. Organization of ICH: Global Cooperation Group. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/about/organisation-of-ich/coopgroup.html. Accessed 20 Jul 2012.
  27. 27.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. ICH note for guidance on the nonclinical evaluation of the potential for delayed ventricular repolarization (QT interval prolongation) by human pharmaceuticals (ICH S7B). CHMP/ICH/423/02. London, Nov 2005. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002841.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  28. 28.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. ICH note for guidance on the clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs (ICH E14). CHMP/ICH/2/04). London, Nov 2005. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002879.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  29. 29.
    European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. ICH Topic E14. The clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs: questions and answers. EMEA/CHMP/ICH/310133/2008. London, Jun 2008. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002878.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  30. 30.
    Garnett CE, Beasley N, Bhattaram VA, et al. Concentration-QT relationships play a key role in the evaluation of proarrhythmic risk during regulatory review. J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;48:13–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang J. Testing for positive control activity in a thorough QTc study. J Biopharm Stat. 2008;18:517–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yan LK, Zhang J, Ng MJ, et al. Statistical characteristics of moxifloxacin-induced QTc effect. J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20:497–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Florian JA, Tornøe CW, Brundage R, et al. Population pharmacokinetic and concentration – QTc models for moxifloxacin: pooled analysis of 20 thorough QT studies. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51:1152–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tornøe CW, Garnett CE, Wang Y, et al. Creation of a knowledge management system for QT analyses. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51:1035–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Malik M, Zhang J, Johannesen L, et al. Assessing electrocardiographic data quality and possible replacement of pharmacologic positive control in thorough QTc studies by investigations of drug-free QTc stability. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:1777–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Antzelevitch C, Sun ZQ, Zhang ZQ, et al. Cellular and ionic mechanisms underlying erythromycin-induced long QT intervals and torsade de pointes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:1836–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hondeghem LM, Carlsson L, Duker G. Instability and triangulation of the action potential predict serious proarrhythmia, but action potential duration prolongation is antiarrhythmic. Circulation. 2001;103:2004–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weissenburger J, Davy JM, Chézalviel F. Experimental models of torsades de pointes. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 1993;7:29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Warmke JW, Ganetzky B. A family of potassium channel genes related to eag in drosophila and mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:3438–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ahmed SR, Wolfe SM. Cisapride and torsades de pointes. Lancet. 1995;345:508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoover CA, Carmichael JK, Nolan PE Jr, et al. Cardiac arrest associated with combination cisapride and itraconazole therapy. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 1996;1:255–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rampe D, Roy ML, Dennis A, et al. A mechanism for the proarrhythmic effects of cisapride (Propulsid): high affinity blockade of the human cardiac potassium channel HERG. FEBS Lett. 1997;417:28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Priori SG. Exploring the hidden danger of noncardiac drugs. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1998;9:1114–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haverkamp W, Breithardt G, Camm AJ, et al. The potential for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia by non-antiarrhythmic drugs: clinical and regulatory implications. Report on a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:1216–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sponer G. Prolongation of repolarization in pre-clinical investigations and phase I/II clinical trials: what should be done? Eur Heart J Supplements. 2001;3(Suppl. K):K101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morganroth J. Focus on issues in measuring and interpreting changes in the QTc interval duration. Eur Heart J Supplements. 2001;3(Suppl. K):K105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Carlsson L. Drug-induced torsade de pointes: the perspectives of industry. Eur Heart J Supplements. 2001;3(Suppl. K):K114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anderson MD, Al-Khatib SM, Roden DM, et al. Cardiac repolarization: current knowledge, critical gaps, and new approaches to drug development and patient management. Am Heart J. 2002;144:769–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Serra DB, Affrime MB, Bedigian MP, et al. QT and QTc interval with standard and supratherapeutic doses of darifenacin, a muscarinic M3 selective receptor antagonist for the treatment of overactive bladder. J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;45:1038–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Morganroth J, Ilson BE, Shaddinger BC, et al. Evaluation of vardenafil and sildenafil on cardiac repolarization. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:1378–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Extramiana F, Maison-Blanche P, Cabanis MJ, et al. Clinical assessment of drug-induced QT prolongation in association with heart rate changes. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;77:247–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Honig PK, Wortham DC, Hull R, et al. Itraconazole affects single-dose terfenadine pharmacokinetics and cardiac repolarization pharmacodynamics. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33:1201–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sarapa N, Morganroth J, Couderc JP, et al. Electrocardiographic identification of drug-induced QT prolongation: assessment by different recording and measurement methods. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2004;9:48–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hanson LA, Bass AS, Gintant G, et al. ILSI-HESI cardiovascular safety subcommittee initiative: evaluation of three non-clinical models of QT prolongation. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2006;54:116–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bass AS, Darpo B, Breidenbach A, et al. International Life Sciences Institute (Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, HESI) initiative on moving towards better predictors of drug-induced torsades de pointes. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;154:1491–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Food and Drug Administration. Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC). Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/PublicPrivatePartnershipProgram/ucm231121.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.
  57. 57.
    Rock EP, Finkle J, Fingert HJ, et al. Assessing proarrhythmic potential of drugs when optimal studies are infeasible. Am Heart J. 2009;157:827–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Min SS, Turner JR, Nada A, et al. Evaluation of ventricular arrhythmias in early clinical pharmacology trials and potential consequences for later development. Am Heart J. 2010;159:716–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kligfield P, Green CL, Mortara J, et al. The Cardiac Safety Research Consortium electrocardiogram warehouse: thorough QT database specifications and principles of use for algorithm development and testing. Am Heart J. 2010;160:1023–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rodriguez I, Erdman A, Padhi D, et al. Electrocardiographic assessment for therapeutic proteins: scientific discussion. Am Heart J. 2010;160:627–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    FDA/PhRMA Task Force to assess QT risk by preclinical markers. Pink Sheet 1999; 61: 15.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hammond TG, Carlsson L, Davis AS, et al. Methods of collecting and evaluating non-clinical cardiac electrophysiology data in the pharmaceutical industry: results of an international survey. Cardiovasc Res. 2001;49:741–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fenichel RR, Malik M, Antzelevitch C, et al. Drug-induced torsades de pointes and implications for drug development. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004;15:475–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Redfern WS, Carlsson L, Davis AS, et al. Relationships between preclinical cardiac electrophysiology, clinical QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes for a broad range of drugs: evidence for a provisional safety margin in drug development. Cardiovasc Res. 2003;58:32–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hashimoto K. Torsades de pointes liability inter-model comparisons: the experience of the QT PRODACT initiative. Pharmacol Ther. 2008;119:195–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dmitrienko A, Smith BP. Analysis of the QT interval in clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2002;36:269–79.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Patterson SD, Agin M, Anziano R, et al. Investigating drug-induced QT and QTc prolongation in the clinic: a review of statistical design and analysis considerations. Report from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America QT Statistics Expert Team. Drug Inf J. 2005;39:243–66.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Antzelevitch C, Oliva A. Amplification of spatial dispersion of repolarization underlies sudden cardiac death associated with catecholaminergic polymorphic VT, long QT, short QT and Brugada syndromes. J Intern Med. 2006;259:48–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jacobson I, Carlsson L, Duker G. Beat-by-beat QT interval variability, but not QT prolongation per se, predicts drug-induced torsades de pointes in the anaesthetised methoxamine-sensitized rabbit. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2011;63:40–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    LaPointe NM, Kramer JM, Weinfurt KP, et al. Practitioner acceptance of the dofetilide risk-management program. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22:1041–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    LaPointe NM, Chen A, Hammill B, et al. Evaluation of the dofetilide risk-management program. Am Heart J. 2003;146:894–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shah RR. Drug-induced QT interval prolongation: regulatory perspectives and drug development. Ann Med. 2004;36(Suppl. 1):47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    De Bruin ML, Pettersson M, Meyboom RH, et al. Anti-HERG activity and the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias and sudden death. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:590–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Oshiro C, Thorn CF, Roden DM, et al. KCNH2 pharmacogenomics summary. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2010;20:775–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gintant G. An evaluation of hERG current assay performance: translating preclinical safety studies to clinical QT prolongation. Pharmacol Ther. 2011;129:109–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    CIOMS. Practical aspects of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Report of CIOMS Working Group VIII. 2010. ISBN 92 9036 082 8. Available from URL: http://www.cioms.ch/publications/blurbs/WGVIIIblurbDRAFT.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2012.
  77. 77.
    Health Level Seven International. Available from URL: www.hl7.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  78. 78.
    Cardiac Safety Research Consortium. Available from URL: www.cardiac-safety.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  79. 79.
    Hayashi S, Kii Y, Tabo M, et al. QT PRODACT: a multi-site study of in vitro action potential assays on 21 compounds in isolated guinea-pig papillary muscles. J Pharmacol Sci. 2005;99(5):423–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Metrics Champion Consortium. Available from URL: www.metricschampion.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  81. 81.
    The WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available from URL: www.who-umc.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  82. 82.
    CIOMS. Available from URL: www.cioms.ch. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  83. 83.
    International Conference on Harmonization. Available from URL: www.ich.org. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Stockbridge
    • 1
  • Joel Morganroth
    • 2
  • Rashmi R. Shah
    • 3
  • Christine Garnett
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Cardiovascular and Renal ProductsCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US FDASilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.eResearch TechnologyPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Rashmi Shah Consultancy LtdGerrards CrossUK
  4. 4.Office of Clinical PharmacologyCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US FDASilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations