Drug Safety

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Thorough QT Studies

Questions and Quandaries
Current Opinion

Abstract

The International Conference on Harmonisation E14 Guidance was successful in largely standardizing the conduct of the so-called thorough QT/QTc studies (TQTS). Nevertheless, there is still a spectrum of frequently encountered problems with details of design, conduct and interpretation of TQTS. Several of these challenges are reviewed here, starting with explaining that the TQTS goal is only to identify drugs for which the proarrhythmic risk might be considered excluded for the purposes of regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Suggestions are made on how to categorize and quantify or exclude proarrhythmic risk if the TQTS is positive. There is a conceptual need for TQTS, and this is discussed, together with reasons why restricted clinical registries cannot prove the absence of proarrhythmic liability of any drug.

Appropriate drug doses investigated in TQTS should be derived from the maximum clinically tolerable dose rather than from the known or expected therapeutic dose. With the help of concentration-QTc modelling, the standard therapeutic dose can be omitted from TQTS, especially if the study is expected to be negative. Conditions for single-dose TQTS acceptability are reviewed. The role of the so-called positive control is assessed, contrasting the role of a same-class comparator for the investigated drug. A single 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is advocated as the present ‘gold standard’ assay sensitivity test. The necessity of careful placebo control is explained and the frequency of ECG assessments is considered. The central tendency and outlier analyses are discussed, together with the correct approaches to baseline adjustment.

The review concludes that the design and interpretation of TQTS must not be approached with mechanistic stereotypes, and highlights the importance of relating the QTc changes to drug plasma levels.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The opinions presented in this review are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Professor Malik, University of London, is an Honorary Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Fellow of the US Food and Drug Administration.

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

References

  1. 1.
    E14 clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs. Guidance to industry. Fed Regist 2005; 70: 61134–5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ICH topic E 14. The clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs: questions and answers (EMEA/ CHMP/ICH/310133/2008) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/31013308en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 10]
  3. 3.
    Darpo B, Nebout T, Sager PT. Clinical evaluation of QT/QTc prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for nonantiarrhythmic drugs. The International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E14 guideline. J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 46: 498–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah RR. Cardiac repolarisation and drug regulation: assessing cardiac safety 10 years after the CPMP guidance. Drug Saf 2007;30: 1093–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rock EP, Finkle J, Fingert HJ, et al. Assessing proarrhythmic potential of drugs when optimal studies are infeasible. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 827–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinto YM, van Gelder IC, Heeringa M, et al. QT lengthening and life-threatening arrhythmias associated with fexofenadine. Lancet 1999; 353: 980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Renard S, Ostorero M, Yvorra S, et al. Torsades de pointes caused by cetirizine overdose. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 2005; 98: 157–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kent K, Ganetsky M, Cohen J, et al. Non-fatal ventricular dysrhythmias associated with severe salicylate toxicity. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2008; 46: 297–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malik M. Facts, fancies, and follies of drug-induced QT/QTc interval shortening. Br J Pharmacol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habib AS, Gan TJ. Pro: the Food and Drug Administration black box warning on droperidol is not justified. Anesth Analg 2008; 106: 1414–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honig PK, Wortham DC, Zamani K, et al. Terfenadine-ketoconazole interaction: pharmacokinetic and electro-cardiographic consequences. JAMA 1993; 269: 1513–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Routledge PA, Lindquist M, Edwards IR. Spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse reactions to antihistamines: a national and international perspective. Clin Exp Allergy 1999; 29 Suppl. 3: 240–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pratt CM, Hertz RP, Ellis BE, et al. Risk of developing life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia associated with tefenadine in comparison with over-the-counter antihistamines, ibuprofen and clemastine. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 346–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanrahan JP, Choo PW, Carlson W, et al. Terfenadine-associated ventricular arrhythmias and QTc interval prolongation: a retrospective cohort comparison with other antihistamines among members of a health maintenance organization. Ann Epidemiol 1995; 5: 201–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walker AM, Szneke P, Weatherby LB, et al. The risk of serious cardiac arrhythmias among cisapride users in the United Kingdom and Canada. Am J Med 1999; 107: 356–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moss AJ. The QT interval and torsade de pointes. Drug Saf 1999; 21 Suppl. 1: 5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Layton D, Key C, Shakir SA. Prolongation of the QT interval and cardiac arrhythmias associated with cisapride: limitations of the pharmacoepidemiological studies conducted and proposals for the future. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12: 31–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nuttall GA, Eckerman KM, Jacob KA, et al. Does low-dose droperidol administration increase the risk of drug-induced QT prolongation and torsade de pointes in the general surgical population? Anesthesiology 2007; 107: 531–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jimenez JJ, Jimenez JG, Daghistani D, et al. Interaction of chloramphenicol and metabolites with colony stimulating factors: possible role in chloramphenicol-induced bone marrow injury. Am J Med Sci 1990; 300: 350–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fuller MA, Dostrow V, Gupta S, et al. Practical considerations for carbamazepine use in bipolar disorder. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2006; 5: 501–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schnyder B, Pichler WJ. Mechanisms of drug-induced allergy. Mayo Clin Proc 2009; 84: 268–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fenichel RR, Malik M, Antzelevitch C, et al. Drug-induced torsades de pointes and implications for drug development. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2004; 15: 475–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trepakova ES, Koerner J, Pettit SD, et al. A HESI consortium approach to assess the human predictive value of non-clinical repolarization assays. HESI Pro-Arrhythmia Committee. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2009; 60: 45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zabel M, Acar B, Klingenheben T, et al. Analysis of 12-lead T-wave morphology for risk stratification after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2000; 102: 1252–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zabel M, Malik M, Hnatkova K, et al. Analysis of T-wave morphology from the 12-lead electrocardiogram for prediction of long-term prognosis in male US veterans. Circulation 2002; 105: 1066–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Porthan K, Viitasalo M, Jula A, et al. Predictive value of electrocardiographic QT interval and T-wave morphology parameters for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a general population sample. Heart Rhythm 2009; 6: 1202–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graff C, Andersen MP, Xue JQ, et al. Identifying drug-induced repolarization abnormalities from distinct ECG patterns in congenital long QT syndrome. Drug Saf 2009; 32: 599–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Malik M. Drug-induced changes in the T-wave morphology. Drug Saf 2009; 32: 613–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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: 13–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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: 472–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clifford CP, Adams DA, Murray S, et al. The cardiac effects of terfenadine after inhibition of its metabolism by grapefruit juice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52: 311–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hombach V. Electrocardiography of the failing heart. Cardiol Clin 2006; 24: 413–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Malik M, Andreas JO, Hnatkova K, et al. Thorough QT/QTc study in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease: cardiac safety of rotigotine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84: 595–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rautaharju PM, Zhang Z-M. Linearly scaled, rate-invariant normal limits for QT interval: eight decades of incorrect application of power functions. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002; 13: 1211–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coker SJ. Drugs for men and women: how important is gender as a risk factor for TdP? Pharmacol Ther 2008; 119: 186–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: safety testing of drug metabolites, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm079266.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 10]
  37. 37.
    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: 247–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beasley Jr CM, Mitchell MI, Dmitrienko AA, et al. The combined use of ibutilide as an active control with intensive electrocardiographic sampling and signal averaging as a sensitive method to assess the effects of tadalafil on the human QT interval. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 678–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bloomfield DM, Kost JT, Ghosh K, et al. The effect of moxifloxacin on QTc and implications for the design of thorough QT studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84: 475–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Damle B, Fosser C, Ito K, et al. Effects of standard and supratherapeutic doses of nelfinavir on cardiac repolarization: a thorough QT study. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49: 291–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Malik M, Hnatkova K, Schmidt A, et al. Electrocardiographic QTc changes due to moxifloxacin infusion. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49: 674–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sechaud R, Dumortier T, Balez S. Deferasirox does not induce QT/QTc-prolongation in healthy subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009; 47: 321–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Darpo B, Agin M, Kazierad DJ, et al. Man versus machine: is there an optimal method for QT measurements in thorough QT studies? J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 46: 598–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hnatkova K, Gang Y, Batchvarov VN, et al. Precision of QT interval measurement by advanced electrocardiographic equipment. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006; 29: 1277–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    FDA background on Zeldox™ (ziprasidone hydrochloride capsules) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/AC/00/backgrd/3619b1b.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 10]
  46. 46.
    Batchvarov VN, Ghuran A, Smetana P, et al. QT-RR relationship in healthy subjects exhibits substantial inter-subject variability and high intrasubject stability. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2002; 282: H2356–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Malik M. Errors and misconceptions in ECG measurement used for the detection of drug induced QT interval prolongation. J Electrocardiol 2004; 37 Suppl.: 25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Salvi V, Karnad DR, Panicker GK, et al. Update on the evaluation of a new drug for effects on cardiac repolarization in humans: issues in early drug development. Br J Pharmacol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang J, Machado SG. Statistical issues including design and sample size calculation in thorough QT/QTc studies. J Biopharm Stat 2008; 18: 451–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McBride BF, Yang T, Roden DM. Influence of the G2677T/ C3435T haplotype of MDR1 on P-glycoprotein trafficking and ibutilide-induced block of HERG. Pharmacogenomics J 2009; 9: 194–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider: the assessment of the potential for QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular medicinal products, 1997 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/pubs/cpmp.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 10]
  52. 52.
    Hnatkova K, Smetana P, Toman O, et al. Systematic comparisons of electrocardiographic morphology increase the precision of QT interval measurement. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009; 32: 119–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sherazi S, DiSalle M, Daubert JP, et al. Moxifloxacin-induced torsades de pointes. Cardiol J 2008; 15: 71–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Badshah A, Janjua M, Younas F, et al. Moxifloxacin-induced QT prolongation and torsades: an uncommon effect of a common drug. Am J Med Sci 2009; 338: 164–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang X, Silkey M, Schumacher M, et al. Period correction of the QTc of moxifloxacin with multiple predose baseline ECGs is the least variable of 4 methods tested. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49: 534–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Malik
    • 1
  • Christine E. Garnett
    • 2
  • Joanne Zhang
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Cardiac and Vascular SciencesSt George’s, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Pharmacometrics Staff, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Center of Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  3. 3.Division of Biometrics VI, Office of Biostatistics/Office of Translational Sciences, Center of Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations