Comparing the sensitivity of cross-over and parallel study designs for QTc assessment: An analysis based on a single large study of moxifloxacin in 48 nonhuman primates.

ABSTRACT

The cardiovascular safety pharmacology (SP) study conducted to satisfy ICH S7A and S7B has commonly used a cross-over study design where each animal receives all treatments. In an increasing number of cases, cross-over designs are not possible and parallel studies have to be used. These can seldom be as large as 8 animals/treatment to match an n = 8 cross-over. Animals in parallel designs receive only one treatment. Parallel studies will have a different sensitivity to detect changes. This sensitivity is a critical question in using nonclinical QTc evaluations to support an integrated proarrhythmic risk assessment under the newly released ICH E14/S7B Q&As. The current analysis used a study large enough (n = 48) to be analyzed both as a parallel and as a cross-over design to directly compare the performance of the two experimental designs coupled to different statistical models, while all other study conduct aspects were the same. A total of 48 nonhuman primates (NHP) received 2 different treatments twice vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg), vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg). Post-dose QTc interval data were recorded for 48 h for each treatment. Data were analyzed using 12 animals randomly selected for each treatment in a parallel design or as an n = 48 animal cross-over study. Different statistical models were used. The primary endpoint was the residual deviation (sigma) from the models applied to hourly time intervals. The sigma was used to determine the minimal detectable difference (MDD) for the study design-statistical model combination. Two statistical models were applicable to either study design. They gave similar sigma and resulting MDD values. In cross-over designs, the individual animal identification (ID) can be used in the statistical model. This enabled the smallest MDD value. Simple statistical models for analysis were identified Treatment + Baseline for parallel designs and Treatment + ID for cross-over designs. The statistical sensitivity of NHP parallel study designs is reasonable (MDD for n = 6 of 12.7 ms), and in combination with testing exposures higher than likely to be necessary in man could be used in an integrated risk assessment. Where sensitivity of the NHP in vivo QTc assessment is critical, the cross-over design enabled a higher sensitivity (MDD 12.2 ms for n = 4; 8 ms for n = 8).