Appraisal of ICH E14/S7B Q&As adopted in February 2022 using thorough QT/QTc study data for α4-integrin antagonist carotegrast methyl in Japanese healthy subjects.

We investigated how a lack of placebo control affects the interpretation of results of thorough QT/QTc (TQT) study. Results of TQT study in 48 healthy Japanese subjects assessing the effects of 480 and 960 mg of carotegrast methyl (test drug) and 400 mg of moxifloxacin (positive control) on the time-matched changes in corrected QT from baseline (ΔQTcF) and the placebo-adjusted ΔQTcF (ΔΔQTcF) were analyzed with central-tendency and concentration-response analyses. In central-tendency analysis, moxifloxacin prolonged ΔQTcF and ΔΔQTcF with the largest mean values (90% confidence interval) of 12.1 ms (9.3, 14.8) and 15.4 ms (12.6, 18.1), respectively. Meanwhile, carotegrast methyl hardly altered ΔQTcF and ΔΔQTcF with the largest mean values of 0.8 ms (-2.3, 3.9) and 2.1 ms (-0.7, 4.8) for the low dose, and -0.2 ms (-3.4, 3.0) and 1.6 ms (-0.9, 4.2) for the high dose, respectively. In concentration-response analysis, moxifloxacin attained the estimated mean values for ΔQTcF and ΔΔQTcF of 11.4 ms (8.5, 14.4) and 16.7 ms (14.0, 19.4) at the mean Cmax, whereas carotegrast methyl provided those of -4.6 ms (-7.3, -1.9) and 0.7 ms (-1.4, 2.8), respectively. Thus, lack of placebo control did not influence the interpretation of TQT study with either of the analysis in line with updated E14/S7B Q&As.

Concentration-QTc analysis with two or more correlated baselines.

The relationship between drug concentration and QTc interval is typically evaluated by applying the standard analysis model proposed in a scientific whitepaper by Garnett et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9558-5 ). The model is a mixed effects model in which a baseline QTc interval is included as a covariate. Two or more baseline QTc intervals are sometimes observed for a study participant, such as time-matched baselines on a baseline day in parallel studies, or pre-dose baselines in each period in crossover studies. In such situations, the baseline adjustments are not straightforward because these baselines correlate with not only the corresponding QTc intervals after drug administration, but also other QTc intervals at different timepoints for parallel studies, or those in different periods for crossover studies. In this study, we compared three analysis models through simulations and clinical study examples in settings in which two or more baselines were observed for a subject. We compared a model without baseline adjustment, a model with baseline adjustment, and a model in which baseline and baseline mean were included as covariates. In the simulations and clinical study examples, the model with baseline and baseline mean as covariates demonstrated higher accuracy and power than the other models. This model assumed a specific covariance structure in QTc intervals, which well approximated the correlations between QTc intervals within and between days. When there are two or more baselines in concentration-QTc analyses, the baseline mean should be included as a covariate in addition to the corresponding baseline.

Concentration-QTc analysis for single arm studies.

Concentration-QTc (C-QTc) modeling is being increasingly used in phase 1 studies. For studies without a placebo arm (single arm studies), the scientific whitepaper by Garnett et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9558-5 ) states that time-matched baseline adjustments may minimize the effect of diurnal variation in QTc intervals, and categorical time effects are not needed in the model. However, how diurnal variations can be accounted for when only pre-dose baselines are available is unclear. This research investigates whether including categorical time effects in the model can adjust diurnal variation in single arm studies with pre-dose baselines, where QTc prolongation is evaluated at a concentration of interest based on ΔQTc at 24 h and ΔΔQTc (a model-derived difference in ΔQTc from concentration zero). To understand the operating characteristics for the models with and without categorical time effects, simulations were conducted under various scenarios considering oncology early phase studies. When the C-QTc relationship is linear, models without categorical time effects provided biased estimates for model parameters and inflated or decreased false negative rates (FNRs) depending on the pattern of diurnal variations in QTc intervals, whereas models with categorical time effects caused no biases and controlled the FNRs. For non-linear C-QTc relationships, ΔΔQTc estimations made using the model with categorical time effects were not robust. Thus, for single arm studies where only pre-dose baselines are available, we recommend collecting QTc measurements at 24 h and estimating ΔQTc at a concentration of interest at 24 h using the C-QTc model with categorical time effects.

QT Assessment in Early Drug Development: The Long and the Short of It.

The QT interval occupies a pivotal role in drug development as a surface biomarker of ventricular repolarization. The electrophysiologic substrate for QT prolongation coupled with reports of non-cardiac drugs producing lethal arrhythmias captured worldwide attention from government regulators eventuating in a series of guidance documents that require virtually all new chemical compounds to undergo rigorous preclinical and clinical testing to profile their QT liability. While prolongation or shortening of the QT interval may herald the appearance of serious cardiac arrhythmias, the positive predictive value of an abnormal QT measurement for these arrhythmias is modest, especially in the absence of confounding clinical features or a congenital predisposition that increases the risk of syncope and sudden death. Consequently, there has been a paradigm shift to assess a compound's cardiac risk of arrhythmias centered on a mechanistic approach to arrhythmogenesis rather than focusing solely on the QT interval. This entails both robust preclinical and clinical assays along with the emergence of concentration QT modeling as a primary analysis tool to determine whether delayed ventricular repolarization is present. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the QT interval and highlight its central role in early drug development.

Effects of moxifloxacin on the proarrhythmic surrogate markers in healthy Filipino subjects: Exposure-response modeling using ECG data of thorough QT/QTc study.

Effects of moxifloxacin on QTc as well as proarrhythmic surrogate markers including J-Tpeakc, Tpeak-Tend and short-term variability (STV) of repolarization were examined by using both standard E14 time-based evaluation and exposure-response modeling. The study was conducted with a single-blind, randomized, single-dose, placebo-controlled and two-period cross-over design in healthy Filipino subjects. QT interval was corrected by Fridericia's formula (QTcF). In the E14 time-based evaluation of ECG data, the largest ΔΔQTcF with 90% confidence interval was 14.1 ms (11.2-16.9) with Cmax of 3.39 µg/mL at 3 h post-dose (n = 69; male: 35, female: 34), indicating a positive effect on the QTcF. Moxifloxacin significantly increased the ΔΔJ-Tpeakc and ΔΔTpeak-Tend, whereas the ΔΔSTV was not altered. Meanwhile in the exposure-response modeling of the same ECG data, the slope of moxifloxacin plasma concentration-ΔΔQTcF relationship was 4.84 ms per µg/mL and the predicted ΔΔQTcF with 90% confidence interval was 13.8 ms (13.1-15.1) at Cmax, also indicating a positive effect on the QTcF. Importantly, results in each proarrhythmic surrogate marker obtained by the exposure-response modeling also showed high similarity to those obtained by the E14 statistical evaluation. Thus, these results of moxifloxacin may become a guide to estimate proarrhythmic potential of new chemical entities.

Scientific white paper on concentration-QTc modeling.

The International Council for Harmonisation revised the E14 guideline through the questions and answers process to allow concentration-QTc (C-QTc) modeling to be used as the primary analysis for assessing the QTc interval prolongation risk of new drugs. A well-designed and conducted QTc assessment based on C-QTc modeling in early phase 1 studies can be an alternative approach to a thorough QT study for some drugs to reliably exclude clinically relevant QTc effects. This white paper provides recommendations on how to plan and conduct a definitive QTc assessment of a drug using C-QTc modeling in early phase clinical pharmacology and thorough QT studies. Topics included are: important study design features in a phase 1 study; modeling objectives and approach; exploratory plots; the pre-specified linear mixed effects model; general principles for model development and evaluation; and expectations for modeling analysis plans and reports. The recommendations are based on current best modeling practices, scientific literature and personal experiences of the authors. These recommendations are expected to evolve as their implementation during drug development provides additional data and with advances in analytical methodology.

Evaluation of dependent variable, time effect, covariates, and covariation structure in concentration-QTc modeling: A simulation study.

The revised ICH E14 Question and Answer (R3) document issued in December 2015 enables pharmaceutical companies to use concentration-QTc (C-QTc) modeling as the primary analysis for assessing QTc prolongation risk of new drugs. A new approach by including the time effect into the current C-QTc model is introduced. Through a simulation study, we evaluated performances of different C-QTc modeling with different dependent variables, covariates, and covariance structures. This simulation study shows that C-QTc models with ΔQTc being dependent variable without time effect inflate false negative rate and that fitting C-QTc models with different dependent variables, covariates, and covariance structures impacts the control of false negative and false positive rates. Appropriate C-QTc modeling strategies with good control of false negative rate and false positive rate are recommended.

Comparing QT interval variability of semiautomated and high-precision ECG methodologies in seven thorough QT studies-implications for the power of studies intended for definitive evaluation of a drug's QT effect.

BACKGROUND: In studies of drug effects on electrocardiographic parameters, the level of precision in measuring QTc interval changes will influence a study's ability to detect small effects. METHODS: Variability data from investigational, placebo and moxifloxacin treatments from seven thorough QT studies performed by the same sponsor were analyzed with the objective to compare the performance of two commonly used approaches for ECG interval measurements: semiautomated (SA) and the high-precision QT (HPQT) analysis. Five studies were crossover and two parallel. Harmonized procedures were implemented to ensure similar experimental conditions across studies. ECG replicates were extracted serially from continuous 12-lead recordings at predefined time points from subjects supinely resting. The variability estimates were based on the time-point analysis of change-from-baseline QTcF as the dependent variable for the standard primary analysis of previous thorough QT studies. The residual variances were extracted for each study and ECG technique. RESULTS: High-precision QT resulted in a substantial reduction in ∆QTc variability as compared to SA. A reduction in residual variability or approximately 50% was achieved in both crossover and parallel studies, both for the active comparison (drug vs. placebo) and for assay sensitivity (moxifloxacin vs. placebo) data. CONCLUSIONS: High-precision QT technique significantly reduces QT interval variability and thereby the number of subjects needed to exclude small effects in QT studies. Based on this assessment, the sample size required to exclude a QTc effect >10 ms with 90% power is reduced from 35 with SA to 18 with HPQT, if a 3 ms underlying drug effect is assumed.

Enabling robust assessment of QTc prolongation in early phase clinical trials.

Since the implementation of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E14 guideline in 2005, regulators have required a "thorough QTc" (TQT) study for evaluating the effects of investigational drugs on delayed cardiac repolarization as manifested by a prolonged QTc interval. However, TQT studies have increasingly been viewed unfavorably because of their low cost effectiveness. Several researchers have noted that a robust drug concentration-QTc (conc-QTc) modeling assessment in early phase development should, in most cases, obviate the need for a subsequent TQT study. In December 2015, ICH released an "E14 Q&As (R3)" document supporting the use of conc-QTc modeling for regulatory decisions. In this article, we propose a simple improvement of two popular conc-QTc assessment methods for typical first-in-human crossover-like single ascending dose clinical pharmacology trials. The improvement is achieved, in part, by leveraging routinely encountered (and expected) intrasubject correlation patterns encountered in such trials. A real example involving a single ascending dose and corresponding TQT trial, along with results from a simulation study, illustrate the strong performance of the proposed method. The improved conc-QTc assessment will further enable highly reliable go/no-go decisions in early phase clinical development and deliver results that support subsequent TQT study waivers by regulators.

Can an early phase clinical pharmacology study replace a thorough QT study? Experience with a novel H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of pitolisant on QTcF interval in a single ascending dose (SAD) study and a thorough QT (TQT) study. METHODS: The SAD study at three dose levels of pitolisant enrolled 24 males and the TQT study at two dose levels 25 males. Both studies intensively monitored ECGs and pitolisant exposure. Effect on QTcF interval was analysed by Intersection Union Test (IUT) and by exposure-response (ER) analysis. Results from the two studies were compared. RESULTS: In both studies, moxifloxacin effect established assay sensitivity. IUT analysis revealed comparable pitolisant-induced maximum mean (90 % confidence interval (CI)) placebo-corrected increase from baseline (ΔΔQTcF) in both the studies, being 13.3 (8.1; 18.5) ms at 200-mg and 9.9 (4.7; 15.1) ms at 240-mg doses in SAD study and 5.27 (2.35; 8.20) ms at 120-mg dose in TQT study. ER analysis revealed that ER slopes in SAD and TQT studies were comparable and significantly positive (0.031 vs 0.027 ms/ng/mL, respectively). At geometric mean concentrations, bootstrap predicted ΔΔQTcF (90 % CI) were 9.23 (4.68; 14.4) ms at 279 ng/mL (240-mg dose) in the SAD study and 4.97 (3.42; 8.19) ms at 156 ng/mL (120-mg dose) in the TQT study. CONCLUSION: Pitolisant lacked an effect of regulatory concern on QTc interval in both the studies, however analysed, suggesting that the results from the SAD study could have mitigated the need for a TQT study. Our findings add to the growing evidence that intensive ECG monitoring in early phase clinical studies can replace a TQT study.

The role of concentration-effect relationships in the assessment of QTc interval prolongation.

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling has been widely used in clinical research. Yet, its application in the evaluation of cardiovascular safety remains limited, particularly in the evaluation of pro-arrhythmic effects. Here we discuss the advantages of disadvantages of population PKPD modelling and simulation, a paradigm built around the knowledge of the concentration-effect relationship as the basis for decision making in drug development and its utility as a guide to drug safety. A wide-ranging review of the literature was performed on the experimental protocols currently used to characterize the potential for QT interval prolongation, both pre-clinically and clinically. Focus was given to the role of modelling and simulation for design optimization and subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data, discriminating drug from system specific properties. Cardiovascular safety remains one of the major sources of attrition in drug development with stringent regulatory requirements. However, despite the myriad of tests, data are not integrated systematically to ensure accurate translation of the observed drug effects in clinically relevant conditions. The thorough QT study addresses a critical regulatory question but does not necessarily reflect knowledge of the underlying pharmacology and has limitations in its ability to address fundamental clinical questions. It is also prone to issues of multiplicity. Population approaches offer a paradigm for the evaluation of drug safety built around the knowledge of the concentration-effect relationship. It enables quantitative assessment of the probability of QTc interval prolongation in patients, providing better guidance to regulatory labelling and understanding of benefit/risk in specific populations.

Establishing assay sensitivity in QT studies: experience with the use of moxifloxacin in an early phase clinical pharmacology study and comparison with its effect in a thorough QT study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of moxifloxacin as a positive control in a single ascending dose (SAD) study with that in a thorough QT (TQT) study. METHODS: Moxifloxacin was used as a positive control in a SAD study and a TQT study during the evaluation of the QT liability of a new drug. The SAD study had enrolled 24 males and the TQT study 25 males. Both studies intensively monitored electrocardiograms (ECGs) and pharmacokinetic sampling. Effect of moxifloxacin on QTc interval was analysed in each study by intersection union test (IUT) and by exposure-response (ER) analysis and the results compared. Cost-effectiveness of this approach was computed. RESULTS: Analysis by IUT revealed that the maximum mean (90 % confidence interval (CI)) placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔQTcF) in the SAD study and the TQT study were remarkably similar (10.7 (6.5; 14.9) ms vs. 9.09 (6.20; 11.98) ms, respectively). In both studies, assay sensitivity was established by the 90 % lower bound exceeding 5 ms. ER analysis revealed the slopes in both studies to be significantly different from zero and comparable. Bootstrap-predicted effects of moxifloxacin at geometric mean concentrations of ~3000 ng/mL were 8.19 (90 % CI 5.86; 10.7) ms in the SAD study and 7.33 (90 % CI 5.69; 9.70) ms in the TQT study. CONCLUSION: Moxifloxacin can be integrated effectively in a SAD study to establish assay sensitivity, and a TQT study may be replaced by a SAD study which has the required assay sensitivity. Further experience is warranted to verify this conclusion.

Detection of QTc effects in small studies--implications for replacing the thorough QT study.

BACKGROUND: ECG assessment with exposure response analysis applied to data from First-in-Man studies has been proposed to replace the thorough QT study for the detection of small QT effects. METHODS: Data from five thorough QT studies, three with moxifloxacin, one study with a drug with a large QTc effect (∼25 ms) and one with ketoconazole with a smaller QT effect (∼8 ms) were used. By subsampling, studies with 6-18 subjects on drug and six on placebo were simulated 1000 times per sample size to assess whether small QTc effects using ICH E14 criteria could be excluded and the impact of sample size on the estimate and variability of the slope of the concentration/QTc relation. RESULTS: With a sample size of nine or more on drug and six on placebo, the fraction of "false negative studies" was at or below 5% with data from the studies with moxifloxacin and from the drug with a large QTc effect. With the same sample size and no underlying QTc effect (placebo), the fraction of studies in which an effect above 10 ms could be excluded was above 85%. A treatment effect in the linear concentration-effect model resulted in a lower proportion of "false negatives." Sample size had little influence on the average slope estimate of the concentration/QTc relationship. CONCLUSIONS: For drugs with a QTc effect of around 12-14 ms, exposure response analysis applied to First-in-Man studies with careful ECG assessment can be used to replace the through QT study.

Macitentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, does not affect cardiac repolarization in healthy subjects.

Macitentan is an orally active dual endothelin receptor antagonist, which demonstrated a reduction of the risk of morbidity/mortality events in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. This double-blind, randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, four-way crossover thorough QTc study was designed to investigate the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of macitentan on cardiac repolarization in healthy male and female subjects. Each subject received the following treatments: moxifloxacin 400 mg, macitentan 10 mg, macitentan 30 mg, and placebo. Each treatment period lasted 9 days and was followed by at least 10 days of washout. The primary endpoint of this study was the baseline-adjusted, placebo-corrected QT interval corrected using the Fridericia method (ΔΔQTcF). Pharmacokinetic (PK), safety, and tolerability assessments were performed during each treatment. A total of 64 subjects were randomized. The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval for ΔΔQTcF following macitentan was <10 ms at all time points and no correlation was observed between ΔΔQTcF and PK parameters. Findings in the analysis of the morphological patterns of the ECGs were randomly distributed across all treatments and did not indicate an association with macitentan. Macitentan was well tolerated in this study. Headache and nasopharyngitis were the most frequently reported adverse events. No effects on clinical laboratory and vital signs parameters were observed. In summary, repeated doses of macitentan 10 mg and 30 mg did not indicate any pro-arrhythmic potential.

Improving the in Vivo QTc assay: The value of implementing best practices to support an integrated nonclinical-clinical QTc risk assessment and TQT substitute.

Recent updates and modifications to the clinical ICH E14 and nonclinical ICH S7B guidelines, which both relate to the evaluation of drug-induced delayed repolarization risk, provide an opportunity for nonclinical in vivo electrocardiographic (ECG) data to directly influence clinical strategies, interpretation, regulatory decision-making and product labeling. This opportunity can be leveraged with more robust nonclinical in vivo QTc datasets based upon consensus standardized protocols and experimental best practices that reduce variability and optimize QTc signal detection, i.e., demonstrate assay sensitivity. The immediate opportunity for such nonclinical studies is when adequate clinical exposures (e.g., supratherapeutic) cannot be safely achieved, or other factors limit the robustness of the clinical QTc evaluation, e.g., the ICH E14 Q5.1 and Q6.1 scenarios. This position paper discusses the regulatory historical evolution and processes leading to this opportunity and details the expectations of future nonclinical in vivo QTc studies of new drug candidates. The conduct of in vivo QTc assays that are consistently designed, executed and analyzed will lead to confident interpretation, and increase their value for clinical QTc risk assessment. Lastly, this paper provides the rationale and basis for our companion article which describes technical details on in vivo QTc best practices and recommendations to achieve the goals of the new ICH E14/S7B Q&As, see Rossman et al., 2023 (this journal).

Best practice considerations for nonclinical in vivo cardiovascular telemetry studies in non-rodent species: Delivering high quality QTc data to support ICH E14/S7B Q&As.

The ICH E14/S7B Questions and Answers (Q&As) guideline introduces the concept of a "double negative" nonclinical scenario (negative hERG assay and negative in vivo QTc study) to demonstrate that a drug does not produce a clinically relevant QT prolongation (i.e., no QT liability). This nonclinical "double negative" data package, along with negative Phase 1 clinical QTc data, may be sufficient to substitute for a clinical Thorough QT (TQT) study in some specific cases. While standalone GLP in vivo cardiovascular studies in non-rodent species are standard practice during nonclinical drug development for small molecule programs, a variety of approaches to the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation are utilized across pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations (CROs) that may, in some cases, negatively impact the stringent sensitivity needed to fulfill the new Q&As. Subject matter experts from both Pharma and CROs have collaborated to recommend best practices for more robust nonclinical cardiovascular telemetry studies in non-rodent species, with input from clinical and regulatory experts. The aim was to increase consistency and harmonization across the industry and to ensure delivery of high quality nonclinical QTc data to meet the proposed sensitivities defined within the revised ICH E14/S7B Q&As guideline (Q&As 5.1 and 6.1). The detailed best practice recommendations presented here cover the design and execution of the safety pharmacology cardiovascular study, including optimal methods for acquiring, analyzing, reporting, and interpreting the resulting QTc and pharmacokinetic data to allow for direct comparison to clinical exposures and assessment of safety margin for QTc prolongation.

Safety pharmacology 2023 and implementation of the ICH E14/S7B Q&A guidance document.

This editorial prefaces the annual themed issue on safety pharmacology (SP) methods published since 2004 in the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods (JPTM). We highlight here the content derived from the recent 2022 Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS) and Canadian Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CSPT) joint meeting held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The meeting also generated 179 abstracts (reproduced in the current volume of JPTM). As in previous years the manuscripts reflect various areas of innovation in SP including a comparison of the sensitivity of cross-over and parallel study designs for QTc assessment, use of human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hi-PSC) neuronal cell preparations for use in neuropharmacological safety screening, and hiPSC derived cardiac myocytes in assessing inotropic adversity. With respect to the latter, we anticipate the emergence of a large data set of positive and negative controls that will test whether the imperative to miniaturize, humanize and create a high throughput process is offset by any loss of precision and accuracy.

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, 3-Way Crossover Study to Evaluate the Effect of Therapeutic and Supratherapeutic Doses of Edaravone on QT/QTc Interval in Healthy Subjects.

This randomized, single-blind, 3-way crossover study assessed the effect of edaravone on QT interval, including an exposure-response analysis. Twenty-seven healthy Japanese male volunteers, aged 20 to 49 years, were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous dose of each treatment in 1 of 3 sequences (n = 9 each): ACB, BAC, and CBA, where A was edaravone 60 mg (therapeutic dose), B was edaravone 300 mg (supratherapeutic dose), and C was normal saline (placebo). Electrocardiographs were collected to assess treatment effects. In an exposure-response analysis, a linear model was determined to be valid and indicated no statistically significant positive slope for the relationship between change from baseline in QTcF (ΔQTcF) and edaravone concentration (0.000155 ms/(ng/mL); P = .1478); upper bounds of 2-sided 90% confidence intervals after placebo adjustment (ΔΔQTcF) were <10 milliseconds at the geometric mean maximum concentration for each edaravone dose. Overall estimated values by time point of ΔΔQTcF ≤0.9 milliseconds, no outlier values, and no morphologic changes suggestive of repolarization abnormalities were observed. Analysis of heart rate, PR interval, and QRS duration also revealed no adverse findings. These data indicate that edaravone, even at supratherapeutic doses, does not produce clinically meaningful QT prolongation and has no clinically relevant cardiac effects.

The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary.

In August 2020, the International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) released a new draft document, which for the first time combined nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) Questions and Answers (Q&As) into 1 document. FDA describes the revision as a "value proposition": if the human ether-à-go-go assay and the in vivo study are performed in a standardized way, the number of dedicated thorough QT (TQT) studies can be reduced. In this article, we describe and discuss the Q&As that relate to clinical ECG evaluation. If supported by negative standardized nonclinical assays, Q&A 5.1 will obviate the need for a TQT study in the case that a >2-fold exposure margin vs high clinical scenario cannot be obtained. Q&A 6.1 addresses drugs that are poorly tolerated in healthy subjects and cannot be studied at high doses or in placebo-controlled studies; it therefore mainly applies to oncology drugs. It will enable sponsors to claim that a new drug has a "low likelihood of proarrhythmic effects" in the case that the mean corrected QT effect is <10 milliseconds at the time of market application. The E14 2015 revision allowed application of concentration-corrected QT analysis on data from routinely performed clinical pharmacology studies, for example, the first-in-human study and the proportion of dedicated TQT studies has since steadily decreased. It can be foreseen that the proposed new revision will further reduce the number of TQT studies. To achieve harmonization across regulatory regions, it seems important to reach consensus within the International Council on Harmonisation group on the new threshold proposed in 6.1. For this purpose, the Implementation Working Group has asked for public comments.

QT Prolongation Risk Assessment in Oncology: Lessons Learned From Small-Molecule New Drug Applications Approved During 2011-2019.

The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E14 guidance provides recommendations to assess the potential of a drug to delay cardiac repolarization (QT prolongation), including general guidelines for cases in which a conventional thorough QT study (TQT) might not be feasible. These guidelines have been updated through the ICH question-and-answer process, with the last revision in 2015. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of QT prolongation evaluation of small-molecule new drug applications (NDAs) approved in oncology between 2011 and 2019 to extract learning experience. The following information was analysed: (1) methods to assess QT prolongation, (2) electrocardiogram data collection, (3) QT-related label language, and (4) postmarketing requirements. Overall, every NDA included a QT assessment. The concentration-QTc modeling approach (studies in which QT was not the primary objective) was the most common approach (59%), followed by the TQT and the dedicated QT studies (20% and 21%, respectively). The quality and quantity of the QT assessments were different across NDAs, which suggested relatively large flexibility in the designs and approaches to characterizing QT liability. The QT-related label language reflected the QT results, but also the safety events and the study design limitations because of the oncology settings. There was no delay in approval because of less robust QTc studies as long as the benefit-to-risk ratio of the drug was acceptable, and the implications were reflected in the label. This work offers a structured understanding of the QT evaluation criteria by the Food and Drug Administration and can assist in planning QT prolongation assessments in oncology settings.