Confounders and Pharmacological Characterization When Using the QT, JTp, and Tpe Intervals in Beagle Dogs

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.

Translational Models and Tools to Reduce Clinical Trials and Improve Regulatory Decision Making for QTc and Proarrhythmia Risk (ICH E14/S7B Updates)

After multiple drugs were removed from the market secondary to drug-induced torsade de pointes (TdP) risk, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) released guidelines in 2005 that focused on the nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) assessment of surrogate biomarkers for TdP. Recently, Vargas et al. published a pharmaceutical-industry perspective making the case that "double-negative" nonclinical data (negative in vitro hERG and in vivo heart-rate corrected QT (QTc) assays) are associated with such low probability of clinical QTc prolongation and TdP that potentially all double-negative drugs would not need detailed clinical QTc evaluation. Subsequently, the ICH released a new E14/S7B Draft Guideline containing Questions and Answers (Q&As) that defined ways that double-negative nonclinical data could be used to reduce the number of "Thorough QT" (TQT) studies and reach a low-risk determination when a TQT or equivalent could not be performed. We review the Vargas et al. proposal in the context of what was contained in the ICH E14/S7B Draft Guideline and what was proposed by the ICH E14/S7B working group for a "stage 2" of updates (potential expanded roles for nonclinical data and details for assessing TdP risk of QTc-prolonging drugs). Although we do not agree with the exact probability statistics in the Vargas et al. paper because of limitations in the underlying datasets, we show how more modest predictive value of individual assays could still result in low probability for TdP with double-negative findings. Furthermore, we expect that the predictive value of the nonclinical assays will improve with implementation of the new ICH E14/S7B Draft Guideline.