Key result
Non-clinical hERG and QTc assays demonstrated robust specificity but poor sensitivity for predicting clinical QTc prolongation, providing greater predictive value than the APD assay.
Why the study?
Do non-clinical repolarization assays predict clinical QTc prolongation in drug applications?
Population
150 drug applications in a US Food and Drug Administration database
Comparison
Non-clinical in vitro IKr current human… vs Clinical thorough QT study outcomes
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May improve non-clinical QT liability screening by favoring hERG over APD assays; leaves open prospective validation before regulatory adoption.
Observational (n=150)
Do non-clinical repolarization assays predict clinical QTc prolongation in drug applications?
In a retrospective analysis of FDA drug applications, non-clinical hERG and QTc assays showed robust specificity but poor sensitivity for predicting clinical QTc prolongation, outperforming APD assays.
Park et al. (2017) conducted an observational in clinical QTc prolongation (n=150). Non-clinical repolarization assays (hERG, APD, and in vivo QTc) was evaluated on clinical QTc prolongation. Non-clinical hERG and QTc assays demonstrated robust specificity but poor sensitivity for predicting clinical QTc prolongation, providing greater predictive value than the APD assay.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: