Why the study?
Does a composite measure of T-wave morphology (MCS) reliably indicate drug-induced cardiac repolarization abnormalities compared to QTcF in healthy subjects receiving Lu 35-138?
Does a composite measure of T-wave morphology (MCS) reliably indicate drug-induced cardiac repolarization abnormalities compared to QTcF in healthy subjects receiving Lu 35-138?
A composite T-wave morphology score (MCS) provides a more reliable and statistically powerful indicator of drug-induced repolarization abnormalities than the QTcF interval alone.
MCS may improve detection of IKr inhibition in early-phase studies; leaves open replacement of QTcF pending larger validation.
This study investigates repolarization changes induced by a new candidate drug to determine whether a composite electrocardiographic (ECG) measure of T-wave morphology could be used as a reliable marker to support the evidence of abnormal repolarization, which is indicated by QT interval prolongation. Seventy-nine healthy subjects were included in this parallel study. After a baseline day during which no drug was given, 40 subjects received an I(Kr)-blocking antipsychotic compound (Lu 35-138) on 7 consecutive days while 39 subjects received placebo. Resting ECGs were recorded and used to determine a combined measure of repolarization morphology (morphology combination score [MCS]), based on asymmetry, flatness, and notching. Replicate measurements were used to determine reliable change and study power for both measures. Lu 35-138 increased the QTc interval with corresponding changes in T-wave morphology as determined by MCS. For subjects taking Lu 35-138, T-wave morphology was a more reliable indicator of I(Kr) inhibition than QTcF (chi(2) = 20.3, P = .001). At 80% study power for identifying a 5-millisecond placebo-adjusted change from baseline for QTcF, the corresponding study power for MCS was 93%. As a covariate to the assessment of QT interval liability, MCS offered important additive information to the effect of Lu 35-138 on cardiac repolarization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graff et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: