Key result
External telemetry and snapshot ECGs miss over half of QTc increases detected by implanted telemetry.
Why the study?
The ability of different ECG technologies used in toxicity studies to identify cardiovascular effects and their concordance with clinical data was unclear.
Do snapshot ECG and jacket external telemetry accurately detect cardiovascular effects compared to implanted telemetry in non-clinical toxicity studies?
Observational (n=41)
Do snapshot ECG and jacket external telemetry accurately detect cardiovascular effects compared to implanted telemetry in non-clinical toxicity studies?
Implanted telemetry remains the most reliable in vivo method for identifying QTc effects in non-clinical toxicity studies, as snapshot ECGs and jacket external telemetry demonstrate lower sensitivity.
Snapshot ECGs miss HR effects seen with telemetry while JET detects only 44% of QTc changes; leaves open optimal nonclinical ECG methods pending prospective validation.
This work aimed to compare the ability of several ECG technologies used in toxicity studies to identify cardiovascular effects. A retrospective analysis of 41 drug development projects across the Roche portfolio from 2005 to 2023 was conducted to evaluate the concordance of snapshot ECG (SS-ECG) and jacket external telemetry (JET, with or without blood pressure assessment) to detect effects on heart rate, ECG, and blood pressure in toxicity studies, when compared to implanted telemetry as the gold standard. Overall, 132 non-clinical studies were investigated. For 24 projects, translation to phase 1 safety data under consideration of plasma exposures could be followed up. Company-internal strategic decisions on advancing certain molecules despite cardiovascular findings were subject to a risk-benefit assessment and not evaluated in this investigation. SS-ECGs never detected changes in heart rate (HR) previously revealed in telemetry studies, whereas JET identified these in all telemetry-positive cases. JET (or M11 implants) detected 44 % and SS-ECGs identified 33 % of QTc increases in telemetry-positive molecules, indicating that stand-alone telemetry is still the most reliable in vivo study in identifying QTc-effects. No clear species differences between beagle dogs, Göttingen minipigs or cynomolgus monkeys were evident when comparing heart rate and QTc detection. HR increases were noted clinically in about 50 % of the non-clinical positive cases, whereas HR decreases were never detected in clinical trials. Non-clinical blood pressure decreases showed higher translatability to humans (at least 80 %) than blood pressure increases (29 %), with a high prevalence of dogs and minipigs showing a signal. Non-clinical QTc increases detected by JET and/or telemetry were confirmed in 3 clinical studies analyzed with concentration/QTc modeling, however in 7 clinical studies employing other methodologies to measure QT, the non-clinical QTc effects did not translate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greiter‐Wilke et al. (2025) reported an observational. Snapshot ECG (SS-ECG) and jacket external telemetry (JET) vs. Implanted telemetry was evaluated on Concordance to detect effects on heart rate, ECG, and blood pressure compared to implanted telemetry. Jacket external telemetry detected 44% and snapshot ECGs identified 33% of QTc increases in telemetry-positive molecules, indicating implanted telemetry remains the most reliable method.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: