Can non-clinical repolarization assays predict the results of clinical thorough QT studies? Results from a research consortium.

Abstract

Background and Purpose Translation of non‐clinical markers of delayed ventricular repolarization to clinical prolongation of the QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) (a biomarker for torsades de pointes proarrhythmia) remains an issue in drug discovery and regulatory evaluations. We retrospectively analysed 150 drug applications in a US Food and Drug Administration database to determine the utility of established non‐clinical in vitro IKr current human ether‐à‐go‐go‐related gene (hERG), action potential duration (APD) and in vivo (QTc) repolarization assays to detect and predict clinical QTc prolongation. Experimental Approach The predictive performance of three non‐clinical assays was compared with clinical thorough QT study outcomes based on free clinical plasma drug concentrations using sensitivity and specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) and likelihood ratios (LRs). Key Results Non‐clinical assays demonstrated robust specificity (high true negative rate) but poor sensitivity (low true positive rate) for clinical QTc prolongation at low‐intermediate (1×–30×) clinical exposure multiples. The QTc assay provided the most robust PPVs and NPVs (ability to predict clinical QTc prolongation). ROC curves (overall test accuracy) and LRs (ability to influence post‐test probabilities) demonstrated overall marginal performance for hERG and QTc assays (best at 30× exposures), while the APD assay demonstrated minimal value. Conclusions and Implications The predictive value of hERG, APD and QTc assays varies, with drug concentrations strongly affecting translational performance. While useful in guiding preclinical candidates without clinical QT prolongation, hERG and QTc repolarization assays provide greater value compared with the APD assay.