The new S7B/E14 Q&A document provides additional opportunities to replace the thorough QT study.

Abstract

Since 2015, concentration-QTc analysis can be used to exclude that a drug has a concerning effect on the QTc interval. This has enabled replacing the designated TQT study by implementation of serial ECGs into routine clinical pharmacology studies, such as the First-in-Human (FIH) study. This has led to an increased proportion of FIH studies with this added objective of QT evaluation with the intention of replacing the TQT study. With the more recent, February 2022 revision of the S7B/E14 Q&A document, nonclinical assays/studies can be brought into the process of regulatory decisions at the time of marketing application. If the hERG and the non-rodent in vivo study are conducted according to described best practices, the previous requirement that a QTc effect > 10 ms must be excluded in healthy subjects at plasma concentrations 2-fold above what can be seen in patients can be reduced to covering concentrations seen in patients. For drugs that cannot be safely given in high doses to healthy subjects, ECG evaluation is often performed at the therapeutic dose in patients. If a QTc effect > 10 ms can be excluded, an argument can be made that the drug should be considered as having a low likelihood of proarrhythmic effects due to delayed repolarization. In this article, we describe what clinicians involved in early clinical development need to understand in terms of the hERG and in vivo studies to determine whether these meet best practices and therefore can be used in an integrated clinical/nonclinical QT/QTc risk assessment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.