Reproducibility of QTc interval changes after meal intake.

BACKGROUND: Detection of QTc decreases after meal intake was proposed as a possible proof of assay sensitivity in studies of drug-induced QTc changes. However, day-to-day reproducibility of QTc decreases after meal intake has not been established. METHODS: Holter recordings were available from 4 different baseline drug-free days of a thorough QT study in 157 females and 164 males. During each of the baselines, subjects were fasting in the morning and were served standardized lunch. Heart rates and QTc intervals were measured during repeated time-points throughout each study day. Two investigations were performed. In the first investigation, 3 heart rate and QTc measurements 1, 2, and 3h after lunch were averaged in each subject and corrected for the morning fasting baseline. Reproducibility of heart rate and QTc changes after the meal on different days X and Y was assessed by normalized repeatability coefficients 2*|MX-MY|/|MX+MY|, where MX and MY are measurements in the same subject on days X and Y, respectively. These were compared for heart rate and QTc changes after meal for different pairs of baseline days. In the second investigation, 36 females and 41 males were considered who received moxifloxacin during the source thorough QT study. The QTc increases after moxifloxacin were expressed by averaging 3 time-point values and corrected for placebo QTc values measured 25days apart. In the same subjects, QTc readings after lunch were also corrected for fasting baseline readings 25days apart. QTc responses to moxifloxacin and to meal intake were compared. RESULTS: Repeatability of QTc decreases after meal was significantly (p<0.0000001) poorer than that of heart rate increases after meal. Of the subjects receiving moxifloxacin during the study, 6% did not show QTc prolongation on moxifloxacin while 39% have not shown QTc shortening after lunch (p<0.00001). CONCLUSION: The reproducibility of QTc changes after meal is limited. The power of proving QTc assay sensitivity by the detection of QTc changes after meal is poorer than the power of the standard moxifloxacin-based assay sensitivity.

QTc changes after meal intake: sex differences and correlates.

BACKGROUND: Detection of food-induced QTc shortening has been proposed as an assay sensitivity in thorough QT/QTc (TQT) studies. Data of a large clinical study were used to investigate the food effects on QTc intervals. METHODS: Day-time drug-free 12-lead Holter recordings starting around 8:20AM were repeated 4 times in each of 176 female and 176 male healthy subjects aged 32.7±9.1years. The recordings contained 16 episodes during which the subjects were in strict supine position. Heart rate and QTc intervals individually corrected for rate and QT/RR hysteresis were measured during these episodes and averaged over the 4 repeated recordings. In the morning hours, the subjects were fasting. Standardized lunch and dinner were served at around 2:00PM and 7:30PM, respectively. Heart rate and QTc changes induced by lunch and dinner were assessed by calculating the differences of averaged measurements from 2hours before till 2hours after the meals. RESULTS: In women, lunch and dinner led to statistically significant heart rate accelerations by 11.0±4.0 and 6.8±3.4 beats per minute [bpm], respectively. In men, the corresponding significant heart rate accelerations were by 9.9±3.4 and 4.5±2.6bpm, respectively. On the contrary, the QTc responses to both meals were inconsistent. After lunch, QTc intervals shortened significantly by 2.87±3.46ms and 0.79±3.64ms in women and men, respectively. However, after dinner, QTc intervals prolonged significantly by 4.69±3.66ms and 3.53±2.88ms in women and men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were systematic changes in individually corrected QTc intervals with QTc shortening after lunch and QTc lengthening after dinner, both in women and men. Because of these divergent diurnal effects, the use of meal-induced QTc changes to prove the assay sensitivity in TQT studies requires further evaluation.

ICH E14-compatible holter bin method and its equivalence to individual heart rate correction in the assessment of drug-induced QT changes.

INTRODUCTION: The Holter bin method evaluates QT interval changes in the presence of heart rate changes without correcting the QT interval. However, the method does not allow time-matched comparisons, thus contradicting available guidance and good practice. We report a modification of the methods that allows time-matched comparisons without any heart rate correction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The modified Holter bin method (a) finds matching baseline heart rates for each QT reading on treatment and (b) calculates ΔQT values from the QT intervals on baseline and on treatment that match in heart rates. The difference between ΔQT values on active treatment and placebo provides the ΔΔQT value. The method was compared with the individual correction method in the data of the mirabegron thorough QT study in which supratherapeutic doses of this ß3-adrenoceptor agonist led to substantial heart rate changes. The modified Holter bin method reproduced closely the results obtained with the individual heart rate correction. At all time points of the mirabegron study, the differences between the mean ΔΔQT values by the Holter bin method and the individual correction method were below 1 millisecond. Compared to the individual correction, the Holter bin method led to slight increases in the standard deviations of ΔΔQT values, but these were on average below 0.25 millisecond. CONCLUSIONS: The Holter bin methodology can be modified to make it compatible with the available guidance and with good practice of clinical investigations. The results obtained with the modified Holter bin method are practically the same as with individualized heart rate corrected QT intervals. The close correspondence between the 2 methods demonstrates that the present possibilities of comparing QT interval duration in the presence of experiment-induced heart rate differences are not influenced by methodological artifacts.

QT/RR curvatures in healthy subjects: sex differences and covariates.

Data of a large clinical study were used to investigate how much are the QT/RR patterns in healthy subjects curved and whether these curvatures differ between women and men. Daytime drug-free 12-lead Holter recordings were repeated 4 times in each of 176 female healthy subjects and 176 male healthy subjects aged 32.7 ± 9.1 yr. In each of the subjects, up to 1,440 carefully verified QT interval measurements were obtained with QT/RR hysteresis-corrected RR intervals. Individual subject data were used to fit the following regression equation: QT = χ + (δ/γ)(1 - RR(γ)) + ε, where QT and RR are QT and RR measurements (in s), χ is regression intercept, δ is the QT/RR slope, γ is the QT/RR curvature and provides the lowest regression residual, and ε represents normally distributed zero-centered errors. The bootstrap technique showed the intrasubject reproducibility of QT/RR slopes and curvatures. In women and men, QT/RR curvatures were 0.544 ± 0.661 and 0.797 ± 0.706, respectively (P = 0.0006). The corresponding QT/RR slopes were 0.158 ± 0.030 and 0.139 ± 0.023, respectively (P < 0.0001). QT/RR curvatures were related to QT/RR slopes but not to individually corrected mean QTc intervals or individual QT/RR hysteresis profiles. The individual heart rate correction formula derived from the curvilinear regression provided a significantly lower intrasubject variability of QTc interval than individual optimisation of linear or log-linear QT/RR heart rate corrections. The QT/RR curvature can be reliable measured and expressed numerically. The corresponding heart rate correction formula provides more compact data than the previously proposed approaches. There are substantial sex differences in QT/RR patterns. Women have a QT/RR pattern that is not only steeper than men but also more curved.

Relationship of QT interval variability to heart rate and RR interval variability.

The study investigated whether the beat-to-beat QT interval variability relationship to the mean heart rate and the RR interval variability depended on the cardiovascular autonomic status changed by postural positioning. Repeated long-term 12-lead Holter recordings were obtained from 352 healthy subjects (mean age 32.7 ± 9.1 years, 176 females) while they underwent postural provocative tests involving supine, unsupported sitting and unsupported standing positions. Each recording was processed as a sequence of overlapping 10-second segments. In each segment, the mean RR interval, the coefficients of variance of the RR intervals (RRCV) and the QT intervals (QTCV) were obtained. In each subject, these characteristics, corresponding to different postural positions, were firstly averaged and secondly used to obtain within-subject correlation coefficients between the different characteristics at different postural positions. While the within-subject means of RRCV generally decreased when changing the position from supine to sitting and to standing (4.53 ± 1.95%, 4.12 ± 1.51% and 3.26 ± 1.56% in females and 3.99 ± 1.44%, 4.00 ± 1.24% and 3.53 ± 1.32% in males respectively), the means of QTCV systematically increased during these position changes (0.96 ± 0.40%, 1.30 ± 0.56% and 1.88 ± 1.46% in females and 0.85 ± 0.30%, 1.13 ± 0.41% and 1.41 ± 0.59% in males, respectively). The intra-subject relationship between QTCV, RRCV and mean RR intervals was highly dependent on postural positions. The study concludes that no universally applicable normalization of the QT interval variability for the heart rate and/or the RR interval variability should be assumed. In future studies of the QT variability, it seems preferable to report on the absolute values of QT variability, RR variability and mean heart rate separately.

Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between the ß3 -Adrenoceptor Agonist Mirabegron and the Muscarinic Receptor Antagonist Solifenacin In Healthy Subjects.

Mirabegron, a selective ß3 -adrenoceptor agonist, is approved for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB). Solifenacin is a muscarinic receptor antagonist widely used in the treatment of OAB. This open-label, 1-sequence, 2-arm study investigated whether any pharmacokinetic interaction exists between mirabegron and solifenacin. In arm 1, 21 healthy men and women received 10 mg solifenacin succinate alone and in combination with mirabegron 100 mg qd. In arm 2, 20 healthy men and women received 100 mg mirabegron alone and in combination with solifenacin succinate 10 mg qd. Plasma samples were collected and tolerability was assessed. Following coadministration of mirabegron and solifenacin in arm 1, solifenacin geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval [CI]) for Cmax and AUCinf were 1.23 (1.15, 1.31) and 1.26 (1.17, 1.35), respectively, compared with solifenacin alone, with a 1.07-fold increase in mean t1/2 . In arm 2, mirabegron ratios (90% CI) for Cmax and AUCinf were 0.99 (0.78, 1.26) and 1.15 (1.01, 1.30), respectively, for the combination relative to mirabegron alone, with an increase in mean tmax of approximately 1 hour. Mirabegron or solifenacin alone or in combination was generally well tolerated.

Importance of subject-specific QT/RR curvatures in the design of individual heart rate corrections of the QT interval.

OBJECTIVE: A statistical modelling study investigated whether incorporating the curvatures of QT/RR patterns into the individual-specific QT heart rate correction increases QTc data accuracy. METHODS: Repeated ECG readings were available from 4 different drug-free recordings made in 176+176 healthy female and male subjects (aged 32 ± 10 and 33 ± 8 years, respectively). In each subject, up to 1440 ECG readings were made of QT intervals and of the corresponding QT/RR hysteresis corrected RR intervals. The QT/RR patterns of each study participant was fitted with 12 different regression formulae that corresponded to differently curved physiologically plausible QT/RR profiles. In each subject, each of the regression fits was converted into a QT heart rate correction formula and the optimum model that fitted the data of the subject best was identified. Correction formulae were applied to modelled QT/RR data with RR intervals between 400 ms and 1600 ms. Differences in QTc intervals calculated by the correction formulae corresponding to the individually optimum QT/RR regression models and by the same type of regression in all study subjects were statistically summarised in females and males. RESULTS: Compared to the individually curvature optimised QTc heart rate correction formulae, formulae of the different regression models overestimated or underestimated the QTc values when applied on all study subjects. At RR of 500 ms, the model assuming linear QT/RR relationship led to errors of -5.01 ± 6.63 ms and of -4.80 ± 7.23 ms in females and males, respectively. At the same RR interval level, the model assuming the linear relationship between the logarithms of QT and RR intervals led to errors of +11.51 ± 6.36 ms and of +15.09 ± 7.61 ms in females and males, respectively. CONCLUSION: The differences in the curvatures of QT/RR patterns should be considered in the optimisation of subject-specific heart rate corrections. Forcing an arbitrary simple regression model on the QT/RR patterns of different subjects may lead to appreciable errors in QTc estimates. The frequently used linear and log-linear regression models were among the least precise if used without checking their appropriateness in individual subjects.