Comparing the consistency of electrocardiogram interval measurements by resting ECG versus 12‐lead Holter

Abstract In clinical trials, traditionally only a limited number of 12‐lead resting electrocardiograms (ECGs) can be recorded and, thus, long intervals may elapse between assessment timepoints and valuable information may be missed during times when patients' cardiac electrical activity is not being monitored. These limitations have led to the increasing use of Holter recorders which provide continuous data registrations while reducing the burden on patients and freeing up time for clinical trial staff to perform other tasks. However, there is a shortage of data comparing the two approaches. In this study, data from a randomized, double‐blind, four‐period, crossover thorough QT study in 40 healthy subjects were used to compare continuous 12‐lead Holter recordings to standard 12‐lead resting ECGs which were recorded in parallel. Heart rate and QT interval data were estimated by averaging three consecutive heartbeats. Values exceeding the sample average by more than 5% were tagged as outliers and excluded from the analysis. Visual comparisons of the ECG waveforms of the Holter signal showed a good correlation with resting ECGs at matching timepoints. Resting ECG data revealed sex differences that Holter data did not show. Specifically, women were found to have a longer QTcF of 20 ms, while men had a lower heart rate. We found that continuous recordings provided a more accurate reflection of changes in cardiac electrical activity over 24 hr. However, manual adjudication is still required to ensure the quality and accuracy of ECG data, and that only artifacts are removed thereby avoiding loss of true signals

Comparing the consistency of electrocardiogram interval measurements by resting ECG versus 12-lead Holter

Abstract In clinical trials, traditionally only a limited number of 12‐lead resting electrocardiograms (ECGs) can be recorded and, thus, long intervals may elapse between assessment timepoints and valuable information may be missed during times when patients' cardiac electrical activity is not being monitored. These limitations have led to the increasing use of Holter recorders which provide continuous data registrations while reducing the burden on patients and freeing up time for clinical trial staff to perform other tasks. However, there is a shortage of data comparing the two approaches. In this study, data from a randomized, double‐blind, four‐period, crossover thorough QT study in 40 healthy subjects were used to compare continuous 12‐lead Holter recordings to standard 12‐lead resting ECGs which were recorded in parallel. Heart rate and QT interval data were estimated by averaging three consecutive heartbeats. Values exceeding the sample average by more than 5% were tagged as outliers and excluded from the analysis. Visual comparisons of the ECG waveforms of the Holter signal showed a good correlation with resting ECGs at matching timepoints. Resting ECG data revealed sex differences that Holter data did not show. Specifically, women were found to have a longer QTcF of 20 ms, while men had a lower heart rate. We found that continuous recordings provided a more accurate reflection of changes in cardiac electrical activity over 24 hr. However, manual adjudication is still required to ensure the quality and accuracy of ECG data, and that only artifacts are removed thereby avoiding loss of true signals

Effect of ulixertinib, a novel ERK1/2 inhibitor, on the QT/QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies

Purpose The aim of this analysis was to investigate the potential for ulixertinib (BVD-523) to prolong cardiac repolarization. The mean prolongation of the corrected QT (QTc) interval was predicted at the mean maximum drug concentrations of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; 600 mg BID) and of higher concentrations. In addition, the effect of ulixertinib on other quantitative ECG parameters was assessed. Methods: In a two-part, phase 1, open-label study in adults with advanced solid tumors, 105 patients [24 in Part 1 (dose escalation) and 81 in Part 2 (cohort expansion)] were included in a QT prolongation analysis. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) extracted from 12-lead Holter monitors, along with time-matched pharmacokinetic blood samples, were collected over 12 h on cycle 1 day 1 and cycle 1 day 15 and analyzed by a core ECG laboratory. Results: A small increase in heart rate was observed on both study days (up to 5.6 bpm on day 1 and up to 7 bpm on day 15). The estimated mean changes from baseline in the study-specific QTc interval (QTcSS), at the ulixertinib Cmax, were − 0.529 ms (90% CI − 6.621, 5.562) on day 1 and − 9.202 ms (90% CI − 22.505, 4.101) on day 15. The concentration: QTc regression slopes were mildly positive but not statistically significant [0.53 (90% CI − 1.343, 2.412) and 1.16 (90% CI − 1.732, 4.042) ms per µg/mL for days 1 and 15, respectively]. Ulixertinib had no meaningful effect on PR or QRS intervals. Conclusions: Ulixertinib administered to patients with solid tumors at clinically relevant doses has a low risk for QT/QTc prolongation or any other effects on ECG parameters. Registration The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01781429) and was sponsored by BioMed Valley Discoveries

Assessment of drug-induced increases in blood pressure during drug development: Report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium

This White Paper, prepared by members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, discusses several important issues regarding the evaluation of blood pressure (BP) responses to drugs being developed for indications not of a direct cardiovascular (CV) nature. A wide range of drugs are associated with off-target BP increases, and both scientific attention and regulatory attention to this topic are increasing. The article provides a detailed summary of scientific discussions at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank held on July 18, 2012, with the intention of moving toward consensus on how to most informatively collect and analyze BP data throughout clinical drug development to prospectively identify unacceptable CV risk and evaluate the benefit-risk relationship. The overall focus in on non-CV drugs, although many of the points also pertain to CV drugs. Brief consideration of how clinical assessment can be informed by nonclinical investigation is also outlined. These discussions present current thinking and suggestions for furthering our knowledge and understanding of off-target drug-induced BP increases and do not represent regulatory guidance. (Am Heart J 2013;165:477-88.