The Concordance between Nonclinical and Phase I Clinical Cardiovascular Assessment from a Cross-Company Data Sharing Initiative
Abstract
It is widely accepted that more needs to be done to bring new, safe, and efficacious drugs to the market. Cardiovascular toxicity detected both in early drug discovery as well as in the clinic, is a major contributor to the high failure rate of new molecules. The growth of translational safety offers a promising approach to improve the probability of success for new molecules. Here we describe a cross-company initiative to determine the concordance between the conscious telemetered dog and phase I outcome for 3 cardiovascular parameters. The data indicate that, in the context of the methods applied in this analysis, the ability to detect compounds that affect the corrected QT interval (QTc) was good within the 10-30x exposure range but the predictive or detective value for heart rate and diastolic blood pressure was poor. These findings may highlight opportunities to refine both the animal and the clinical study designs, as well as refocusing the assessment of value of dog cardiovascular assessments beyond phase 1. This investigation has also highlighted key considerations for cross-company data sharing and presents a unique learning opportunity to improve future translational projects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The 2019 West Coast Regional Safety Pharmacology Society Meeting discussed concerns about the lack of concordance between animal and human safety studies, including lack of canine and human concordance for proarrhythmia risks of new cardiovascular drugs and the failure of animal research to predict drug-related risks in the human central nervous and respiratory systems.
“The 2019 West Coast Regional Safety Pharmacology Society Meeting discussed concerns about the lack of concordance between animal and human safety studies, including lack of canine and human concordance for proarrhythmia risks of new cardiovascular drugs and the failure of animal research to predict drug-related risks in the human central nervous and respiratory systems (60,61).”
From Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials (2019) · cites this paper as [61]
Cites
Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals
Olson, H., Betton, G., Robinson, D., Thomas, K., Monro, A., Kolaja, G., Lilly, P., Sanders, J., Sipes, G., Bracken, W., et al. (2000) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.2000.1399 · Cited by 2,050 · see citing works
Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102 · Cited by 1,711 · see citing works
Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework
Cook, D., Brown, D., Alexander, R., March, R., Morgan, P., Satterthwaite, G., & Pangalos, M. N. (2014) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd4309 · Cited by 1,344 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials
Van Norman, G. A. (2019) · JACC: Basic to Translational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008 · Cited by 709 · see citing works
Mead, A. N., Amouzadeh, H. R., Chapman, K., Ewart, L., Giarola, A., Jackson, S. J., Jarvis, P., Jordaan, P., Redfern, W., Traebert, M., et al. (2016) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.002 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citationAbi-Gerges, N., McMahon, C., Vargas, H., Sager, P., Chui, R., Stevens, D., Davila, J., Schaub, J. R., Wu, J. C., del Rio, C., et al. (2019) · Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods · doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2019.106582 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Ewart, L., Aylott, M., Deurinck, M., Engwall, M., Gallacher, D. J., Geys, H., Jarvis, P., Ju, H., Leishman, D., Leong, L., McMahon, N., Mead, A., Milliken, P., Suter, W., Teisman, A., Van Ammel, K., Vargas, H. M., Wallis, R., & Valentin, J.-P.
- Affiliations
- Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-09-21
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 427-435
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-6080
- OpenAlex
- W2170124735
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 10.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
- Keywords
- cardiotoxicity, QTc interval, heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, drug safety assessment
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Blood Pressure, Dogs, Drug Industry, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Electrocardiography, Heart Rate, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Telemetry, Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic, Translational Research, Biomedical, Healthy Volunteers, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions, Cardiotoxicity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review