Drug‐induced Proarrhythmia and Torsade de Pointes: A Primer for Students and Practitioners of Medicine and Pharmacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple marketing withdrawals due to proarrhythmic concerns occurred in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom in the late 1980s to early 2000s. This primer reviews the clinical implications of a drug's identified proarrhythmic liability, the issues associated with these safety-related withdrawals, and the actions taken by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) and by regulatory agencies in terms of changing drug development practices and introducing new nonclinical and clinical tests to asses proarrhythmic liability. ICH Guidelines S7B and E14 were released in 2005. Since then, they have been adopted by many regional regulatory authorities and have guided nonclinical and clinical proarrhythmic cardiac safety assessments during drug development. While this regulatory paradigm has been successful in preventing drugs with unanticipated potential for inducing the rare but potentially fatal polymorphic ventricular arrhythmia torsade de pointes from entering the market, it has led to the termination of drug development programs for other potentially useful medicines because of isolated results from studies with limited predictive value. Research efforts are now exploring alternative approaches to better predict potential proarrhythmic liabilities. For example, in the domain of human electrocardiographic assessments, concentration-response modeling conducted during phase 1 clinical development has recently become an accepted alternate primary methodology to the ICH E14 "thorough QT/QTc" study for defining a drug's corrected QT interval prolongation liability under certain conditions. When a drug's therapeutic benefit is considered important at a public health level but there is also an identified proarrhythmic liability that may result from administration of the single drug in certain individuals and/or drug-drug interactions, marketing approval will be accompanied by appropriate directions in the drug's prescribing information. Health-care professionals in the fields of medicine and pharmacy need to consider the prescribing information in conjunction with individual patients' clinical characteristics and concomitant medications when prescribing and dispensing such drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".