Search

The Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC), a transparent, public-private partnership established in 2005 as a Critical Path Program and formalized in 2006 under a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Food and Drug Administration and Duke University, is entering its second decade. Our continuing goal is to advance paradigms for more efficient regulatory science related to the cardiovascular safety of new therapeutics, both in the United States and globally, particularly where such safety questions add burden to innovative research and development. Operationally, CSRC brings together a broad base of stakeholders from academia, industry, and government agencies in a collaborative forum focused on identifying barriers and then creating novel solutions through shared data, expertise, and collaborative research. This white paper provides a brief overview of the Consortium's activities in its first decade and a context for some of our current activities and future directions. The growth and success of the CSRC have been primarily driven by members' active participation and the development of goodwill and trust throughout our membership, which have facilitated novel collaborations across traditionally competitive or contentious stakeholder boundaries. The continued expansion of our base of participating academicians, industry experts, and regulators will define the Consortium's success in our second decade. It is our hope that sharing our endeavors to date will stimulate additional participation in the CSRC and also provide a model for other groups starting to develop similar collaborative forums., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This White Paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a Cardiovascular Safety Outcome Trials Think Tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the American College of Cardiology, held at American College of Cardiology's Heart House, Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014. Studies to assess cardiovascular (CV) risk of a new drug are sometimes requested by regulators to resolve ambiguous safety signals seen during its development or among other members of its class. Think Tank participants thought that important considerations in undertaking such studies were as follows: (1) plausibility-how likely it is that a possible signal indicating risk is real, based on strength of evidence, and/or whether a plausible mechanism of action for potential CV harm has been identified; (2) relevance-what relative and absolute CV risk would need to be excluded to determine that the drug had an acceptable benefit-to-risk balance for its use in the intended patient population; and (3) how plausibility and relevance influence the timing and approach to further safety assessment., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ability to make informed benefit-risk assessments for potentially cardiotoxic new compounds is of considerable interest and importance at the public health, drug development, and individual patient levels. Cardiac imaging approaches in the evaluation of drug-induced myocardial dysfunction will likely play an increasing role. However, the optimal choice of myocardial imaging modality and the recommended frequency of monitoring are undefined. These decisions are complicated by the array of imaging techniques, which have varying sensitivities, specificities, availabilities, local expertise, safety, and costs, and by the variable time-course of tissue damage, functional myocardial depression, or recovery of function. This White Paper summarizes scientific discussions of members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium on the main factors to consider when selecting nonclinical and clinical cardiac function imaging techniques in drug development. We focus on 3 commonly used imaging modalities in the evaluation of cardiac function: echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radionuclide (nuclear) imaging and highlight areas for future research., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Perhexiline has been used to treat hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In addition to its effect on carnitine‐palmitoyltransferase‐1, it has mixed ion channel effects through inhibition of several cardiac ion currents. Effects on cardiac ion channels expressed in mammalian cells were assayed using a manual patch‐clamp technique, action potential duration (APD) was measured in ventricular trabeculae of human donor hearts, and electrocardiogram effects were evaluated in healthy subjects in a thorough QT (TQT) study. Perhexiline blocked several cardiac ion currents at concentrations within the therapeutic range (150‐600 ng/mL) with IC50 for hCav1.2 ∼ hERG < late hNav1.5. A significant APD shortening was observed in perhexiline‐treated cardiomyocytes. The TQT study was conducted with a pilot part in 9 subjects to evaluate a dosing schedule that would achieve therapeutic and supratherapeutic perhexiline plasma concentrations on days 4 and 6, respectively. Guided by the results from the pilot, 104 subjects were enrolled in a parallel‐designed part with a nested crossover comparison for the positive control. Perhexiline caused QTc prolongation, with the largest effect on ΔΔQTcF, 14.7 milliseconds at therapeutic concentrations and 25.6 milliseconds at supratherapeutic concentrations and a positive and statistically significant slope of the concentration‐ΔΔQTcF relationship (0.018 milliseconds per ng/mL; 90%CI, 0.0119‐0.0237 milliseconds per ng/mL). In contrast, the JTpeak interval was shortened with a negative concentration‐JTpeak relationship, a pattern consistent with multichannel block. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this results in a low proarrhythmic risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]