Search

BackgroundThe concept of chemical agents having properties that confer potential hazard called key characteristics (KCs) was first developed to identify carcinogenic hazards. Identification of KCs of cardiovascular (CV) toxicants could facilitate the systematic assessment of CV hazards and understanding of assay and data gaps associated with current approaches.ObjectivesWe sought to develop a consensus-based synthesis of scientific evidence on the KCs of chemical and nonchemical agents known to cause CV toxicity along with methods to measure them.MethodsAn expert working group was convened to discuss mechanisms associated with CV toxicity.ResultsThe group identified 12 KCs of CV toxicants, defined as exogenous agents that adversely interfere with function of the CV system. The KCs were organized into those primarily affecting cardiac tissue (numbers 1-4 below), the vascular system (5-7), or both (8-12), as follows: 1) impairs regulation of cardiac excitability, 2) impairs cardiac contractility and relaxation, 3) induces cardiomyocyte injury and death, 4) induces proliferation of valve stroma, 5) impacts endothelial and vascular function, 6) alters hemostasis, 7) causes dyslipidemia, 8) impairs mitochondrial function, 9) modifies autonomic nervous system activity, 10) induces oxidative stress, 11) causes inflammation, and 12) alters hormone signaling.DiscussionThese 12 KCs can be used to help identify pharmaceuticals and environmental pollutants as CV toxicants, as well as to better understand the mechanistic underpinnings of their toxicity. For example, evidence exists that fine particulate matter [PM ≤2.5μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)] air pollution, arsenic, anthracycline drugs, and other exogenous chemicals possess one or more of the described KCs. In conclusion, the KCs could be used to identify potential CV toxicants and to define a set of test methods to evaluate CV toxicity in a more comprehensive and standardized manner than current approaches. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9321.

Oligonucleotide therapeutics (ONTs) represent a new modality with unique pharmacological and chemical properties that modulate gene expression with a high degree of target specificity mediated by complementary Watson‐Crick base pair hybridization. To date, the proarrhythmic assessment of ONTs has been influenced by International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E14 and S7B guidance. To document current hERG/QTc evaluation practices, we reviewed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Approval Packages (source: PharmaPendium.com) and collated preclinical and clinical studies for 17 marketed ONTs. In addition, clinical QTc data from 12 investigational ONTs were obtained from the literature. Of the marketed ONTs, eight were tested in the hERG assay with no inhibitory effect identified at the top concentration (range: 34–3,000 μM) tested. Fourteen of the ONTs were evaluated in nonhuman primate cardiovascular studies with 11 of them in dedicated telemetry studies. No effect on QTc intervals were observed (at high exposure multiples) in all studies. Clinically, four ONTs were evaluated in TQT studies; an additional six ONTs were assessed by concentration‐QTc interval analysis, and six by routine safety electrocardiogram monitoring. None of the clinical studies identified a QTc prolongation risk; the same was true for the 12 investigational ONTs. A search of the FDA Adverse Event Database indicated no association between approved ONTs and proarrhythmias. Overall, the collective weight of evidence from 29 ONTs demonstrate no clinical proarrhythmic risk based on data obtained from ICH S7B/E14 studies. Thus, new ONTs may benefit from reduced testing strategies because they have no proarrhythmic risk, a similar cardiac safety profile as monoclonal antibodies, proteins, and peptides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In prior clinical studies, levocetirizine (LEVO) has demonstrated no effect on ventricular repolarization (QTc intervals), therefore it is a relevant negative control to assess in nonclinical assays to define low proarrhythmic risk. LEVO was tested in beagle dog and cynomolgus monkey (nonhuman primate [NHP]) telemetry models to understand the nonclinical‐clinical translation of this negative control. One oral dose of vehicle, LEVO (10 mg/kg/species) or moxifloxacin (MOXI; 30 mg/kg/dog; 80 mg/kg/NHP) was administered to instrumented animals (N = 8/species) using a cross‐over dosing design; MOXI was the in‐study positive control. Corrected QT interval values (QTcI) were calculated using an individual animal correction factor. Blood samples were taken for drug exposure during telemetry and for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis (same animals; different day) for exposure‐response (C‐QTc) modeling. Statistical analysis of QTc‐by‐timepoint data showed that LEVO treatment was consistent with vehicle, thus no effect on ventricular repolarization was observed over 24 h in both species. PK analysis indicated that LEVO‐maximum concentration levels in dogs (range: 12,300–20,100 ng/ml) and NHPs (range: 4090–12,700 ng/ml) were ≥4‐fold higher than supratherapeutic drug levels in clinical QTc studies. Slope analysis values in dogs (0.00019 ms/ng/ml) and NHPs (0.00016 ms/ng/ml) were similar to the human C‐QTc relationship and indicated no relationship between QTc intervals and plasma levels of LEVO. MOXI treatment caused QTc interval prolongation (dog: 18 ms; NHP: 29 ms). The characterization of LEVO in these non‐rodent telemetry studies further demonstrates the value and impact of the in vivo QTc assay to define a "no QTc effect" profile and support clinical safety assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]