Comparison of validity of standard nonclinical group size selection versus standard clinical group sizes for nonhuman primate QTc prolongation evaluation.

The number of animals used in a nonhuman primate (NHP) in vivo QTc assessment conducted as part of the safety pharmacology (SP) studies on a potential new drug is relatively small (4–8 subjects). The number is much smaller than the number of healthy volunteers in a conventional thorough QT (TQT) study (40–60 volunteers). How is it possible that such small studies could offer an equivalent sensitivity in an integrated nonclinical and clinical cardiac repolarization risk assessment? This study provided the opportunity to empirically demonstrate in a large number of NHPs the performance of a nonclinical evaluation at a similar size to a TQT study. By contrasting an analysis mimicking the sampling and aggregation of QTc interval data in a manner which is TQT-like with a more conventional SP-like analysis it was demonstrated that the SP-like analysis was more sensitive. In prospective power calculations 80% power at p = 0.05 can be achieved for a 5 ms QTc change with only n = 8 NHPs using the SP-like analysis and in a group of only 4 NHPs 80% power to detect 10 ms could be achieved. By contrast groups of 24 NHPs would be required to achieve 80% power to detect 5 ms using the TQT-like sampling and aggregation approach. Overall, this study has demonstrated that smaller safety pharmacology in vivo QTc assessments using all the available data in larger data aggregates can achieve sensitivity comparable to a human TQT study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]