Back

Cardiac toxicity predictions: Safety pharmacologists correlate with the CiPA model

Mistry, H.; Parikh, J.

2020-06-12 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2020.06.11.144238 bioRxiv
Show abstract

There has been a lot of interest and publicity regarding the use of a complex biophysical model within drug development for predicting the TdeP risk of new compounds. Throughout the development of the complex model numerous groups have shown that a simple linear mechanistic model explains the predictive behaviour of complex mechanistic models. That is the input-output relationship is almost linear even when complex kinetic assays are used. We hypothesized that given this linear relationship that scientist would be able to predict the outcome of the biophysical model. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of such an analysis but also assess the initial degree of correlation. A set of 15 compounds with diverse ion-channel blocking against 4 ion-channel currents, IKr, ICaL, INa and INaL, was generated. Safety pharmacologists across numerous companies were approached and asked to categorize the TdeP risk of these compounds using only the % block depicted via a bar chart into one of 3 categories: Risk, No-risk or Unsure. 12 scientists participated in the study, of which 11 correlated strongly with the model (11 person ROC AUC range: 0.86-1, 7 scientists had a value >0.9). The combined prediction of all scientists also correlated strongly with the model. These results highlight that the linear input-output relationship can indeed be predicted by the scientist. A future study exploring the degree of correlation with a wider group of scientists and wider set of compounds would be required to get a more precise estimate of the correlation. We hope this initial exploratory study will encourage the community to pursue this idea.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.View Full Text

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
42.1%
2
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
50% of probability mass above
3
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.6%
5
Archives of Toxicology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
7
Pharmaceutics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
8
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
9
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
207 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
10
ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.6%
12
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
13
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
15
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
16
Toxicological Sciences
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
17
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
18
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
19
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
20
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.5%