Cirrhosis of the liver markedly impairs the elimination of mexiletine

Relevance of mexiletine in the era of evolving antiarrhythmic therapy of ventricular arrhythmias

Despite impressive developments in the field of ventricular arrhythmias, there is still a relevant number of patients with ventricular arrhythmias who require antiarrhythmic drug therapy and may, e.g., in otherwise drug and/or ablation refractory situations, benefit from agents known for decades, such as mexiletine. Through its capability of blocking fast sodium channels in cardiomyocytes, it has played a minor to moderate antiarrhythmic role throughout the recent decades. Nevertheless, certain patients with structural heart disease suffering from drug-refractory, i.e., mainly amiodarone refractory ventricular arrhythmias, as well as those with selected forms of congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) may nowadays still benefit from mexiletine. Here, we outline mexiletine's cellular and clinical electrophysiological properties. In addition, the application of mexiletine may be accompanied by various potential side effects, e.g., nausea and tremor, and is limited by several drug-drug interactions. Thus, we shed light on the current therapeutic role of mexiletine for therapy of ventricular arrhythmias and discuss clinically relevant aspects of its indications based on current evidence.

Mexiletine: Antiarrhythmic mechanisms, emerging clinical applications and mortality

Mexiletine, a class Ib antiarrhythmic drug, exhibits its major antiarrhythmic effect via inhibition of the fast and late Na+ currents in myocardial tissues that are dependent on the opening of Na+ channels for their excitation. Through a comprehensive examination of mexiletine's therapeutic benefits and potential risks, we aim to provide valuable insights that reinforce its role as a vital therapeutic option for patients with ventricular arrhythmias, long QT syndrome, and other heart rhythm disorders. This review will highlight the current understandings of the antiarrhythmic effects and rationales for recent off-label use and address the mortality and proarrhythmic effects of mexiletine utilizing published basic and clinical studies over the past five decades.

Antiarrhythmics: elimination and dosage considerations in hepatic impairment

Many drugs, including most antiarrhythmics (some of which are now of limited clinical use) are eliminated by the hepatic route. If liver function is impaired, it can be anticipated that hepatic clearance will be delayed, which can lead to more pronounced drug accumulation with multiple dosing. Consequently, the potential risks of adverse events could be increased, especially as antiarrhythmics have a narrow therapeutic index. The present review summarises the available pharmacokinetic data on the most popular antiarrhythmic drugs to identify the enzymes involved in the metabolism of the various agents and confirm whether liver disease affects their elimination. Despite long usage of some of these drugs (e.g. amiodarone, diltiazem, disopyramide, procainamide and quinidine), surprisingly few data are available in patients with liver disease, making it difficult to give recommendations for dosage adjustment. In contrast, for carvedilol, lidocaine (lignocaine), propafenone and verapamil, sufficient clinical studies have been performed. For these drugs, a marked decrease in systemic and/or oral clearance and significant prolongation of the elimination half-life have been documented, which should be counteracted by a 2- to 3-fold reduction of the dosage in patients with moderate to severe liver cirrhosis. For sotalol, disopyramide and procainamide, renal clearance contributes considerably to overall elimination, suggesting that dosage reductions are probably unnecessary in patients with liver disease as long as renal function is normal. The hepatically eliminated antiarrhythmics are metabolised mainly by different cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes (e.g. CYP3A4, CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2D6) and partly also by conjugations. As the extent of impairment in clearance is in the same range for all of these agents, it could be assumed that they have a common vulnerability and that, consequently, hepatic dysfunction will affect CYP-mediated phase I pathways in a similar fashion. The severity of liver disease has been estimated clinically by the validated Pugh score, and functionally by calculation of the clearance of probe drugs (e.g. antipyrine). Both approaches can be helpful in estimating/predicting impairments in drug metabolism, including antiarrhythmics. In conclusion, hepatic impairment decreases the elimination of many antiarrhythmics to such an extent that dosage reductions are highly recommended in such populations, especially in patients with cirrhosis.

Effects of liver disease on pharmacokinetics. An update

Liver disease can modify the kinetics of drugs biotransformed by the liver. This review updates recent developments in this field, with particular emphasis on cytochrome P450 (CYP). CYP is a rapidly expanding area in clinical pharmacology. The information currently available on specific isoforms involved in drug metabolism has increased tremendously over the latest years, but knowledge remains incomplete. Studies on the effects of liver disease on specific isoenzymes of CYP have shown that some isoforms are more susceptible than others to liver disease. A detailed knowledge of the particular isoenzyme involved in the metabolism of a drug and the impact of liver disease on that enzyme can provide a rational basis for dosage adjustment in patients with hepatic impairment. The capacity of the liver to metabolise drugs depends on hepatic blood flow and liver enzyme activity, both of which can be affected by liver disease. In addition, liver failure can influence the binding of a drug to plasma proteins. These changes can occur alone or in combination; when they coexist their effect on drug kinetics is synergistic, not simply additive. The kinetics of drugs with a low hepatic extraction are sensitive to hepatic failure rather than to liver blood flow changes, but drugs having a significant first-pass effect are sensitive to alterations in hepatic blood flow. The drugs examined in this review are: cardiovascular agents (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, calcium antagonists, ketanserin, antiarrhythmics and hypolipidaemics), diuretics (torasemide), psychoactive and anticonvulsant agents (benzodiazepines, flumazenil, antidepressants and tiagabine), antiemetics (metoclopramide and serotonin antagonists), antiulcers (acid pump inhibitors), anti-infectives and antiretroviral agents (grepafloxacin, ornidazole, pefloxacin, stavudine and zidovudine), immunosuppressants (cyclosporin and tacrolimus), naltrexone, tolcapone and toremifene. According to the available data, the kinetics of many drugs are altered by liver disease to an extent that requires dosage adjustment; the problem is to quantify the required changes. Obviously, this requires the evaluation of the degree of hepatic impairment. At present there is no satisfactory test that gives a quantitative measure of liver function and its impairment. A critical evaluation of these methods is provided. Guidelines providing a rational basis for dosage adjustment are illustrated. Finally, it is important to consider that liver disease not only affects pharmacokinetics but also pharmacodynamics. This review also examines drugs with altered pharmacodynamics.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of mexiletine

Mexiletine, a class Ib antiarrhythmic agent, is rapidly and completely absorbed following oral administration with a bioavailability of about 90%. Peak plasma concentrations following oral administration occur within 1 to 4 hours and a linear relationship between dose and plasma concentration is observed in the dose range of 100 to 600 mg. Mexiletine is weakly bound to plasma proteins (70%). Its volume of distribution is large and varies from 5 to 9 L/kg in healthy individuals. Mexiletine is eliminated slowly in humans (with an elimination half-life of 10 hours). It undergoes stereoselective disposition caused by extensive metabolism. Eleven metabolites of mexiletine are presently known, but none of these metabolites possesses any pharmacological activity. The major metabolites are hydroxymethyl-mexiletine, p-hydroxy-mexiletine, m-hydroxy-mexiletine and N-hydroxy-mexiletine. Formation of hydroxymethyl-mexiletine, p-hydroxy-mexiletine and m-hydroxy-mexiletine is genetically determined and cosegregates with polymorphic debrisoquine 4-hydroxylase [cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6] activity. On the other hand, CYP1A2 seems to be implicated in the N-oxidation of mexiletine. Various physiological, pathological, pharmacological and environmental factors influence the disposition of mexiletine. Myocardial infarction, opioid analgesics, atropine and antacids slow the rate of absorption, whereas metoclopramide enhances it. Rifampicin (rifampin), phenytoin and cigarette smoking significantly enhance the rate of elimination of mexiletine, whereas ciprofloxacin, propafenone and liver cirrhosis decrease it. Cimetidine, ranitidine, fluconazole and omeprazole do not modify the disposition of mexiletine. Conversely, mexiletine is known to alter the disposition of other drugs, such as caffeine and theophylline. Factors affecting the elimination of mexiletine may be clinically important and dosage adjustments are often necessary.

Mexiletine. A review of its therapeutic use in painful diabetic neuropathy

Mexiletine is an orally active local anaesthetic agent which is structurally related to lidocaine (lignocaine) and has been used for alleviating neuropathic pain of various origins. Mexiletine has been evaluated in several randomised, placebo-controlled trials in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The drug decreased mean visual analogue scale (VAS) pain ratings in all studies that used this measure, although in only 2 studies was this effect significantly greater than the often substantial responses seen with placebo. The clinical significance of these decreases is not clear. Statistically significant (vs placebo) reductions in VAS pain ratings were observed in 16 patients receiving mexiletine 10 mg/kg/day for 10 weeks in 1 study and in nocturnal (but not diurnal) pain in 31 patients receiving mexiletine 675 mg/day for 3 weeks in another. Retrospective analysis of another study revealed that mexiletine recipients (225 to 675 mg/day) who described their pain as stabbing, burning or formication on the pain-rating-index-total instrument of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, experienced statistically significant reductions in VAS pain scores after 5 weeks, compared with placebo recipients. Mexiletine generally did not have a significant influence on the quality of sleep in patients with diabetic neuropathy. In Japanese patients, statistically significant reductions in subjective pain ratings were achieved with mexiletine 300 mg/day in 1 study and with 450 mg/day in a further study. In controlled trials, the frequency of adverse events in patients receiving mexiletine for painful diabetic neuropathy ranged from 13.5 to 50%. Gastrointestinal complaints, of which nausea was the most frequent, were the most common adverse events in mexiletine recipients. Central nervous system complaints were uncommon, but included: sleep disturbance, headache, shakiness, dizziness and tiredness. Serious cardiac arrhythmias have not been reported in patients receiving mexiletine for painful diabetic neuropathy; however, transient tachycardia and palpitations have been reported. There are significant differences in the metabolism of mexiletine between people who have cytochrome P450 2D6 [CYP2D6; extensive metabolisers (EMs)] and those who lack this isoenzyme [poor metabolisers (PMs)]. EMs, but not PMs, are susceptible to drug interactions between mexiletine and drugs that inhibit CYP2D6 (e.g. quinidine). Moreover, mexiletine inhibits CYP2D6-mediated metabolism of metoprolol and cytochrome P450 1A2-mediated metabolism of theophylline. Phenytoin and rifampicin (rifampin) induce the metabolism of mexiletine. Clearance of mexiletine is impaired in patients with hepatic, but not renal, dysfunction. Hence, dosage adjustments may be necessary in patients with liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are the agents of choice for painful diabetic neuropathy; however, they are ineffective in approximately 50% of patients and are generally not well tolerated. Mexiletine is an alternative agent for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy in patients who have not had a satisfactory response to, or cannot tolerate, TCAs and/or other drugs.

Clinical pharmacokinetics in patients with liver disease

From considerations of hepatic physiology and pathology coupled with pharmacokinetic principles, it appears that altered drug elimination in liver disease may result from the following mechanisms: reduction in absolute cell mass, in cellular enzyme content and/or activity, in portal vein perfusion due to extrahepatic/intrahepatic shunting, or of portal perfusion of hepatocyte mass due to decreased portal flow or sinusoidal perfusion; increase in arterial perfusion relative to portal perfusion; preferential perfusion of the sinusoidal midzone and terminal zones by arterioles; potential for direct mixing of arterial blood within the space of Disse; reduced exchange across the endothelial lining; and impaired diffusion within the space of Disse. In general, oxidative drug metabolism is impaired in liver disease and the degree of impairment of oxidisation differs between drugs but correlates best with the degree of sinusoidal capillarisation, i.e. the degree of access of the drug from the sinusoid to the hepatocyte. Drug conjugation appears to be relatively unaffected by liver disease, whereas elimination by biliary excretion correlates best with the degree of intrahepatic shunting and not with sinusoidal capillarisation. As the latter should impair hepatocyte access of all compounds similarly, a potentially important mechanism could be impaired access of oxygen to hepatocytes as oxidative metabolism is much more sensitive to oxygen supply than are conjugation or biliary excretion. This suggests a potentially important therapeutic role for agents which increase the hepatic oxygen supply. Useful adjunctive strategies may also derive from the oxygen limitation hypothesis. Anaemia should be targeted as a critically important variable, as should oxygen-carrying capacity, i.e. modification of the smoking habit. Additionally, enzyme inducers such as barbiturates may be used if overriding hypoxic constraints are removed by oxygen supplementation. Agents likely to seriously compromise arterial perfusion of the hepatic vascular bed should be avoided, e.g. those causing postural hypotension or vasospasm. Vasodilators can be used to actively promote arterial perfusion. While the effect of liver disease on drug handling is highly variable and difficult to predict, there are well recognised principles for modifying dosage. These include halving the dose of drugs given systemically (or of low clearance drugs given orally) and a 50 to 90% reduction in the dose of drugs with a high hepatic clearance given orally. Changes in the pharmacodynamic effects of drugs (either alone or in addition to pharmacokinetic changes) can also be profound, and awareness of this possibility should be increased.

Practical optimisation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy using pharmacokinetic principles

The optimisation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy is dependent on the definitions and methods of short term efficacy testing and the characteristics of those drugs used for rhythm disturbances. The choice of an initial antiarrhythmic drug dosage is highly empirical, and will remain so until the measurement of free concentrations, enantiomeric fractions and genetic phenotyping becomes routine. However, the clinician can devise an efficient initial dosage for efficacy testing procedures based on pharmacokinetic principles and disposition variables in the literature. In this regard, a nomogram for commonly used agents and dosages was constructed and is offered as a guide to accomplish this goal. Verification of the accuracy and usefulness of this nomogram in a prospective manner in patients with symptomatic tachyarrhythmias is still required. On a long term basis, dosage regimens can be modified by the use of pharmacokinetic principles and patient-specific target concentrations, in accordance with the methods used to monitor arrhythmia recurrence and drug-related side effects.

Quantifying hepatic function in the presence of liver disease with phenazone (antipyrine) and its metabolites

The disposition of phenazone (antipyrine), a low extraction compound with low protein binding, is known to be altered in the presence of various types of hepatic dysfunction. As such, its pharmacokinetics may be useful in the objective characterisation of altered liver function. Understanding the known effects of various liver disease states upon the disposition of this probe may provide insight into future applications. This article provides a review of background information about normal plasma phenazone pharmacokinetics, urinary metabolite disposition and tabulations of reported total body clearances of the drug in the presence of cirrhosis, fatty liver, hepatitis and cholestasis in humans. An estimate is made of the sensitivity and specificity of phenazone testing for the verification of the presence of cirrhosis based on this compiled literature.

Mexiletine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in the treatment of arrhythmias

As a member of the class Ib antiarrhythmic drugs mexiletine's primary mechanism of action is blocking fast sodium channels, reducing the phase 0 maximal upstroke velocity of the action potential. It increases the ratio of effective refractory period to action potential duration, but has little effect on conductivity. Unlike quinidine it does not prolong QRS and QT (QTc) intervals. In the dosage range 600 to 900 mg daily mexiletine effectively suppresses premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) in 25% to 79% of patients, with or without underlying cardiac disease. In comparative studies the response rate was comparable to that with quinidine or disopyramide. However, the use of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with asymptomatic arrhythmias is controversial. More importantly, mexiletine abolishes spontaneous or inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the short term in 20% to 50% of patients with refractory arrhythmias. Arrhythmia suppression is maintained in 57% to over 80% of these early therapeutic successes in the long term, with mexiletine alone or in combination with another antiarrhythmic drug. As with other antiarrhythmic drugs, there is no substantial evidence that administration of mexiletine after acute myocardial infarction improves long term prognosis. Although the incidence of adverse effects associated with mexiletine is high, the majority are minor gastrointestinal or neurological effects which can be adequately controlled through dosage adjustment. Furthermore, mexiletine has minimal effects on haemodynamic variables, or on cardiac function in patients with or without pre-existing deterioration of left ventricular function, and it appears to have a low proarrhythmic potential. Thus, while the therapeutic efficacy of mexiletine for the prevention or suppression of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias may be no greater than that of other antiarrhythmic drugs, and less than that of some (e.g. amiodarone), it is effective in a significant proportion of patients refractory to other treatments and can be administered without causing adverse haemodynamic effects to patients with complicating factors such as acute myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure.

Effects of cardiovascular disease on pharmacokinetics

The pathophysiologic changes occurring in cardiovascular disease can affect the kinetics of drugs in several different ways. The present review examines these modifications and the underlying mechanisms. The kinetics of specific agents, such as antiarrhythmic, antihypertensive, cardiotonic, and other drugs are considered, and the clinical implications are outlined. The clinician should be aware of these modifications, because they require an adjustment of the dosage regimen. A rational basis for a correct therapeutic choice can be provided by adequate knowledge of these modifications.

[Treatment with mexiletine. Clinical and pharmacokinetic studies]

Pharmacokinetics of the antiarrhythmic agent mexiletine were found to be highly variable. Ineffective or toxic doses can be avoided by monitoring mexiletine concentrations in patients plasma. However, the success of antiarrhythmic therapy is mainly determined by the severity of the underlying disease. Therefore, the efficacy of treatment with mexiletine should be controlled by Holter monitoring.