Severe complications of antianginal drug therapy in a patient identified as a poor metabolizer of metoprolol, propafenone, diltiazem, and sparteine

Revisiting propafenone toxicity

Propafenone is a Vaughan Williams class 1c antiarrhythmic medication widely used for treatment of arrhythmias. Although the long-term safety of propafenone use has not been established, it is commonly used for treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with no structural heart disease. Propafenone is well known as pill-in-the-pocket treatment for its effect in terminating paroxysmal episodes of atrial fibrillation. Herein, we discuss an unusual adverse reaction to propafenone in a patient who presented with symptomatic bradycardia and hypotension. The aim of this article is to increase physician awareness for propafenone toxicity and its management, with a focused literature review on propafenone pharmacotherapy.

Cytochrome P450-2D6 Genotype Definition May Improve Therapy for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation A Case of Syncope Following "Pill-in-the-Pocket" Quinidine plus Propafenone

Classes 1A, 1C and III anti-arrhythmics may be ineffective or induce adverse events including potentially fatal arrhythmias when administered in recommended doses. Serum levels of these medications vary widely during conventional dosing due in large part to variations in cytochrome P450-2D6 isoenzyme activity which metabolizes most antiarrhythmics in addition to over 25% of other commonly prescribed medications. 2D6 activity is also profoundly inhibited by some antiarrhythmics and other commonly used medications and varies widely between the individuals of all populations, a pattern which has resulted in separation of subjects into 4 phenotypes and genotypes consisting of poor metabolizers (PM), intermediate metabolizers (IM), efficient metabolizers (EM), and ultra-rapid metabolizers (UM). Patients with a phenotype PM classification almost universally are also genotype PM due to the possession of two inactive 2D6 alleles, with this PM pattern often inducing supratherapeutic and toxic antiarrhythmic blood levels during conventional antiarrhythmic therapy. UM individuals have supranormal levels of 2D6 activity often created by the presence of 3 or more active alleles which often induce subtherapeutic and ineffective drug levels during antiarrhythmic administration in conventional doses. We searched for evidence relating Cytochrome P450-2D6 phenotypes or genotypes to antiarrhythmic metabolism in order to judge whether this analysis might contribute to improved safety and effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications commonly utilized in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The available evidence strongly supported these possibilities. We also describe a patient in whom knowledge of his IM/PM CYP2D6 genotype might have prevented the only episode of syncope and myocardial stunning which developed during his 28 years of "Pill-in-a-Pocket" therapy.

Gender, ethnicity, and genes in cardiovascular disease. Part 2: implications for pharmacotherapy

Women are underrepresented in clinical trials. Lower doses of beta-blockers are required for Southeast Asians. ACE and ARB's are teratogenic in the second trimester. Torsades de Pointes is more common in women related to a longer QT-interval. Lower dose OCPs decrease the risk of MI, stroke and thrombosis. HRTs are not effective for CAD prevention.

Clinical pharmacokinetics: current requirements and future perspectives from a regulatory point of view

1. There is an increasing appreciation of the relevance of pharmacokinetics of drugs during evaluation of their safety for human clinical use. Regulatory requirements for clinical pharmacokinetic data have progressively evolved to emphasize and address these safety implications. 2. Historically the dose schedules usually recommended have been too high, often with serious consequences. Therefore, the need to establish reliable dose response (both therapeutic and toxic) relationships must be an important objective. 3. Concurrent developments in our understanding of the pharmacological effects (therapeutic or toxic) of metabolites, the interethnic and interindividual differences in drug responses and the toxicological aspects of drug chirality now provide compelling reasons for the roles of bioactivation, pharmacogenetics and stereochemical factors to be addressed in pharmacokinetic studies during the clinical development of drugs. 4. Apart from the traditional pharmacokinetic studies following single and multiple doses in healthy volunteers, patients and special subgroups, reliable dose-response curves for therapeutic and toxic effects must be established in well-designed controlled studies using a wide range of doses. Often, doses lower than those recommended have a much improved risk/benefit ratio. 5. Secondary pharmacology of the drug and its active metabolites must be defined for assessment of safety (adverse reactions and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions) in high dose/concentration situations. 6. The enzyme systems responsible for the metabolism of a drug must be identified followed by rational investigations of drug-drug and drug-disease interactions both from the efficacy and safety viewpoints. Factors responsible for alterations in the functional expression of this enzyme system must be identified and the safety and efficacy implications of these findings at interethnic, inter- and intraindividual levels must be fully explored during all phases of the clinical development of the drug. This should lead to carefully designed patient subgroup-specific dose schedules which maximize the risk/benefit ratio for all patients. 7. Drugs operate in a chiral environment and, not surprisingly, enantiomers of a drug differ significantly in their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The possibility of interactions between enantiomers of a drug and of enantioselective interactions should be examined. These should be thoroughly investigated and the decision to market a racemic mixture or one of its enantiomers must be justified. 8. Analysis of population pharmacokinetics offers an approach by which to examine the roles of various factors which are likely to be clinically relevant for the safe and effective use of drugs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Clinical significance of genetic influences on cardiovascular drug metabolism

Inherited differences in metabolism may be responsible for individual variability in the efficacy of drugs and the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Among the cardiovascular drugs reported to exhibit genetic polymorphism are debrisoquine, sparteine, some beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, flecainide, encainide, propafenone, nifedipine, procainamide, and hydralazine. The implications of genetic differences in the metabolism of these drugs for cardiovascular therapeutics is the subject of this review.

Genetically determined differences in drug metabolism as a risk factor in drug toxicity

Drug metabolizing enzymes are of paramount importance in drug detoxification as well as chemical mutagenesis, carcinogenesis and toxicity via metabolic activation. Thus genetically determined differences in the activity of these enzymes can influence individual susceptibility to adverse drug reactions, drug induced diseases and certain types of chemically induced cancers. The genetic polymorphisms of three human drug metabolizing enzymes, namely N-acetyltransferase and two cytochrome P-450 isozymes (P-4502D6: debrisoquine/sparteine polymorphism, P-4502C8-10: mephenytoin polymorphism) have been firmly established. Based on the metabolic handling of certain probe drugs, the population can be divided into two phenotypes: the rapid acetylator/extensive metabolizer and slow acetylator/poor metabolizer. These polymorphisms have provided useful tools to study the relationship between genetically determined differences in the activity of drug metabolizing enzymes and the risk for adverse drug reactions and certain types of chemically-induced diseases and cancers. With regard to the susceptibility of the two phenotypes, drug mediated toxicity for the following scenarios can be anticipated. (1) The toxicity of the drug is caused by the parent compound and the elimination of the drug proceeds exclusively via the polymorphic enzyme. No alternate pathways of biotransformation are available. Thus the slow acetylator/poor metabolizer phenotype will be more prone to such a type of toxicity since, at the same level of exposure, this phenotype will accumulate the drug as a result of impaired metabolism (e.g. isoniazid polyneuropathy, perhexiline polyneuropathy, pesticide induced Parkinsons disease). (2) The polymorphic pathway is a major route of detoxification. Impairment of this pathway shifts the metabolism to an alternate pathway via which a reactive intermediate is being formed. In such a situation the slow acetylator/poor metabolizer phenotype constitutes a major risk factor for toxicity (e.g. isoniazid hepatotoxicity). (3) The toxicity is mediated by a reactive intermediate generated by a polymorphic enzyme. Hence extensive metabolizers are at a much higher risk than poor metabolizers to develop toxicity or cancer (e.g. bronchial carcinoma in smokers, not chemically induced aggressive bladder cancer).

Identification of propafenone metaboliser phenotype from plasma and urine excretion data

The aim of the study was to validate a test based on analyses of urine to identify the propafenone metaboliser phenotype during routine chronic therapy. Twenty seven patients chronically treated with propafenone were studied. A debrisoquine test was performed in 10. Propafenone and its metabolites in plasma and urine were measured by HPLC. Propafenone, 5-hydroxypropafenone and N-depropylpropafenone concentrations in plasma were 1.09, 0.182 and 0.101 ng.ml-1, respectively. Total recovery of the administered dose in urine was 30.7%. Two patients were identified as PM, based on the result of the debrisoquine test (log D/4OHD of 1.26 and 1.36). This finding was confirmed by the propafenone metabolic ratio in urine, but the plasma data did not permit clearcut separation of the phenotypes. Propafenone/5-hydroxypropafenone in plasma was not a good predictor of metabolizer phenotype. Although the number of patients who completed all three tests was limited, it is concluded that analysis of propafenone/5-hydroxypropafenone in urine collected between two consecutive doses at steady-state is more practical than the debrisoquine test and more specific than determining the propafenone/5-hydroxypropafenone ratio in plasma, for identification of the propafenone metaboliser phenotypes.

Influence of debrisoquine oxidation phenotype on exercise tolerance and subjective fatigue after metoprolol and atenolol in healthy subjects

1. The effects of single doses of metoprolol 50 mg, metoprolol 100 mg and atenolol 100 mg on exercise tolerance were compared with placebo in a double-blind random cross-over study in 12 healthy subjects. Nine subjects were extensive metabolisers of debrisoquine, and three were poor metabolisers. 2. Three hours after dosing beta-adrenoceptor blocker treatments significantly reduced exercise heart rate, prolonged time to complete exercise, and increased subjective fatigue measured by visual analogue scale. 3. Scores for subjective fatigue did not correlate with reduction in exercise heart rate or prolongation of exercise time. Exercise time prolongation was weakly but not significantly correlated with exercise heart rate reduction. 4. When compared with placebo, prolongation of exercise time and increased fatigue with metoprolol were not significantly related to debrisoquine oxidation phenotype or to the debrisoquine/4-hydroxydebrisoquine (D/4OH-D) ratio. 5. When metoprolol responses were compared with those for atenolol, changes in exercise time and fatigue scores were significantly related to oxidation phenotype. For metoprolol 100 mg, poor metabolisers required 20.8 s longer to complete exercise (P less than 0.05) and had higher fatigue scores by 78% (P less than 0.05) as compared with extensive metabolisers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Genetic polymorphism of sparteine/debrisoquine oxidation: a reappraisal

Polymorphic oxidation of the sparteine/debrisoquine-type has been shown to account for much of the interindividual variation in the metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an increasing number of drugs, including some antiarrhythmic, antidepressant and beta-adrenoceptor antagonist agents. Impaired hydroxylation of these drugs results from the absence of the enzyme cytochrome P450IID6 in the livers of poor metabolisers, who constitute 6% to 10% of Caucasian populations. The clinical importance of the phenomenon has to be explored further and for most sparteine/debrisoquine-related substrates there is a need for controlled prospective studies to define the consequences to the patient of impaired or enhanced drug oxidation.

The genetic polymorphism of debrisoquine/sparteine metabolism--clinical aspects

It has been established that the metabolism of more than twenty drugs, including antiarrhythmics, beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, antidepressants, opiates and neuroleptics is catalyzed by cytochrome P-450dbl. The activity of this P-450 isozyme is under genetic rather than environmental control. This article discusses the therapeutic implications for each of the classes of drugs affected by this genetic polymorphism in drug metabolism. Not only are the problems associated with poor metabolizers who are unable to metabolize the compounds discussed, but it is also emphasized that it is difficult to attain therapeutic plasma concentrations for some drugs in high activity extensive metabolizers.

Genetically-determined interaction between propafenone and low dose quinidine: role of active metabolites in modulating net drug effect

1. Quinidine is a potent inhibitor of the genetically-determined debrisoquine 4-hydroxylation. Oxidation reactions of several other drugs, including the 5-hydroxylation of the new antiarrhythmic drug propafenone, depend on the isozyme responsible for debrisoquine 4-hydroxylation. 2. The effect of quinidine on the debrisoquine phenotype-dependent 5-hydroxylation and the pharmacological activity of propafenone was studied in seven 'extensive' metabolizers and two 'poor' metabolizers of the drug receiving propafenone for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. 3. In patients with the extensive metabolizer phenotype, quinidine increased mean steady-state plasma propafenone concentrations more than two fold, from 408 +/- 351 (mean +/- s.d.) to 1096 +/- 644 ng ml-1 (P less than 0.001), decreased 5-hydroxypropafenone concentrations from 242 +/- 196 to 125 +/- 97 ng ml-1 (P less than 0.02) and reduced propafenone oral clearance by 58 +/- 23%. 4. Despite these changes in plasma concentrations, electrocardiographic intervals and arrhythmia frequency were unaltered by quinidine coadministration, indicating that 5-hydroxypropafenone contributes to the pharmacologic effects of propafenone therapy in extensive metabolizers. 5. In contrasts, plasma concentrations of propafenone and 5-hydroxypropafenone remained unchanged in the two patients with the poor metabolizer phenotype. 6. Biotransformation of substrates for the debrisoquine pathway can be markedly perturbed by even low doses of quinidine; interindividual variability in drug interactions may have a genetic component.

Clinical significance of the sparteine/debrisoquine oxidation polymorphism

The sparteine/debrisoquine oxidation polymorphism results from differences in the activity of one isozyme of cytochrome P450, the P450db1 (P450 IID1). The oxidation of more than 20 clinically useful drugs has now been shown to be under similar genetic control to that of sparteine/debrisoquine. The clinical significance of this polymorphism may be defined by the value of phenotyping patients before treatment. The clinical significance of such polymorphic elimination of a particular drug can be analyzed in three steps: first, does the kinetics of active principle of a drug depend significantly on P450db1?; second, is the resulting pharmacokinetic variability of any clinical importance?; and third, can the variation in response be assessed by direct clinical or paraclinical measurements? It is concluded from such an analysis that, in general, the sparteine/debrisoquine oxidation polymorphism is of significance in patient management only for those drugs for which plasma concentration measurements are considered useful and for which the elimination of the drug and/or its active metabolite is mainly determined by P450db1. At present, this applies to tricyclic antidepressants and to certain neuroleptics (e.g. perphenazine and thioridazine) and antiarrhythmics (e.g. propafenone and flecainide). Phenotyping should be introduced in to clinical routine under strictly controlled conditions to afford a better understanding of its potentials and limitations. The increasing knowledge of specific substrates and inhibitors of P450db1 allows precise predictions of drug-drug interactions. At present, the strong inhibitory effect of neuroleptics on the metabolism of tricyclic antidepressants represents the best clinically documented and most relevant example of such an interaction.

Genetic polymorphism in drug oxidation

Of the two clearly established drug oxidation polymorphisms, only the one referred to as debrisoquine polymorphism affects many drugs. The only known polymorphic substrates of mephenytoin hydroxylase are mephenytoin and mephobarbital. Relatively recently discovered drug substrates of debrisoquine hydroxylase are propafenone, diltiazem, and codeine. The list of substrates contains 28 items. The fate of slightly less than half of these is clinically affected in poor metabolizers, and several of the latter drugs are no longer marketed. There are many reasons why a failure of metabolism may not alter the fate of a drug sufficiently to affect its clinical use. Of interest and clinical importance is the inhibition of debrisoquine hydroxylase by inhibitors such as quinidine and by some neuroleptics; also the simultaneous use of two substrates has led to serious toxicity by mutual metabolic inhibition. The study of these oxidation polymorphisms has been instructive not only for formal pharmacogenetics but also for the understanding of problems of therapy in patients without genetic defects.