Relationships Between Debrisoquine Hydroxylation and Propafenone Pharmacokinetics

Pharmacogenetics, drug-metabolizing enzymes, and clinical practice

The application of pharmacogenetics holds great promise for individualized therapy. However, it has little clinical reality at present, despite many claims. The main problem is that the evidence base supporting genetic testing before therapy is weak. The pharmacology of the drugs subject to inherited variability in metabolism is often complex. Few have simple or single pathways of elimination. Some have active metabolites or enantiomers with different activities and pathways of elimination. Drug dosing is likely to be influenced only if the aggregate molar activity of all active moieties at the site of action is predictably affected by genotype or phenotype. Variation in drug concentration must be significant enough to provide "signal" over and above normal variation, and there must be a genuine concentration-effect relationship. The therapeutic index of the drug will also influence test utility. After considering all of these factors, the benefits of prospective testing need to be weighed against the costs and against other endpoints of effect. It is not surprising that few drugs satisfy these requirements. Drugs (and enzymes) for which there is a reasonable evidence base supporting genotyping or phenotyping include suxamethonium/mivacurium (butyrylcholinesterase), and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine (thiopurine methyltransferase). Drugs for which there is a potential case for prospective testing include warfarin (CYP2C9), perhexiline (CYP2D6), and perhaps the proton pump inhibitors (CYP2C19). No other drugs have an evidence base that is sufficient to justify prospective testing at present, although some warrant further evaluation. In this review we summarize the current evidence base for pharmacogenetics in relation to drug-metabolizing enzymes.

Human variability in polymorphic CYP2D6 metabolism: is the kinetic default uncertainty factor adequate?

Human variability in the kinetics of CYP2D6 substrates has been quantified using a database of compounds metabolised extensively (>60%) by this polymorphic enzyme. Published pharmacokinetic studies (after oral and intravenous dosing) in non-phenotyped healthy adults, and phenotyped extensive (EMs), intermediate or slow-extensive (SEMs) and poor metabolisers (PMs) have been analysed using data for parameters that relate primarily to chronic exposure (metabolic and total clearances, area under the plasma concentration time-curve) and primarily to acute exposure (peak concentration). Similar analyses were performed with the available data for subgroups of the population (age, ethnicity and disease). Interindividual differences in kinetics for markers of oral exposure were large for non-phenotyped individuals and for EMs (coefficients of variation were 67-71% for clearances and 54-63% for C(max)), whereas the intravenous data indicated a lower variability (34-38%). Comparisons between EMs, SEMs and PMs revealed an increase in oral internal dose for SEMs and PMs (ratio compared to EMs=3 and 9-12, respectively) associated with lower variability than that for non-phenotyped individuals (coefficients of variation were 32-38% and 30% for SEMs and PMs, respectively). In relation to the uncertainty factors used for risk assessment, most subgroups would not be covered by the kinetic default of 3.16. CYP2D6-related factors necessary to cover 95-99% of each subpopulation ranged from 2.7 to 4.1 in non-phenotyped healthy adults and EMs to 15-18 in PMs and 22-45 in children. An exponential relationship (R(2)=0.8) was found between the extent of CYP2D6 metabolism and the uncertainty factors. The extent of CYP2D6 involvement in the metabolism of a substrate is critical in the estimation of the CYP2D6-related factor. The 3.16 kinetic default factor would cover PMs for substrates for which CYP2D6 was responsible for up to 25% of the metabolism in EMs.

Oral loading with propafenone for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a review on in-hospital treatment

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common arrhythmia. In order to treat acute AF rapidly, effective drug regimens are required. Propafenone is a class IC antiarrhythmic agent that is suitable for oral loading as it reaches peak plasma concentrations within 2 to 4 hours of administration. The use of propafenone loading in patients with AF must be based on appropriate patient selection in view of the negative inotropic effect and the potential proarrhythmic effects of the drug. A series of controlled trials in patients with recent-onset AF without heart failure who were hospitalised with enforced bed rest has shown that orally loaded propafenone (450 to 600 mg as single dose) exerts a relatively quick effect (within 3 to 4 hours) and a high rate of efficacy (72 to 78% within 8 hours). A potentially harmful effect of class IC agents is the risk of transforming AF into atrial flutter (3.5 to 5% of patients). However, atrial flutter with 1 : 1 atrioventricular response was observed in only two of 709 patients receiving propafenone (0.3% incidence). Nevertheless, the potential negative inotropic effect of propafenone demands careful patient selection, with systematic exclusion of patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestive heart failure. Oral loading with propafenone can be considered as an episodic treatment in patients with AF recurrences, as has been proposed for other drugs in the past. However, the safety of oral loading with propafenone as an outpatient treatment in appropriately selected patients has to be assessed by appropriately designed prospective studies.

Propafenone for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation. A controlled comparison between oral loading dose and intravenous administration

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare placebo vs two different regimens of propafenone administration--intravenous administration or short-term oral loading--in converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm.

DESIGN

Single-blind placebo-controlled study.

PATIENTS

Eighty-seven patients with atrial fibrillation of recent onset (< or = 7 days' duration) admitted to the hospital without signs of organic heart disease (n = 42) or with systemic hypertension without signs or symptoms of heart failure (n = 45). The patients were assigned randomly to treatment with intravenous propafenone (29 patients), oral propafenone (29 patients), or placebo (29 patients).

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of propafenone intravenously (2-mg/kg bolus followed by 0.0078 mg/kg/min) or as short-term oral loading (600 mg orally single dose). Patients were submitted to Holter monitoring and conversion to sinus rhythm was evaluated at 1, 3, and 8 h.

RESULTS

Conversion to sinus rhythm was obtained within 1 h in 28% with intravenous propafenone, in 3% with oral propafenone, and in 3% with placebo. At 3 h, the efficacy of intravenous propafenone (41%) and of oral propafenone (55%) were statistically superior to placebo (10% of conversions) and at 8 h either intravenous or oral propafenone were effective in almost two thirds of the patients with a statistical difference vs placebo, whose efficacy was 24%. No major side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propafenone as an oral loading dose is an efficacious and fast way of treating atrial fibrillation of recent onset and due to its simplicity of administration and safety can be preferred to the intravenous route.

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.