Hemodynamic effects of mexiletine

Adult Human Primary Cardiomyocyte-Based Model for the Simultaneous Prediction of Drug-Induced Inotropic and Pro-arrhythmia Risk

Cardiac safety remains the leading cause of drug development discontinuation. We developed a human cardiomyocyte-based model that has the potential to provide a predictive preclinical approach for simultaneously predicting drug-induced inotropic and pro-arrhythmia risk.

Methods: Adult human primary cardiomyocytes from ethically consented organ donors were used to measure contractility transients. We used measures of changes in contractility parameters as markers to infer both drug-induced inotropic effect (sarcomere shortening) and pro-arrhythmia (aftercontraction, AC); contractility escape (CE); time to 90% relaxation (TR90). We addressed the clinical relevance of this approach by evaluating the effects of 23 torsadogenic and 10 non-torsadogenic drugs. Each drug was tested separately at four multiples of the free effective therapeutic plasma concentration (fETPC).

Results: Human cardiomyocyte-based model differentiated between torsadogenic and non-torsadogenic drugs. For example, dofetilide, a torsadogenic drug, caused ACs and increased TR90 starting at 10-fold the fETPC, while CE events were observed at the highest multiple of fETPC (100-fold). Verapamil, a non-torsadogenic drug, did not change TR90 and induced no AC or CE up to the highest multiple of fETPCs tested in this study (222-fold). When drug pro-arrhythmic activity was evaluated at 10-fold of the fETPC, AC parameter had excellent assay sensitivity and specificity values of 96 and 100%, respectively. This high predictivity supports the translational safety potential of this preparation and of the selected marker. The data demonstrate that human cardiomyocytes could also identify drugs associated with inotropic effects. hERG channel blockers, like dofetilide, had no effects on sarcomere shortening, while multi-ion channel blockers, like verapamil, inhibited sarcomere shortening.

Conclusions: Isolated adult human primary cardiomyocytes can simultaneously predict risks associated with inotropic activity and pro-arrhythmia and may enable the generation of reliable and predictive data for assessing human cardiotoxicity at an early stage in drug discovery.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiarrhythmic drugs

Most antiarrhythmic drugs fulfil the formal requirements for rational use of therapeutic drug monitoring, as they show highly variable plasma concentration profiles at a given dose and a direct concentration-effect relationship. Therapeutic ranges for antiarrhythmic drugs are, however, often very poorly defined. Effective drug concentrations are based on small studies or studies not designed to establish a therapeutic range, with varying dosage regimens and unstandardised sampling procedures. There are large numbers of nonresponders and considerable overlap between therapeutic and toxic concentrations. Furthermore, no study has ever shown that therapeutic drug monitoring makes a significant difference in clinical outcome. Therapeutic concentration ranges for antiarrhythmic drugs as they exist today can give an overall impression about the drug concentrations required in the majority of patients. They may also be helpful for dosage adjustment in patients with renal or hepatic failure or in patients with possible toxicological or compliance problems. Their use in optimising individual antiarrhythmic therapy, however, is very limited.

Parenteral antiarrhythmics for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias

The acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias often includes the use of parenteral antiarrhythmics. There are a number of agents currently available for this purpose. They are used to suppress inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during programmed electrical stimulation, they terminate spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia, and prevent ventricular fibrillation in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction. Serious adverse reactions include proarrhythmia, hypotension, severe bradyarrhythmias, and precipitation of congestive heart failure. A comparative evaluation of intravenous antiarrhythmics is difficult due to inherent differences in the choice of agents for study, protocol design, patient population, defined endpoint, and serum drug levels. Likewise, the reported adverse reaction rates vary from 0.4% to 75%. To understand the difficulties in clinical decision-making in this problem area, particularly drug selection, we present here a review of pertinent clinical trials evaluating parenteral drug efficacy and adverse effects.

Propafenone-mexiletine combination for the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of combined therapy with propafenone and mexiletine for control of sustained ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND

Combination antiarrhythmic drug therapy may enhance efficacy and lead to control of ventricular arrhythmias in some patients. Few reports have studied the combination of class IB and class IC drugs. Thus, this study was designed to investigate a combination of mexiletine and propafenone in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia had their clinical arrhythmia induced by programmed stimulation. Procainamide and propafenone alone failed to prevent reinduction of tachycardia in all. Mexiletine was subsequently added to propafenone and programmed stimulation was repeated.

RESULTS

With combination therapy ventricular tachycardia was noninducible in three patients (19%). A fourth who had presented with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia had slow bundle branch reentry (cycle length 500 ms) induced. In the other 12, tachycardia cycle length increased from 262 +/- 60 ms at baseline to 350 +/- 82 ms with propafenone and to 390 +/- 80 ms with propafenone plus mexiletine (p less than 0.0001 compared with baseline). Hemodynamic deterioration requiring defibrillation occurred in six patients at baseline study, in five taking propafenone and in two taking both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propafenone and mexiletine is effective in suppressing the induction of ventricular tachycardia in some patients refractory to procainamide and propafenone alone. In those in whom ventricular tachycardia could still be induced, the rate was slower and hemodynamically tolerated.

Comparative hemodynamic effects of mexiletine and quinidine in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction

Mexiletine and quinidine are often administered to patients with severe congestive heart failure, but their hemodynamic effects have not been adequately studied in these individuals. In a randomized, crossover study, the hemodynamic responses to single oral doses of quinidine (600 mg) and mexiletine (400 mg) were compared in 20 patients with marked left ventricular dysfunction. Quinidine predominantly caused vasodilation, with mean arterial, left ventricular filling, and right atrial pressures all decreasing (-7 +/- 2, -2.3 +/- 1.0, and -1.1 +/- 0.5 mm Hg, respectively) and the systemic vascular resistance also declining (-308 +/- 84 dynes.sec.cm5). In contrast, the systemic vascular resistance increased (314 +/- 84 dynes.sec.cm-5) and the mean arterial, left ventricular filling, and right atrial pressures also increased (+2 +/- 2, +6.1 +/- 1.8, and +1.8 +/- 0.6 mm Hg, respectively) after mexiletine. Cardiac performance declined with mexiletine (cardiac and stroke work indexes decreasing -0.3 +/- 0.1 L/min/m2 and -5 +/- 1 gm.m/m2, respectively), but there was no significant change in cardiac or stroke work indexes with quinidine (+0.1 L/min/m2 and -0.3 +/- 0.9 gm.m/m2, respectively). The response to the two agents significantly differed for all parameters measured (p less than 0.005). These hemodynamic changes were accompanied by clinical effects. Mexiletine induced increased dyspnea in five patients and quinidine led to symptomatic hypotension in two patients. Plasma concentrations of mexiletine and serum concentrations of quinidine were within or below the therapeutic range in all patients. In conclusion, mexiletine and quinidine exert different hemodynamic effects when given to patients with severe congestive heart failure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mexiletine versus quinidine as first-line antiarrhythmia therapy: results from consecutive trials

The efficacy of mexiletine and quinidine in controlling ventricular couplets (VC) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) was compared in 156 trials (78 for each drug) in 114 consecutive patients. Forty-two patients received both drugs, whereas 36 patients were given mexiletine, and 36 patients received quinidine only. During acute drug testing, mexiletine was more effective than quinidine in controlling VC and VT (54 vs. 32 patients, respectively, P less than .001) and resulted in fewer proarrhythmic events (4 vs. 13, respectively, P less than .05). Mean duration of follow-up for mexiletine (27 +/- 14 mo) and quinidine (21 +/- 14 mo) did not differ. Long-term success was more frequent with mexiletine administration than quinidine administration (33/47 vs. 10/30 patients, respectively, P less than .01). The incidence of sudden death during follow-up with the two drugs did not differ overall, but more patients with ejection fraction greater than or equal to 40% died suddenly while taking quinidine than while receiving mexiletine (4/17 vs. 0/24, P less than .02). Mexiletine is as effective as quinidine for treating VC and VT and appears to be less proarrhythmic. It should be considered as an initial choice in the management of VC and VT.

Comparative hemodynamics of antiarrhythmic drugs

It is important to consider the hemodynamic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs, because the majority of patients who require these drugs already have compromised cardiac function. The presently available antiarrhythmic agents vary in their potential for producing negative inotropic effects on the myocardium; they vary, as well, as to the mechanisms by which these effects are produced. The drugs in each of the Vaughan-Williams' classes are discussed in terms of the extent to which they affect cardiac output and the mechanisms by which they may depress cardiac function. Practically all antiarrhythmic agents can decrease cardiac output when administered intravenously. However, when given orally to patients with congestive heart failure, amongst Class I agents, encainide and mexilitine appear to have a reasonably good safety record with respect to the worsening of congestive heart failure. Class III antiarrhythmics also appear to be well tolerated in patients with severe LV dysfunction.

Effect of oral combination therapy with mexiletine and quinidine on left and right ventricular function

Combination therapy with mexiletine (MEX) and quinidine (Q) may be more efficacious than monotherapy with either drug in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias, but its effects on ventricular performance are not known. Thus, right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and wall motion score (WMS) were assessed in 14 patients with ventricular tachycardia before antiarrhythmic therapy, during MEX and Q monotherapies, and during combination therapy. During monotherapy, the daily doses and serum drug levels were: MEX, 621 mg/day and 3.4 microM/L; Q, 1573 mg/day and 8.3 microM/L, respectively. With combination therapy, the daily doses and serum drug levels were: MEX, 636 mg/day and 3.3 microM/L; Q, 1643 mg/day and 9.5 microM/L, respectively. Drug therapy did not affect group LVEF (drug free = 36 +/- 19%, MEX = 34 +/- 18%, Q = 36 +/- 19%, and combination MEX-Q = 35 +/- 19%), RVEF (drug free = 34 +/- 11%, MEX = 35 +/- 11%, Q = 36 +/- 13%, and combination MEX-Q = 36 +/- 12%), or WMS. Ventricular function reserve was assessed in five patients. Drug therapy did not affect group exercise LVEF (drug free = 44 +/- 14%, MEX = 42 +/- 12%, Q = 43 +/- 13%, and MEX-Q = 45 +/- 12%), RVEF (drug free = 38 +/- 10%, MEX = 40 +/- 11%, Q = 39 +/- 12%, and MEX-Q = 40 +/- 12%), WMS, or exercise duration. Combination MEX-Q therapy did not have a significant effect on exercise performance or ventricular function in seven additional patients in whom no exercise studies were done during monotherapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

New antiarrhythmic drugs: tocainide, mexiletine, flecainide, encainide, and amiodarone

Tocainide, mexiletine, flecainide, encainide, and amiodarone are antiarrhythmic agents that have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for general use in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. All five agents are effective in the treatment of patients with ventricular arrhythmias, whereas encainide, flecainide, and amiodarone are also useful in patients with supraventricular arrhythmias and the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (although not yet approved for these indications). Tocainide and mexiletine are similar to lidocaine and are as effective as quinidine in patients with ventricular arrhythmias. Encainide and flecainide are superior to quinidine for the control of ventricular ectopic beats and as effective as quinidine for patients with ventricular tachycardia. Amiodarone is the most effective agent available for treating patients with ventricular tachycardia, but it is also the most toxic antiarrhythmic agent and should be used only when other antiarrhythmic drugs have not been effective or tolerated.

Mexiletine: an effective antiarrhythmic drug for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in congenital heart disease

The use of antiarrhythmic drugs to suppress ventricular arrhythmias in pediatric patients with a structurally or hemodynamically abnormal heart appears to improve long-term prognosis. The previously successful use of phenytoin to treat serious ventricular arrhythmias led to the investigation for an alternative antiarrhythmic agent, in the same antiarrhythmic drug class, for those patients who develop side effects or become intolerant to phenytoin's antiarrhythmic effect. Forty-two children and young adults (age range 5 months to 34 years, mean 15.5 years) were treated with mexiletine. Arrhythmias treated were ventricular tachycardia (25), ventricular couplets (8), multiform ventricular premature beats (4) and frequent uniform ventricular premature beats (5). Anatomic diagnoses included congenital heart disease (postoperative in 26, unoperated in 2), cardiomyopathy (7), no heart disease (4) and other (3). Thirty-three patients had been previously treated with 1 to 5 (mean 1.6) antiarrhythmic drugs. In the short term, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively suppressed in 30 (71%) of all 42 patients treated. During follow-up (ranging to 42 months, median 10.6), 18 (60%) of the 30 acute responders continued to have excellent control. Early suppression of ventricular arrhythmias was more effective in patients with congenital heart disease (89%) than in those with cardiomyopathy (29%) or no heart disease (43%) (p less than 0.01). Initial complexity of ventricular ectopic activity had no effect on treatment results. Of 25 patients previously treated with phenytoin, in whom alternative antiarrhythmic therapy was required, 40% had long-term arrhythmia control when treated with mexiletine. Mexiletine therapy was terminated for side effects in only five patients (12%). Mexiletine is recommended for young patients with congenital heart disease and serious ventricular arrhythmias.

Pharmacology and clinical use of mexiletine

Mexiletine is an antiarrhythmic agent with structural and electrophysiologic properties similar to those of lidocaine. Mexiletine decreases ventricular automaticity while shortening both action potential duration and effective refractory period. The drug may be administered orally or intravenously. Hepatic metabolism is the major route of elimination. The elimination half-life is approximately 10 hours, but longer in patients with acute myocardial infarction, chronic congestive heart failure or hepatic insufficiency. Mexiletine suppresses ventricular ectopy in the acute phase of myocardial infarction. The drug is effective for some patients in whom lidocaine has failed. It suppresses chronic ventricular ectopy and is well tolerated in approximately two-thirds of stable outpatients treated with this agent. In that population, mexiletine is comparable in efficacy to quinidine, procainamide and disopyramide. It is effective in 30-50% of patients with ventricular arrhythmias refractory to other antiarrhythmic drugs. In patients with refractory arrhythmias, the efficacy of mexiletine may be enhanced by combination with propranolol, quinidine or amiodarone. Adverse reactions limit use of mexiletine in approximately 20% of patients. Gastrointestinal and central nervous system side effects are the most common. Mexiletine does not depress myocardial function. Aggravation of arrhythmias is uncommonly observed. The usual intravenous dose of mexiletine is 150-250 mg over at least 10 minutes. Long-term oral dosages are usually 200-300 mg 3 or 4 times daily.