Intolerance and ineffectiveness of mexiletine in patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias

Effectiveness and safety of mexiletine in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias: a systematic review

While mexiletine has been used for over 40 years for prevention of (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and for myotonia, patient access has recently been critically endangered. Here we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of patients with (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias, emphasizing the absolute necessity of its accessibility. Studies were included in this systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42020213434) if the efficacy or safety of mexiletine in any dose was evaluated in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias with or without comparison with alternative treatments (e.g. placebo). A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and in the clinical trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Risk of bias were assessed and tailored to the different study designs. Large heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures prompted a narrative synthesis approach. In total, 221 studies were included reporting on 8970 patients treated with mexiletine. Age ranged from 0 to 88 years. A decrease in ventricular arrhythmias of >50% was observed in 72% of the studies for pre-mature ventricular complexes, 64% for ventricular tachycardia, and 33% for ventricular fibrillation. Electrocardiographic effects of mexiletine were small; only in a subset of patients with primary arrhythmia syndromes, a relative (desired) QTc decrease was reproducibly observed. As for adverse events, gastrointestinal complaints were most frequently observed (33% of the patients). In this systematic review, we present all the currently available knowledge of mexiletine in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and show that mexiletine is both effective and safe.

Mexiletine for recurrent ventricular tachycardia in adult patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator: an EHRA systematic review

The aim of the study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness and safety of oral mexiletine administered in monotherapy or in combination with other antiarrhythmic drugs for recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, VT/VF) in adult patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 27 August 2021 for prospective and retrospective studies investigating mexiletine in the target population. The main outcome was the reduction of ICD therapy. The main safety outcome was the presence of any serious adverse events (SAEs) leading to mexiletine discontinuation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Four studies comprising 86 mexiletine recipients were included in the review. We also obtained individual data of 50 patients from two studies. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was present in 86% of patients. The quality of included studies was moderate/low. A narrative review was undertaken as studies varied widely in terms of study population and treatment. Across studies, mexiletine treatment (with or without amiodarone) seemed to consistently reduce the number of ICD therapies especially in a population where catheter ablation (CA) was unsuccessful or contraindicated. In ICM patients deemed eligible for CA, mexiletine seemed to be inferior to CA. Mexiletine was discontinued in 14% of cases, mainly for gastrointestinal or neurological SAE. Mexiletine seems to be an option for the long-term treatment of recurrent VT/VF in adult patients with SHD, especially ICM, and ICD in whom CA was unsuccessful or not suitable.

Antiarrhythmic agents: drug interactions of clinical significance

The management of cardiac arrhythmias has grown more complex in recent years. Despite the recent focus on nonpharmacological therapy, most clinical arrhythmias are treated with existing antiarrhythmics. Because of the narrow therapeutic index of antiarrhythmic agents, potential drug interactions with other medications are of major clinical importance. As most antiarrhythmics are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 enzyme system, pharmacokinetic interactions constitute the majority of clinically significant interactions seen with these agents. Antiarrhythmics may be substrates, inducers or inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, and many of these metabolic interactions have been characterised. However, many potential interactions have not, and knowledge of how antiarrhythmic agents are metabolised by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system may allow clinicians to predict potential interactions. Drug interactions with Vaughn-Williams Class II (beta-blockers) and Class IV (calcium antagonists) agents have previously been reviewed and are not discussed here. Class I agents, which primarily block fast sodium channels and slow conduction velocity, include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, lidocaine (lignocaine), mexiletine, flecainide and propafenone. All of these agents except procainamide are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 system and are involved in a number of drug-drug interactions, including over 20 different interactions with quinidine. Quinidine has been observed to inhibit the metabolism of digoxin, tricyclic antidepressants and codeine. Furthermore, cimetidine, azole antifungals and calcium antagonists can significantly inhibit the metabolism of quinidine. Procainamide is excreted via active tubular secretion, which may be inhibited by cimetidine and trimethoprim. Other Class I agents may affect the disposition of warfarin, theophylline and tricyclic antidepressants. Many of these interactions can significantly affect efficacy and/or toxicity. Of the Class III antiarrhythmics, amiodarone is involved in a significant number of interactions since it is a potent inhibitor of several cytochrome P450 enzymes. It can significantly impair the metabolism of digoxin, theophylline and warfarin. Dosages of digoxin and warfarin should empirically be decreased by one-half when amiodarone therapy is added. In addition to pharmacokinetic interactions, many reports describe the use of antiarrhythmic drug combinations for the treatment of arrhythmias. By combining antiarrhythmic drugs and utilising additive electrophysiological/pharmacodynamic effects, antiarrhythmic efficacy may be improved and toxicity reduced. As medication regimens grow more complex with the aging population, knowledge of existing and potential drug-drug interactions becomes vital for clinicians to optimise drug therapy for every patient.

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.

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.

Mexiletine: pharmacology and therapeutic use

Mexiletine is a Class IB antiarrhythmic which has basic and clinical electrophysiologic properties similar to lidocaine. Like other Class I antiarrhythmic agents, mexiletine blocks the rapid inward sodium current responsible for phase 0 of the action potential. It has been noted in the clinical electrophysiology laboratory to have minimal effect on sinus node function and AV nodal and His-Purkinje system conduction. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that oral absorption is rapid with bioavailability of 80-90%. Mexiletine is predominantly metabolized by the liver with elimination half-life of 9 to 12 hours. The antiarrhythmic effects of the primary drug's metabolites remain to be defined. Hemodynamic studies have shown mexiletine to have a lesser negative inotropic effect than procainamide or disopyramide. Although mexiletine as a single agent successfully suppresses 60 to 80% of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias, it has lower efficacy in suppression of induced ventricular arrhythmias. Multiple studies have shown that as monotherapy mexiletine is effective in preventing the induction of ventricular tachycardia in approximately 20% of patients. When used in combination with a Class IA antiarrhythmic drug for suppression of induced ventricular arrhythmias, multiple investigators have reported greater efficacy. Neurological side effects (tremor, dizziness, memory loss) occur in approximately 10% of patients while gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, anorexia, gastric irritation) occur in up to 40% of patients. Proarrhythmia or other serious toxicity from the drug is uncommon.

Newer antiarrhythmic drugs

The effective management of cardiac arrhythmias remains a major challenge in cardiovascular therapeutics. The management of arrhythmias encompasses a wide spectrum of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurring in patients with various cardiac diagnoses and different degrees of myocardial dysfunction. A number of the newer antiarrhythmic drugs that have either recently been released or appear promising are reviewed in this article. Drugs are described with respect to their basic pharmacology, electrophysiologic actions, pharmacokinetics and metabolism, hemodynamics, antiarrhythmic effects, side effects, interactions, indications, and dosage.

Long-term efficacy of mexiletine alone and in combination with class Ia antiarrhythmic drugs for refractory ventricular arrhythmias

The efficacy of mexiletine used alone, and in combination with a class Ia antiarrhythmic drug, was assessed in 159 previously drug-refractory patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) during serial electrophysiologic studies and during long-term (5-year) clinical follow-up. Electrically-inducible ventricular tachycardia was suppressed by mexiletine alone in 23% of patients tested, and a combined antiarrhythmic drug regimen was effective in 29% of the trials performed. Mexiletine was much more likely to be effective in patients presenting with nonsustained VT or ventricular fibrillation than in patients with sustained VT (p less than 0.005). After 1 and 4 years of treatment, 18% and 42% of the patients treated with mexiletine alone had died suddenly or suffered recurrent symptomatic VT, compared to 11% and 25% of patients treated with the combined antiarrhythmic drug regimens (p = NS). Mexiletine therapy was associated with frequent, though readily reversible, adverse reactions. However, mexiletine treatment had to be discontinued permanently in 8 of 92 patients (9%) because of intolerable side effects. We conclude that the added efficacy and possible improved arrhythmia-free survival associated with combining mexiletine with a class Ia agent should be further investigated.

Tocainide for drug-resistant sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Eighty-two patients with drug-resistant ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation were treated with oral tocainide. Treatment in 54 patients, all with inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation at baseline electrophysiologic testing, was based on the results of invasive electrophysiologic testing. Twenty-eight additional patients with frequent spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or no inducible arrhythmia during electrophysiologic testing were treated on the basis of the findings of electrocardiographic (ECG) Holter monitoring. Tocainide was effective in 7 (13%) and partially effective in 5 (8%) of the 54 patients in the electrophysiologic study group and was effective in 17 (61%) of the 28 patients in the ECG monitoring group. History of previous myocardial infarction and failure of response to lidocaine correlated with failure to respond to tocainide. Side effects were common both during initial therapy and during long-term treatment and necessitated discontinuation of tocainide therapy in 17% of the patients. At a mean follow-up period of 14 months, 13 patients are still receiving tocainide and are arrhythmia-free. In conclusion, the usefulness of oral tocainide in the management of drug-refractory sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation is limited because of its low effectiveness and frequent side effects.

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.