Oral mexiletine-theophylline interaction

Evaluation of mexiletine clearance in a Japanese population

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mexiletine clearance in a Japanese population and to clarify the roles of CYP2D6 and CYP1A2 in mexiletine disposition.

METHODS

Concentrations of serum and urinary mexiletine and its metabolites were determined and mexiletine clearances were estimated in 334 inpatients receiving mexiletine therapy. Concentrations of mexiletine and its metabolites in serum and urine samples were determined by HPLC.

RESULTS

Although interindividual variation of mexiletine clearance was small, the effect of age on mexiletine clearance was comparatively large. Mexiletine clearance in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) was decreased when compared with other diagnoses (Non-DCM). The fractional contents of p-hydroxymexiletine (POH) and 2-hydroxymexiletine (OHMEX) in urine amounted to approximately 50%. Almost all of the POH was conjugated, whereas less than one-third of the OHMEX was conjugated. Although no significant differences in POH and OHMEX were observed between patients with DCM and those without, a trend toward an increase in conjugation pathway of DCM patients was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The interindividual variation of mexiletine clearance was small, while the effect of age on the mexiletine clearance in Non-DCM was comparatively large. A significant difference in mexiletine clearance between patients with DCM and those with Non-DCM was observed. Therefore, when mexiletine is administered to patients with DCM, careful monitoring is needed.

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.

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.

Inhibitory effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on phenacetin O-deethylation catalysed by human CYP1A2

AIMS

The aim of the study was to clarify whether the pharmacokinetic interaction between theophylline and mexiletine is mediated by inhibition of CYP1A2 and to assess the possible interaction potential of other antiarrhythmic drugs with drugs metabolized by CYP1A2.

METHODS

The inhibitory effects of mexiletine and 10 antiarrhythmic drugs on phenacetin O-deethylation, a marker reaction of CYP1A2, were studied using human liver microsomes and cDNA-expressed CYP1A2.

RESULTS

Propafenone and mexiletine inhibited phenacetin O-deethylation with IC50 values of 29 and 37 microM, respectively. Disopyramide, procainamide and pilsicainide produced negligible inhibition of phenacetin O-deethylation (IC50 >1 mM). Amiodarone, bepridil, aprindine, lignocaine, flecainide and quinidine inhibited phenacetin O-deethylation in a concentration-dependent manner, although the inhibitory effects were relatively weak with IC50 values ranging from 86 to 704 microM. Propafenone and mexiletine selectively abolished the high-affinity component of phenacetin O-deethylation in human liver microsomes. In addition, propafenone and mexiletine inhibited phenacetin O-deethylation catalysed by cDNA-expressed CYP1A2.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that, among the antiarrhythmic drugs studied, propafenone and mexiletine are relatively potent inhibitors of CYP1A2, which may cause a drug-drug interaction with drugs metabolized by CYP1A2.

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between mexiletine and omeprazole

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of mexiletine.

METHODS

Nine healthy male Japanese volunteers participated in a crossover study. On day 1, the subjects received mexiletine 200 mg. On days 2-7, they received omeprazole 40 mg, and on day 8 they received mexiletine 200 mg and omeprazole 40 mg concomitantly. Serum concentrations of mexiletine were determined just before drug administration and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours on day 1 and day 8.

RESULTS

No differences in mexiletine concentrations were observed between the two phases of the study. The mean AUCs after administration of mexiletine alone and in combination with omeprazole 40 mg/d were 6.26 and 6.20 ng.h/L, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that omeprazole does not affect mexiletine metabolism.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between theophylline and other medication (Part II)

Part I of this article, which appeared in the previous issue of the Journal, covered the effects or lack of effects on theophylline clearance of sympathomimetics, corticosteroids, antihistamines and other antiallergy drugs, antimicrobial agents, phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, antacids and activated charcoal. In Part II, this discussion is extended to the effects of other agents. Overall summaries, both textual and tabular, appear in Part I.

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.

Interaction between theophylline and mexiletine

Drugs influencing hepatic microsomal enzyme systems, such as mexiletine, may affect the elimination pattern of theophylline. The three patients reported here had a history of asthma and premature ventricular contractions, and were receiving theophylline therapy. A few days after starting the coadministration of mexiletine and theophylline, theophylline serum concentrations increased about twofold over concentrations during theophylline therapy. In one case, theophylline serum concentrations increased by 2.6 fold, and the patient developed nausea and anorexia. Mexiletine serum concentrations did not change. It seems that with mexiletine therapy, lower doses of theophylline may be required and careful monitoring of serum concentrations is necessary.

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.