A comparative study of disopyramide and procainamide in the treatment of myotonia in myotonic dystrophy

Mexiletine versus lamotrigine in non-dystrophic myotonias: a randomised, double-blind, head-to-head, crossover, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Non-dystrophic myotonias are skeletal muscle channelopathies caused by ion channel dysfunction. Symptom onset is frequently in the first decade of life, causing disability in a young cohort. Although there is no cure, symptomatic treatments exist. Previous trials provide evidence of the efficacy of mexiletine. More recently, lamotrigine has been shown to be effective. Both treatments have different profiles, including pharmacokinetics and adverse events. This trial aimed to investigate whether lamotrigine is non-inferior to mexiletine to directly inform clinical practice.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, crossover, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (London, UK). Participants (aged ≥18 years) who had genetically confirmed symptomatic non-dystrophic myotonia were randomly assigned (1:1), by means of a block randomisation schedule created by a computer program, to receive either mexiletine for 8 weeks followed by lamotrigine for 8 weeks, or lamotrigine followed by mexiletine, with a 7-day washout period in between. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the mean interactive voice response (IVR) diary stiffness score (0-9 scale) over the participant's final 2 weeks of diary reporting in each treatment period. Non-inferiority was assessed using a mixed-effects model with a predefined margin of 0·5 and included all randomly assigned participants who contributed at least 7 days of IVR-diary data in either treatment period. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05017155, and EudraCT, 2020-003375-17.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 1, 2021, and Dec 12, 2022, of 60 participants were screened (24 females and 36 males) and randomly assigned between Aug 1, 2021 and Dec 12, 2022, to either the mexiletine-lamotrigine sequence (n=30) or the lamotrigine-mexiletine sequence (n=30). 53 participants contributed data to the primary analysis. The mean IVR stiffness score after treatment with mexiletine was 2·54 (95% CI 1·98 to 3·10) versus 2·77 (2·21 to 3·32) with lamotrigine (mean mexiletine-lamotrigine difference -0·23 [95% CI -0·63 to 0·17]). The most common adverse event with both treatments was indigestion-reflux (eight participants, 208 participant-days receiving mexiletine; seven participants, 130 participant-days receiving lamotrigine). No serious adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

We were unable to conclude that lamotrigine is non-inferior to mexiletine; however, improvements in all outcome measures from baseline were similar between lamotrigine and mexiletine. Lamotrigine is an important treatment consideration in non-dystrophic myotonias alongside mexiletine; we propose a treatment algorithm to guide clinical practice.

FUNDING

Neuromuscular Study Group, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, UCLH BRC Fast Track Grant.

Effectiveness and safety of mexiletine versus placebo in patients with myotonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rare nature of dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonia has limited the available evidence on the efficacy of mexiletine as a potential treatment. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine for both dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonic patients.

METHODS

The search was conducted on various electronic databases up to March 2023, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing mexiletine versus placebo in myotonic patients. A risk of bias assessment was carried out, and relevant data was extracted manually into an online sheet. RevMan software (version 5.4) was employed for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of five studies, comprising 186 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that mexiletine was significantly more effective than placebo in improving stiffness score (SMD =  - 1.19, 95% CI [- 1.53, - 0.85]), as well as in reducing hand grip myotonia (MD =  - 1.36 s, 95% CI [- 1.83, - 0.89]). Mexiletine also significantly improved SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Score in patients with non-dystrophic myotonia only. Regarding safety, mexiletine did not significantly alter ECG parameters but was associated with greater gastrointestinal symptoms (GIT) compared to placebo (RR 3.7, 95% CI [1.79, 7.64]). Other adverse events showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

The results support that mexiletine is effective and safe in myotonic patients; however, it is associated with a higher risk of GIT symptoms. Due to the scarcity of published RCTs and the prevalence of GIT symptoms, we recommend further well-designed RCTs testing various drug combinations to reduce GIT symptoms.

Electrophysiologic and cardiovascular manifestations of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies

There have been significant advances in the diagnosis and management of the hereditary muscular disorders Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DMD and BMD). Cardiac electrophysiologic and cardiovascular involvement has long been important in the surveillance, care, and prognosis of patients with both BMD and DMD and is the leading cause of mortality in patients with DMD. With improved long-term prognosis, rhythm disorders and progressive cardiomyopathy with resultant heart failure are increasingly common. This review aimed to provide an overview to electrophysiologists and cardiologists of the cardiac electrophysiologic phenotypes and genetics of BMD and DMD and to highlight the recent discoveries that have advanced clinical course and management. A systematic review was performed of the diagnosis and management of DMD and BMD. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, Europe PubMed Central, AMED, and Embase databases were accessed for available evidence. The research reported in this paper adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Evidence from randomized controlled trials and studies cited in expert consensus and practice guidelines are examined. Advanced imaging techniques and a spectrum of rhythm disorders associated with the progressive cardiomyopathy are presented. Early initiation of heart failure therapies, the role of cardiac implantable devices, and novel gene therapies approved for use with the potential to alter the disease course are discussed. When profound cardiac and cardiac electrophysiologic involvement is diagnosed and treated earlier, outcomes for DMD and BMD patients may be improved.

Proarrhythmic Manifestations of Neuromuscular Dystrophinopathies

Muscular dystrophy has been an elusive term ever since it was first described in the 19th century. Introduced in 1891 by Wilhelm Heinrich Erb, muscular dystrophy has been classified as part of a larger group of genetically determined, progressive degenerative neuromuscular disorders termed "dystrophinopathies." Cardiac arrhythmias may occur during the neurologic course of the disease. Although descriptions of the dystrophinopathies have been reported in the literature, few articles address the use of antiarrhythmic pharmacotherapy in patients with muscular dystrophy. We discuss the pathophysiology of the most common dystrophinopathies, their proarrhythmic sequelae, and the therapeutic use of antiarrhythmic agents in the clinical setting.

Repurposing of sodium channel antagonists as potential new anti-myotonic drugs

Myotonia is often a painful and disabling symptom which can interfere with daily motor function resulting in significant morbidity. Since myotonic disorders are rare it has generally proved difficult to obtain class I level evidence for anti-myotonic drug efficacy by performing randomized placebo controlled trials. Current treatment guidance is therefore largely based on anecdotal reports and physician experience. Despite the genetic channel heterogeneity of the myotonic disorders the sodium channel antagonists have become the main focus of pharmacological interest. Mexiletine is currently regarded as the first choice sodium channel blocker based on a recent placebo controlled randomized trial. However, some patients do not respond to mexiletine or have significant side effects limiting its use. There is a clinical need to develop additional antimyotonic agents. The study of Desaphy et al. is therefore important and provides in vitro evidence that a number of existing drugs with sodium channel blocking capability could potentially be repurposed as anti-myotonic drugs. Translation of these potentially important in vitro findings into clinical practice requires carefully designed randomized controlled trials. Here we discuss Desaphy's findings in the wider context of attempts to develop additional therapies for patients with clinically significant myotonia.

The diagnosis and treatment of myotonic disorders

Myotonia is a defining clinical symptom and sign common to a relatively small group of muscle diseases, including the myotonic dystrophies and the nondystrophic myotonic disorders. Myotonia can be observed on clinical examination, as can its electrical correlate, myotonic discharges, on electrodiagnostic testing. Research interest in the myotonic disorders continues to expand rapidly, which justifies a review of the scientific bases, clinical manifestations, and numerous therapeutic approaches associated with these disorders. We review the pathomechanisms of myotonia, the clinical features of the dystrophic and nondystrophic myotonic disorders, and the diagnostic approach and treatment options for patients with symptomatic myotonia.

Drug treatment for myotonia

BACKGROUND

Abnormal delayed relaxation of skeletal muscles, known as myotonia, can cause disability in myotonic disorders. Sodium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressive drugs, benzodiazepines, calcium-antagonists, taurine and prednisone may be of use in reducing myotonia.

OBJECTIVES

To consider the evidence from randomised controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of drug treatment in patients with clinical myotonia due to a myotonic disorder.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group trials register (April 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2003) and EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2003). Grey literature was handsearched and reference lists of identified studies and reviews were examined. Authors, disease experts and manufacturers of anti-myotonic drugs were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all (quasi) randomised trials of participants with myotonia treated with any drug treatment versus no therapy, placebo or any other active drug treatment. The primary outcome measure was:reduced clinical myotonia using two categories: (1) no residual myotonia or improvement of myotonia or (2) No change or worsening of myotonia. Secondary outcome measures were:(1) clinical relaxation time; (2) electromyographic relaxation time; (3) stair test; (4) presence of percussion myotonia; and (5) proportion of adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted the data independently onto standardised extraction forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine randomised controlled trials were found comparing active drug treatment versus placebo or another active drug treatment in patients with myotonia due to a myotonic disorder. Included trials were double-blind or single-blind crossover studies involving a total of 137 patients of which 109 had myotonic dystrophy type 1 and 28 had myotonia congenita. The studies were of poor quality. Therefore, we were not able to analyse the results of all identified studies. Two small crossover studies without a washout period demonstrated a significant effect of imipramine and taurine in myotonic dystrophy. One small crossover study with a washout period demonstrated a significant effect of clomipramine in myotonic dystrophy. Meta-analysis was not possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to insufficient good quality data and lack of randomised studies, it is impossible to determine whether drug treatment is safe and effective in the treatment of myotonia. Small single studies give an indication that clomipramine and imipramine have a short-term beneficial effect and that taurine has a long-term beneficial effect on myotonia. Larger, well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of drug treatment for myotonia.

Treatment in myotonia and periodic paralysis

The myotonic disorders, including the myotonic dystrophies (myotonic dystrophy type 1, DM1; myotonic dystrophy type 2, DM2/PROMM/PDM), the muscle channelopathies or non-dystrophic myotonias (chloride, sodium, calcium and potassium channelopathies) are all characterized by myotonia and muscle weakness despite different pathophysiology involved in these disorders. Myotonia may affect the eye, facial and jaw muscles as well as the hands and legs. It may be painful and disabling. Muscle weakness may be episodical as in the paralytic attacks of the sodium and calcium channelopathies or culminate in permanent muscle weakness as in the calcium channelopathies and some sodium channelopathies associated to specific point mutations. The severity of myotonia may fluctuate in the myotonic dystrophies, but weakness is usually fixed, affecting neck flexors, facial and jaw muscles as well as proximal and distal muscles of the limbs. Despite the recent progress in molecular genetics the precise mechanisms responsible for myotonia and weakness are not fully understood and there is no standardized treatment strategy. We present a review of selected treatment trials in the myotonic disorders and the muscle channelopathies, and discuss our experience in the treatment of myotonia and muscle weakness, with reference to the limits and advantages of treatment trials in this field.

Treatment of myotonia with antiarrhythmic drugs

The effects of disopyramide, phenytoin, mexiletine, and tocainide were compared in 30 patients with myotonic disorders. The severity of myotonia was assessed by clinical and electromyographic criteria at the end of each treatment phase lasting four weeks. Mexiletine (MXT) and tocainide (TCD) were found to be the most potent antimyotonic agents. The antimyotonic efficacy of MXT and TCD is explained by their fast-blocking effect on voltage-dependent sodium channels in the muscle membrane. The benefits of myotonia control with pharmacological agents must be weight against the risk of therapy in the individual patient. Because of the risks of hematologic problems, TCD is not recommended by us for the treatment of myotonia.

Disopyramide. A reappraisal of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in cardiac arrhythmias

Disopyramide is a widely used class IA antiarrhythmic drug with a pharmacological profile of action similar to that of quinidine and procainamide. Over the past 10 years disopyramide has demonstrated its efficacy in ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. In therapeutic trials, usually involving small numbers of patients, the efficacy of disopyramide was comparable with that of mexiletine, perhexiline, tocainide, propafenone or prajmalium. Recent comparisons with quinidine have confirmed the similar efficacy and better tolerability of disopyramide. The suggestion from initial studies that disopyramide may be less effective than amiodarone or flecainide requires further investigation. In addition, studies have failed to demonstrate that the early administration of disopyramide after acute myocardial infarction decreases important arrhythmias or early mortality. Thus, disopyramide is now well established as an effective antiarrhythmic drug in ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias although its role in therapy relative to that of recently introduced antiarrhythmic agents is not clear.