Dyskinesia due to mexiletine overdose: a rare presentation

BACKGROUND

Mexiletine, a class IB antiarrhythmic, is a structural analog of lidocaine. Our knowledge of mexiletine overdose is based on lidocaine overdose reports. Only a few cases of mexiletine overdose have been reported, including fatal overdoses. Mexiletine toxicity primarily affects the central nervous, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.

CASE

A 16-year-old female was brought to our hospital by ambulance after taking an unknown dose of mexiletine in a suicide attempt. Ventricular fibrillation developed while in the ambulance; cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started and spontaneous circulation returned within 1 min. The patient had been taking oral mexiletine for 1 month to treat primary erythromelalgia. Her vital signs were normal, but she was unconscious. Following gastric lavage she was transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit. Midazolam and levetiracetam were required due to uncontrolled seizures. During the first hour of hospitalization, severe dyskinesia characterized by abnormal involuntary large hyperkinetic movements in all 4 extremities was observed and successfully treated with 2 doses of intravenous biperiden. The patient was discharged on day 6 of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Mexiletine overdose can be life-threatening. In addition to rapid and effective resuscitation, rapid identification and management of cardiovascular and central nervous system manifestations are key to preventing morbidity and mortality. The presented case had severe dyskinesia that was successfully treated with repeated doses of biperiden. Biperiden did not cause arrhythmia. Based on the presented case, we think biperiden should be considered for the treatment of movement disorders in cases of mexiletine overdose.

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.

Human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes: Cardiovascular properties and metabolism and pharmacokinetics of deuterated mexiletine analogs

Prolongation of the cardiac action potential (AP) and early after depolarizations (EADs) are electrical anomalies of cardiomyocytes that can lead to lethal arrhythmias and are potential liabilities for existing drugs and drug candidates in development. For example, long QT syndrome-3 (LQTS3) is caused by mutations in the Nav 1.5 sodium channel that debilitate channel inactivation and cause arrhythmias. We tested the hypothesis that a useful drug (i.e., mexiletine) with potential liabilities (i.e., potassium channel inhibition and adverse reactions) could be re-engineered by dynamic medicinal chemistry to afford a new drug candidate with greater efficacy and less toxicity. Human cardiomyocytes were generated from LQTS3 patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (hIPSCs) and normal hIPSCs to determine beneficial (on-target) and detrimental effects (off-target) of mexiletine and synthetic analogs, respectively. The approach combined "drug discovery" and "hit to lead" refinement and showed that iterations of medicinal chemistry and physiological testing afforded optimized compound 22. Compared to mexiletine, compound 22 showed a 1.85-fold greater AUC and no detectable CNS toxicity at 100 mg/kg. In vitro hepatic metabolism studies showed that 22 was metabolized via cytochrome P-450, as previously shown, and by the flavin-containing monooxygenase (FMO). Deuterated-22 showed decreased metabolism and showed acceptable cardiovascular and physicochemical properties.

Effect of Mexiletine on Muscle Stiffness in Patients With Nondystrophic Myotonia Evaluated Using Aggregated N-of-1 Trials

IMPORTANCE

In rare diseases it is difficult to achieve high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy because of small cohorts and clinical heterogeneity. With emerging treatments for rare diseases, innovative trial designs are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of mexiletine in nondystrophic myotonia using an aggregated N-of-1 trials design and compare results between this innovative design and a previously conducted RCT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A series of aggregated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1-trials, performed in a single academic referral center. Thirty Dutch adult patients with genetically confirmed nondystrophic myotonia (38 patients screened) were enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015. Follow-up was completed in September 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs placebo during multiple treatment periods of 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness on a scale of 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating more impairment. A Bayesian hierarchical model aggregated individual N-of-1 trial data to determine the posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful effect of a greater than 0.75-point difference.

RESULTS

Among 30 enrolled patients (mean age, 43.4 [SD, 15.24] years; 22% men; 19 CLCN1 and 11 SCN4A genotype), 27 completed the study and 3 dropped out (1 because of a serious adverse event). In 24 of the 27 completers, a clinically meaningful treatment effect was found. In the Bayesian hierarchical model, mexiletine resulted in a 100% posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful reduction in self-reported muscle stiffness for the nondystrophic myotonia group overall and the CLCN1 genotype subgroup and 93% posterior probability for the SCN4A genotype subgroup. In the total nondystrophic myotonia group, the median muscle stiffness score was 6.08 (interquartile range, 4.71-6.80) at baseline and was 2.50 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.77-3.24) during the mexiletine period and 5.56 (95% CrI, 4.73-6.39) during the placebo period; difference in symptom score reduction, 3.06 (95% CrI, 1.96-4.15; n = 27) favoring mexiletine. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal discomfort (21 mexiletine [70%], 1 placebo [3%]). One serious adverse event occurred (1 mexiletine [3%]; allergic skin reaction). Using frequentist reanalysis, mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in a mean reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.46-3.78), consistent with the previous RCT treatment effect of 2.69 (95% CI, 2.12-3.26).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a series of N-of-1 trials of mexiletine vs placebo in patients with nondystrophic myotonia, there was a reduction in mean daily-reported muscle stiffness that was consistent with the treatment effect in a previous randomized clinical trial. These findings support the efficacy of mexiletine for treatment of nondystrophic myotonia as well as the feasibility of N-of-1 trials for assessing interventions in some chronic rare diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02045667.

Study protocol for the MEXiletine hydrochloride administration trial: a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, crossover study of its efficacy and safety in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (MEXPRESS)

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) is a slowly progressive neuromuscular disease. Cold exposure often leads to worsening of motor symptoms including paresis. Although mexiletine hydrochloride administration has been shown to be effective for the treatment of several muscular diseases, its effectiveness in SBMA has not been validated to date. The trial will test it as a symptomatic drug for cold paresis. This study is the first trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine hydrochloride administration in patients with SBMA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, crossover clinical trial will be conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of mexiletine hydrochloride in patients with SBMA. The eligible patients will be assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to two groups in a double-blind manner. Participants will take mexiletine hydrochloride (300 mg/day) or a placebo orally three times a day for 4 weeks (period 1). After a 1-week washout period, participants will take the other drug for 4 weeks (period 2). The primary endpoint is the difference in distal latencies between room temperature and cold exposure conditions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects by the Japanese government and has been approved by the ethics committee of Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, as a central institutional review board, and by each facility. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000026150; Pre-results.

Mexiletine Usage in a Chronic Pain Clinic: Indications, Tolerability, and Side Effects

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine has multiple applications in the management of acute and chronic pain. Mexiletine, an oral lidocaine analogue, has been used in a number of chronic pain conditions although its use is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVES

To report our experience using mexiletine in a chronic pain population, specifically looking at tolerability, side effects, and EKG changes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Three chronic pain clinics within a hospital system in Detroit, MI.

METHODS

All patients who had a mexiletine prescription between August 2015 and August 2016 were queried via the electronic medical record. Each chart was examined for demographics, QTc changes on EKG, length of use, and reasons for stoppage.

RESULTS

There were 74 total patients identified in the chronic pain management clinics as receiving at least 1 mexiletine prescription over the 1-year time period. Twice as many women as men received mexiletine prescriptions. Neuropathic pain was the most common primary diagnosis (64%) which included diabetic neuropathy, radiculopathy, and others. Fibromyalgia was the next most common primary diagnosis (28%). A QTc change on the EKG showed a mean decrease of 0.1 ms and median increase of 1.5 ms. At 6 months (180 days), approximately 30% of the patients remained on mexiletine therapy, and 28% remained on the therapy at 1 year (360 days). Median duration of use was 60 days and the mean was 288 days. Neurologic and gastrointestinal side effects were the most commons reason for stoppage. All side effects were mild and resolved with stoppage. After side effects, lack of response, or loss of efficacy, were the next most common reasons for stoppage.

LIMITATIONS

Pain relief and outcomes were not specifically examined due to confounding factors including interventional treatments and multiple treatment modalities. This was a retrospective, cohort study limited to our specific clinic population with a relatively high loss to follow-up rate.

CONCLUSION

Mexiletine is rarely a first line option for chronic pain management and is often used when multiple other modalities have failed. By reporting our experience, we hope other clinicians may have more familiarity with the drug's use in a chronic pain practice. It appears reasonably tolerable, may not require frequent EKG monitoring, and can be an appropriate adjunct in the chronic pain population. More research is needed regarding efficacy and dose titration for mexiletine in chronic pain.

KEY WORDS

Chronic pain, mexiletine, IV lidocaine, pain, neuropathic pain, neuropathy, fibromyalgia, QTc, tolerability.

Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome due to Mexiletine Associated with Human Herpes Virus 6 and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation

A 66-year-old man developed a fever of 38 degrees C and generalized pruritic rash about one month after mexiletine hydrochloride administration for ventricular tachycardia. The rash appeared as edematous erythema and papules with purpura on the lower extremities. Liver dysfunction, leukocytosis, and atypical lymphocytes were also present. Elevated antibody titer against human herpes virus 6 (HHV-6) was detected during the course of the disease (1:20 -> 1:640). The patient was diagnosed as having drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) due to mexiletine. Discontinuation of the mexiletine administration and systemic corticosteroid treatment led to a temporary improvement, but tapering the corticosteroid dose twice led to recrudescence. Simultaneous with the recrudescence, elevated antibody titers against HHV-6 and cytomegalovirus were detected, as well as viral DNA in the blood, suggesting that these two viruses may have been involved in the recrudescence. The patient died of myocarditis, most likely related to cytomegalovirus. Our case indicates that, in addition to HHV-6, other herpes viruses such as cytomegalovirus can be reactivated in DIHS and may modify the clinical disease activity.

Mexiletine for symptoms and signs of myotonia in nondystrophic myotonia: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Nondystrophic myotonias (NDMs) are rare diseases caused by mutations in skeletal muscle ion channels. Patients experience delayed muscle relaxation causing functionally limiting stiffness and pain. Mexiletine-induced sodium channel blockade reduced myotonia in small studies; however, as is common in rare diseases, larger studies of safety and efficacy have not previously been considered feasible.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of mexiletine for symptoms and signs of myotonia in patients with NDMs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-period crossover study at 7 neuromuscular referral centers in 4 countries of 59 patients with NDMs conducted between December 23, 2008, and March 30, 2011, as part of the National Institutes of Health-funded Rare Disease Clinical Research Network.

INTERVENTION

Oral 200-mg mexiletine or placebo capsules 3 times daily for 4 weeks, followed by the opposite intervention for 4 weeks, with 1-week washout in between.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported severity score of stiffness recorded on an interactive voice response (IVR) diary (scale of 1 = minimal to 9 = worst ever experienced). Secondary end points included IVR-reported changes in pain, weakness, and tiredness; clinical myotonia assessment; quantitative measure of handgrip myotonia; and Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life summary quality of life score (INQOL-QOL, percentage of maximal detrimental impact).

RESULTS

Mexiletine significantly improved patient-reported severity score stiffness on the IVR diary. Because of a statistically significant interaction between treatment and period for this outcome, primary end point is presented by period (period 1 means were 2.53 for mexiletine and 4.21 for placebo; difference, -1.68; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.706; P < .001; period 2 means were 1.60 for mexiletine and 5.27 for placebo; difference, -3.68; 95% CI, -3.85 to -0.139; P = .04). Mexiletine improved the INQOL-QOL score (mexiletine, 14.0 vs placebo, 16.7; difference, -2.69; 95% CI, -4.07 to -1.30; P < .001) and decreased handgrip myotonia on clinical examination (mexiletine, 0.164 seconds vs placebo, 0.494 seconds; difference, -0.330; 95% CI, -0.633 to -0.142; P < .001). The most common adverse effect was gastrointestinal (9 mexiletine and 1 placebo). Two participants experienced transient cardiac effects that did not require stopping the study (1 in each group). One serious adverse event was determined to be not study related.

CONCLUSION

In this preliminary study of patients with NDMs, the use of mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in improved patient-reported stiffness over 4 weeks of treatment, despite some concern about the maintenance of blinding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00832000.

Refractory erythromelalgia of the ears: response to mexiletine

Erythromelalgia is a rare condition characterized by burning pain, erythema, swelling, and increased temperature usually in the extremities. We present an unusual presentation of erythromelalgia of the ears in a patient who has been refractory to multiple therapies and in whom relief of symptoms was achieved with the use of mexiletine. A review of clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and therapeutic options are presented.

A case of mexiletine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome presenting as eosinophilic pneumonia

An 82-yr-old man was presented with fever and cough accompanied by generalized erythematous rash. He had taken mexiletine for 5 months, as he had been diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmia. Laboratory studies showed peripheral blood eosinophilia and elevated liver transaminase levels. Chest radiographs showed multiple nodular consolidations in both lungs. Biopsies of the lung and skin lesions revealed eosinophilic infiltration. After a thorough review of his medication history, mexiletine was suspected as the etiologic agent. After discontinuing the mexiletine and starting oral prednisolone, the patient improved, and the skin and lung lesions disappeared. Subsequently, mexiletine was confirmed as the causative agent based on a positive patch test. Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome is a severe adverse reaction to drugs and results from treatment with anticonvulsants, allopurinol, sulfonamides, and many other drugs. Several cases of mexiletine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome have been reported in older Japanese males with manifestation of fever, rash, peripheral blood eosinophilia, liver dysfunction without other organ involvement. Here, we report a case of mexiletine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome which presented as eosinophilic pneumonia in a Korean male.

Mexiletine in treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. A long-term follow-up

Maxiletine, a new drug effective in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, was given to 20 patients for approximately 2 years. The study was designed to investigate the nature and prevalence of side-effects during long-term therapy, and the degree of correlation between such effects and the serum levels of the drug. The methodology used to determine the serum level is described. Mexiletine was well tolerated and serious side-effects were not seen. In particular, antinuclear factor was not detected during the treatment period. The serum level of mexiletine was easily maintained within the therapeutic range, and most side-effects correlated closely with the drug level. Mexiletine appears to be an effective alternative to currently available antiarrhythmic agents.

Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome due to Mexiletine Hydrochloride Associated with Reactivation of Human Herpesvirus 7

It has been suggested that reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) infection may be involved in the pathogenesis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. We report a 45-year-old Japanese man who developed a generalized papuloerythematous rash, fever, hepatitis, lymphadenopathy and lymphocytosis with an increased number of atypical lymphocytes. He was diagnosed with DIHS due to mexiletine hydrochloride based on laboratory data, results of a patch test and the clinical course of his complaint, and was treated with systemic steroids. In order to determine whether HHV-6 or -7 was associated with the patient's disease, serological assays and PCR were carried out. Significant increases in antibody titers against HHV-6 and -7 were observed from day 12 to 24. From PCR analysis, none of the peripheral blood mononuclear cells or skin tissue samples contained HHV-6 DNA. All samples, however, were found to contain HHV-7 DNA. Reactivation of HHV-7 could be responsible for drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome.

Mexiletine related chronic defibrillation threshold elevation: case report and review of the literature

Many antiarrhythmic drugs may produce a rise in defibrillation threshold. Mexiletine is a frequently used antiarrhythmic drug in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, usually thought of as producing no or minimal effects on the defibrillation threshold. The current case report presents a patient with an endocardial implantable cardioverter defibrillator being treated with mexiletine, which precluded the ability to defibrillate the patient.

Acute exanthematous pustular drug eruption induced by mexiletine

A 56-year-old man developed infiltrated erythemas on the trunk, extremities, and face with marked facial edema, one month after taking mexiletine hydrochloride for his arrhythmia. A number of pustules were also noted on the surface of erythemas on his chest and face. Laboratory examination showed liver dysfunction and hypereosinophilia. The culture from pustules was sterile. Histological examination of the biopsied skin from a pustular lesion revealed a subcorneal abscess, and perivascular infiltration of lymphocytes, mononuclear cells and eosinophils in the upper dermis. The skin lesions and facial edema as well were improved within three weeks by withdrawal of mexiletine hydrochloride. Patch tests with 10% and 20% mexiletine hydrochloride in petrolatum showed positive reaction, however, pustules were not provoked on the tested site. We conclude that pustules, infiltrated erythema and facial edema were the signs of acute exanthematous pustular drug eruption induced by mexiletine hydrochloride.

Lack of stereoselectivity for the antiallodynic effect of mexiletine in spinally injured rats

Systemically administered mexiletine, an antiarrhythmic, has been shown to also possess analgesic properties in some conditions of neuropathic pain. It has been suggested that the analgesic effect of mexiletine may be derived from the action of one of its optical isomers, (+)(S)-mexiletine. In the present study, we have compared the effects of systemic (-)-(R)- and (+)-(S)-mexiletine, on chronic mechanical allodynia-like behaviour in spinally injured rats, a model of central neuropathic pain in which racemic mexiletine has been shown to be active. I.p. racemic mexiletine as well as (-)-(R)- and (+)(S)-mexiletine at 25 mg/kg all produced significant, but brief, alleviation of mechanical allodynia in a similar fashion as assessed with von-Frey hair elicited vocalization in the spinally injured rats. A slight increase in motor impairment was observed in all three groups which reached statistical significance for the racemic mexiletine and (+)-(S)-mexiletine. Our results suggest that both isomers of mexiletine contribute to the antiallodynic effect in this model of central pain.

Efficacy of oral mexiletine for neuropathic pain with allodynia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mexiletine is an oral sodium channel antagonist that has been reported to be effective in a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. However, recent reports question the efficacy of oral mexiletine in neuropathic pain. The objectives of this study were to examine the effect of oral mexiletine on pain, neurosensation, allodynia, and quality of life.

METHODS

Twenty subjects suffering from neuropathic pain with prominent allodynia were enrolled in a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients were titrated to a maximum dose of 900 mg/d or dose-limiting side effects, whichever occurred first. At baseline and on days 0, 4, 7, and 10, the following tests were performed: (1) Quality of Life Questionnaires; (2) pain scores; (3) area of allodynia; (4) side effects; (5) neurosensory testing; and (6) peak and trough plasma mexiletine levels.

RESULTS

Peak plasma levels occurred on day 10 and were 0.54 microg/mL. There was no significant effect on any quality of life measurement. There was no significant effect on any neurosensory threshold or the area of allodynia. There was a significant effect of mexiletine on stroking-induced pain. There were no significant effects on any other pain score. Side effects were negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses of up to 900 mg/d, mexiletine has minimal effects on pain and allodynia of neuropathic pain. However, side effects may preclude higher doses.

Effect of oral mexiletine on capsaicin-induced allodynia and hyperalgesia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mexiletine is a sodium channel blocker that has been used for the treatment of a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. A recent double-blinded placebo-controlled study concluded that it was ineffective in the treatment of allodynia associated with neuropathic pain. However, this study failed to achieve adequate plasma levels of mexiletine. This was a study in healthy volunteers that sought to push the drug to dose-limiting side effects and then evaluate the effects on human experimental pain.

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers were studied using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. The subjects were titrated to a maximum dose of 1,350 mg/d or dose-limiting side effects, whichever occurred first. At baseline and day 10 and 17, neurosensory testing, train-of-three thermal pulses, and side-effect measurements were performed and on day 17, intradermal capsaicin was injected on the volar aspect of the forearm and the pain and secondary hyperalgesia to von Frey hair, stroking, and thermal stimuli were measured.

RESULTS

Peak plasma levels occurred on day 10 and were 0.36 +/- 0.21 microg/mL. All subjects experienced dose-limiting side effects. The mean maximum tolerable daily dose achieved was 859 mg (range, 300 to 1,350 mg). The side effects reported by the subjects included nausea, lightheadedness, muscle twitching and weakness, blurred vision, headache, tremors, difficulty concentrating, dysphoria, sedation, pruritus, and rash. These side effects occurred at an average daily dose of 993 mg (range, 600 to 1,350 mg). Compared with placebo, mexiletine had no significant effects on any of the neurosensory thresholds and pain scores after intradermal capsaicin. There was a significant reduction in the area of secondary hyperalgesia to von Frey hair stimulation only. There was a significant correlation between plasma mexiletine level and flare response.

CONCLUSIONS

Mexiletine has minimal effects on human experimental pain. It is severely limited by side effects and tolerable doses seem to be void of effects on normal neurosensation and facilitated pain induced by capsaicin and thermal heat pulses.

Mexiletine in the treatment of torticollis and generalized dystonia

Mexiletine is an antiarrhythmic drug that has been reported to exert antidystonic properties. We performed an open-label study to collect further evidence of the antidystonic effect of mexiletine in spasmodic torticollis (ST) and to evaluate its possible use in generalized dystonia. We administered mexiletine to six patients with dystonia (three with generalized dystonia and three with ST) who had failed to respond to previous pharmacotherapy. The drug was started at a dose of 200 mg/d by mouth and increased up to a maximum dose of 800 mg/d. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals over a 6-week period with use of the Fahn & Marsden Dystonia Scale and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and videotaped. At the end of the trial, the videotapes were reviewed and scored by a blind observer. Patients were then followed for at least 1 year and evaluated every 3 months at the dose reached during the study period. No adverse effects were reported in five patients; in one patient, dizziness developed at the dosage of 800 mg/d, requiring a reduction of the dose. At the end of a 6-week period, a significant improvement in the rating scale for dystonia and in videotape ratings was observed after mexiletine treatment (p < 0.01). Our data indicate that mexiletine is a useful drug in dystonia treatment.

[Clinical applications and the effect of mexiletine on refractory epilepsies]

Twenty-four patients with refractory epilepsy were treated with mexiletine as an additional antiepileptic drug. As the initial responses, seizures were decreased by 50% or more in 7 (46.7%) of 15 patients with symptomatic partial epilepsy (SPE), in none of 7 with symptomatic generalized epilepsy (SGE), and in 1 of 2 with undetermined epilepsy. Seizures increased in 3 patients (20.0%) with SPE, and in 3 (42.9%) with SGE. Concerning seizure types, mexiletine had significant effects on 1 of 2 patients with simple partial seizures, on 7 of 13 with complex partial seizures, on 1 of 5 with secondarily generalized seizures, and on 1 of 8 with tonic seizures. No patients with a myoclonic seizure or atypical absence improved. Exacerbation of the seizures was observed in 2 of 13 patients with complex partial seizures, in 1 of 5 with secondarily generalized seizures, in 3 of 8 with tonic seizures, and in 2 of 3 with myoclonic seizures. Partial seizures were controlled well, whereas generalized seizures sometimes worsened. EEG improved in 3 patients with SPE; decrease of focal spikes in 2 patients and disappearance of secondary generalization in 1. Follow-up for more than 3 months showed seizures to be lessened in 2 patients. Mexiletine is useful for the treatment of refractory epilepsies, especially SPE.

Mexiletine for HIV-infected patients with painful peripheral neuropathy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover treatment trial

Although mexiletine, an antiarrhythmic with local anesthetic properties, has been reported to relieve discomfort in diabetic neuropathy, its usefulness in the treatment of HIV-related painful peripheral neuropathy (PPN) has not been determined. The tolerance and effectiveness of mexiletine in HIV-related PPN were assessed in 22 patients who were randomized to receive mexiletine (maximum dose, 600 mg/day) or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by the alternative intervention for 6 weeks after a 1-week washout period. The daily pain response was assessed using a visual analogue scale card in 19 patients who received at least 2 weeks of the drug, 16 of whom were crossed-over to receive the alternate agent. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean daily pain scores for patients receiving mexiletine versus placebo, irrespective of the order in which the agents were received. Comparing the mean individual daily pain scores for each phase of study, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving mexiletine compared with their response to placebo, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving placebo, and no difference was noted in 6 patients (38%). Crossover and multivariate analyses for repeated measures showed no apparent difference in the response to mexiletine versus placebo. Dose-limiting adverse events occurred in 39% of those receiving mexiletine, but only 1 patient (5%) discontinued placebo. Mexiletine was only modestly well tolerated despite its relatively brief period of administration, and no evidence was found to support its benefit in HIV-related PPN. Although a first-drug effect was not demonstrated, a powerful placebo effect was seen in some patients.

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.

The use of the block cycle length as a safe and efficient means of interrupting sustained ventricular tachycardia and its pharmacological modification

In nine patients who had inducible monomorphic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), rapid pacing was performed in 11 episodes of morphologically distinct VT at progressively shorter cycle lengths and VT was interrupted at a critical cycle length. The VT interrupting critical cycle length was defined as the block cycle length (BCL) and the effect of Class I antiarrhythmic drugs were examined. Both the VT cycle length (VTCL) and the BCL were prolonged after administration of either drug. The overall mean ratio of the BCL to the VTCL was unchanged after procainamide administration, but increased after the use of mexiletine. The ratio, however, varied in individual VTs and the BCL after treatment with Class I antiarrhythmic drugs could not be predicted from the ratio baseline value, although the ratio was always > 60% and the hazard of VT acceleration might be avoided if the BCL is used.

Mexiletine-induced severe skin eruption, fever, eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and liver dysfunction

A 64-year-old man developed a severe generalized pruritic morbilliform skin eruption, fever, eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and liver dysfunction 30 days after ingestion of mexiletine, a sodium channel blocker, prescribed to treat postherpetic neuralgia. Following intravenous dexamethasone, body temperature normalized the next day. However, the skin eruption did not disappear completely for 4 weeks. The patch test was positive for mexiletine. Clinical features and the result of patch test indicated that the patient developed hypersensitivity syndrome, a severe adverse cutaneous drug reaction, caused by mexiletine. We propose that mexiletine be added to the list of drugs that can cause severe adverse cutaneous drug reactions and that patients receiving mexiletine be warned to stop taking the drug immediately if a skin eruption occurs.

Efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The Mexiletine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 216 insulin-treated diabetes patients with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomly allocated to three dosages of mexiletine or placebo. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/discomfort was scored each day during daytime and nighttime, and sleeping disturbances were also recorded by the patients. Plasma levels of mexiletine and 24-h electrocardiogram (ECG) mapping were assessed before and during the 3-week study period.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in sleep disturbances and pain during nighttime was observed in the group of patients taking the highest dosages (675 mg/day) of mexiletine compared with the other groups. No significant correlation was found between plasma concentration of mexiletine and the therapeutic effect or adverse events. No serious adverse events were seen. The 24-h ECG mapping did not disclose onset of significant arrhythmias in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Mexiletine in a dosage of 675 mg daily can reduce pain caused by diabetic neuropathy, and the effect of this drug appears to have a rapid onset.

Mexiletine in the symptomatic treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the symptomatic treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind study, 29 patients were randomized to receive mexiletine 600 mg/d or matching placebo for 3 weeks. A four-item symptom score (FIS), which rated pain, dysesthesias, paresthesias, and nightly exacerbations of symptoms, and a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), which rated pain intensity, were completed by patients before and after treatment. At the end of treatment independent patient and investigator global assessments were made. Patients reported adverse effects after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Treatment groups were similar at baseline. The difference between the median changes in FIS scores (mexiletine = 5.5, placebo = 2) was not statistically significant. Overall symptom response was similar in both treatment groups as demonstrated by both global assessments (p = 0.19). The mean change in VAS score from baseline to posttreatment was determined for both groups and the difference between these mean scores was 16.5 mm (95% CI, -7.1 to 40.2 mm) (p = 0.16). Inadequate statistical power (1-beta = 0.40) may have resulted from small sample size, small magnitude of effect, or variability in the measured effect. Adverse effects were more common in the mexiletine group, though not statistically significant. One patient receiving mexiletine was hospitalized for palpitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of conflicting reports of mexiletine's efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic DPN, this drug should be reserved for patients unresponsive or intolerant to standard therapy, without evidence of heart disease, and with sensations of burning heat, formication, or stabbing pain.

A case of drug eruption due to simultaneous sensitization with three different kinds of drugs

We reported a case of drug eruption induced by combined treatment with three different kinds of drugs, amoxapine, mexiletine hydrochloride and cefaclor. A 63-year-old Japanese woman suffering from 11 years of standing reflex sympathetic dystrophy developed multiple erythematous papules on her trunk and extremities after taking 14 kinds of drugs. The provocation challenge produced positive reactions to amoxapine, mexiletine hydrochloride, and cefaclor, but was negative to the other drugs. We discussed the mechanism of simultaneous sensitization to three different kinds of drugs in our case.

[The pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of a new mexiletine preparation in healthy volunteers]

In the course of this study, both the bioavailability and the most important pharmacokinetic parameters of a newly development mexiletine (CAS 31828-71-4) preparation (Mexiletine-ratiopharm mite, dosage 200 mg of mexiletine) were to be determined in comparison to a commercial reference preparation registered according to the AMG 1976, after single oral administration. For this purpose, the test and the reference preparation were examined in healthy male volunteers according to a randomized, 2-way crossover design. Both preparations entrained maximum plasma levels of approx. 300 ng/ml 3.5-4 h following administration. For the areas under the curve, values around 4000 h x ng/ml were found; the plasma half-life of the test preparation was 7.55, for the reference preparation 7.75 h. The statistical comparison (ANOVA, confidence interval according to Westlake, Pratt-Wilcoxon-Test) of the pharmacokinetic parameters obtained in the study clearly resulted in bioequivalence of the newly developed mexiletine preparation and the reference drug. No side effects worth mentioning were observed after administration of either preparation, thus good and comparable clinical tolerability of both preparations may be presumed.

[Mexiletine in treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy]

The objective of this double-blind placebo controlled multicenter study was to prove the efficacy of mexiletine in painful diabetic neuropathy. Treatment was provided for in three dosages. For pain measurements a visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill's verbal rating scale were chosen. 95 patients were included. A global assessment of the VAS showed no differences in treatment. The total evaluation (PRIT = Pain Rating Index Total) of the McGill scale just failed the level of significance. More specific exploratory evaluation of subclasses of the McGill scale, representing different qualities of pain, gave remarkable differences between mexiletine and placebo. According to types of complaints an evaluation showed substantial advantages of the mexiletine treatment with both the VAS and the McGill scale. There is strong evidence that particularly patients with stabbing or burning pain, heat sensations or formication will benefit most by mexiletine therapy. Concerning the dosage, a medium regimen of 450 mg per day seems to be appropriate in this indication. With an increase in dosage the efficacy does not rise proportionally. Mexiletine proved a very safe therapy with negligible side effects at the medium dose range, even less than placebo. There were no cardiovascular side effects. Further investigations should pay more attention to the variety of the complaints and include the quality of life.

[A severe skin reaction following mexiletene]

A 70-year-old man was treated with oral mexiletene because of ventricular premature beats due to ischemic heart disease. He developed a severe maculopapular rash which did not respond to antiallergic treatment, but disappeared after discontinuation of the drug. Adverse effects on the central nervous, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems have been described. A rash is rare, and in our case was of unusual severity.

Effects of mexiletine, propafenone and flecainide on signal-averaged electrocardiogram

The effects of mexiletine, propafenone and flecainide on the parameters of signal-averaged electrocardiogram in 40 subjects with symptomatic and repetitive ventricular arrhythmias were studied. Mexiletine (n = 16) suppressed ventricular arrhythmias in 10 patients and did not produce any significant changes in filtered QRS duration (fQRS), root mean square voltage of the final 40 ms of filtered QRS (RMS40) or low amplitude terminal component duration (LAS40). Acute (n = 8, 450 mg) and chronic (n = 16, 600-1200 mg.day-1) administration of propafenone determined a significant increase in fQRS (from 123 +/- 2.2 to 139 +/- 3 ms) and a reduction in RMS40 (from 54 +/- 8.8 to 34 +/- 6.7 microV); as a consequence the incidence of ventricular late potentials rose from 43 to 62%. The observed effects were independent of anti-arrhythmic efficacy, which was 86% for this drug. Acute (n = 8, 200 mg) and chronic (n = 13, 200-300 mg.day-1) administration of flecainide was associated with a marked prolongation in fQRS (from 123 +/- 2.8 to 138 +/- 4.1 ms) and a reduction in RMS40 (from 69 +/- 11.5 to 47 +/- 11 microV); thus determining an increase in the incidence of ventricular late potentials from 29 to 48%. Changes in signal-averaged electrocardiogram were not related to drug efficacy, which was 81%. These data indicate that 1c anti-arrhythmic drugs consistently modified the parameters of signal-averaged electrocardiogram; the observed changes might reflect an inhomogeneous slowing of intramyocardial impulse propagation.

Recognizing and reporting adverse drug reactions

Although physicians in practice are most likely to see patients with adverse drug reactions, they may fail to recognize an adverse effect or to attribute it to a drug effect and, when recognized, they may fail to report serious reactions to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To recognize and attribute an adverse event to a drug effect, physicians should review the patient's clinical course, looking at patient risk factors, the known adverse reactions to the suspected drug, and the likelihood of a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event-based on the temporal relationship, response to stopping or restarting the drug, and whether other factors could explain the reaction. Once an adverse drug reaction has been identified, the patient should be informed and appropriate documentation made in the patient's medical record. Serious known reactions and all reactions to newly released drugs or those not previously known to occur (even if the certainty is low) should be reported to the FDA.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of quinidine, procainamide and mexiletine

Quinidine and procainamide have the potential for major organ toxicity, whereas mexiletine has been reported to have little risk of organ toxicity, serious proarrhythmia or congestive heart failure, but a relatively high incidence of nuisance side effects. In light of the potential adverse effects of all antiarrhythmic agents as highlighted by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial, the relative cost-effectiveness of these 3 agents was assessed. Based on a review of greater than 1,000 published reports, studies included in the analysis examined greater than or equal to 1 of these agents in adults, with adequate efficacy or safety data, or both. The majority of studies assessed patients with symptomatic or malignant arrhythmias, or both. Data were analyzed using a decision analysis/cost-effectiveness model. Probabilities were averaged using techniques of meta-analysis. Costs were obtained from a university medical center cost-accounting system and from expected follow-up visits to university clinics. Thirty-seven separate side effects were included in the analysis. In terms of overall cost, 12 months of mexiletine would engender $875, quinidine $1,239 and procainamide $1,911 of expenses. Mexiletine dominates the older agents in terms of cost per successful drug response, a result that holds over a wide range of efficacy and safety data. Analyses demonstrated no increase in all-cause mortality for quinidine and mexiletine over placebo, but a trend toward higher mortality with procainamide. The results suggest that mexiletine is a cost-saving alternative therapy for ventricular arrhythmias when adverse reactions are considered in addition to pharmaceutical costs and treatment efficacy.

Possible association of pulmonary fibrosis with mexiletine

This case describes a 75-year-old man who developed pulmonary fibrosis. The onset of symptoms occurred three months after starting mexiletine. A computerized tomogram obtained eight months after initiating mexiletine documented findings consistent with chronic pulmonary fibrosis. The patient died from intractable respiratory difficulties 13 months after beginning mexiletine therapy. To date, there have been three cases of pulmonary fibrosis in patients receiving mexiletine spontaneously reported to the manufacturer.

Evaluation of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone and in combination for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with and without overt heart disease

The efficacies and side effects of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone and in combination were assessed in 29 patients with chronic ventricular arrhythmias. In combination therapy, one half or two thirds of the conventional doses of each drug were administered. Each patient underwent Holter electrocardiographic monitoring during 4 different periods: baseline, disopyramide alone, mexiletine alone and combination of the two drugs. The mean baseline number of ventricular premature complex per hour was 783 +/- 521 (mean +/- SD), which was significantly reduced with all three therapies. Disopyramide alone significantly reduced the ventricular premature complex frequency in patients with organic heart disease (P less than 0.05), but did not significantly reduce the ventricular premature complex frequency in patients with no apparent heart disease. In contrast, mexiletine alone significantly decreased the ventricular premature complex frequency in no apparent heart disease patients (P less than 0.05), but did not significantly reduce the ventricular premature complex frequency in organic heart disease patients. With disopyramide alone, patients having a significant reduction in ventricular premature complexes (greater than or equal to 83% reduction in ventricular premature complexes) or elimination of ventricular tachycardias tended to be more frequently found in organic heart disease than in no apparent heart disease. The opposite was observed with mexiletine alone. QTc interval with disopyramide alone was significantly prolonged, and the prematurity index of ventricular premature complexes was significantly lowered as compared to mexiletine alone or combination therapy (P less than 0.01 for disopyramide versus mexiletine; P less than 0.05 for disopyramide versus combination therapy). During combination therapy, no patients withdrew from the study due to side effects. However, 3 patients receiving single drug therapy withdrew from the study due to severe side effects. Consequently, disopyramide is suggested to be more effective on ventricular premature complexes in organic heart disease than in no apparent heart disease patients, whereas the opposite was true for mexiletine. A combination of disopyramide and mexiletine in smaller doses may provide almost the same or enhanced antiarrhythmic effects, no aggravation of electrocardiographical parameters and less incidence of side effects when compared to the conventional dose of each drug alone.

Efficacy of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone or in combination in the treatment of ventricular premature beats

The efficacy of oral disopyramide and mexiletine used alone or in combination was studied in 75 patients with frequent ventricular premature beats (VPBs). The efficacy was evaluated with 24-hour ambulatory ECG and greater than or equal to 75% reduction in the number of VPBs was defined as effective. When disopyramide or mexiletine were ineffective or not tolerated, the alternative drug was administered and the efficacy was again evaluated. If the single administration of neither drug was effective, the combination of disopyramide and mexiletine was then given. Either disopyramide or mexiletine was effective in 48 patients, and neither drug was effective in 19 patients. In 19 patients unresponsive to both drugs, combination therapy was effective in six patients (32%). Both drugs caused side effects or one drug caused side effects and another drug was ineffective in eight patients. In five out of those patients, we attempted combined therapy with a reduced dosage of those drugs that caused side effects. This therapy was effective in two patients without intolerable side effects. Thus, when the single use of neither disopyramide nor mexiletine single-drug therapy is effective, it is worthwhile to try combination therapy. Also, combination therapy with a reduced dosage of the drugs that caused side effects might be the therapy of choice in patients who have developed dose-dependent side effects.

Mechanism of interaction between theophylline and mexiletine

The mechanism of an interaction between theophylline and mexiletine hydrochloride was investigated in 6 male inpatients coadministered both drugs and 16 inpatients (13 men, 3 women) administered theophylline only. Serum theophylline and mexiletine concentrations and urinary concentrations of theophylline and its metabolites were monitored. Theophylline clearance was 0.0278 +/- 0.0047 L/kg/h (mean +/- SD) in patients coadministered theophylline and mexiletine and 0.0441 +/- 0.0096 in patients administered theophylline only (p less than 0.05). The fractional urine contents of 1-methyluric acid and 3-methylxanthine were 18.7 +/- 2.5 and 12.6 +/- 2.1 percent in the former group and 26.5 +/- 6.0 and 17.1 +/- 2.0 percent in the latter group, respectively (p less than 0.05). The fractional urine content of 1,3-dimethyluric acid was 51.8 +/- 3.2 in the former and 44.7 +/- 4.1 percent in the latter, respectively (p less than 0.05). An inverse correlation was obtained between serum mexiletine concentrations and total fractional urine content of 1-methyluric acid and 3-methylxanthine (r = 0.704). These results suggest that the mechanism of an interaction between theophylline and mexiletine is an inhibition of demethylation of theophylline by mexiletine.

Mexiletine-associated left ventricular dysfunction: a case study

Mexiletine is a lidocaine analogue used in the treatment of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. However, in selected individuals with baseline diminished left ventricular function, it may possess clinically significant negative inotropic effects.

Role of combination drug therapy with a class IC antiarrhythmic agent and mexiletine for ventricular tachycardia

The combination of mexiletine and a class IC antiarrhythmic agent (encainide, propafenone or flecainide) was evaluated by electrophysiologic testing in 14 patients with a history of sustained ventricular tachycardia whose tachycardia remained inducible during therapy with the class IC drug alone. During the control drug-free state, all patients had inducible ventricular tachycardia, with a mean cycle length of 260 ms (range 190 to 400). During monotherapy with the IC agent the tachycardia remained inducible in each patient, but there was a significant increase in the cycle length to 340 ms (240 to 500) (p less than 0.001). The effective refractory period of the ventricle was not altered. Treatment with mexiletine (oral in 13 and intravenous in 1) was begun and electrophysiologic testing was repeated. Ventricular tachycardia in one patient was rendered noninducible and one patient had arrhythmia aggravation. The tachycardia in the remaining 12 patients remained inducible but its average cycle length increased further to 392 ms (340 to 460) (p = NS). Nine patients had rate slowing and the average cycle length of the ventricular tachycardia in this group was significantly increased (302 to 388 ms, p less than 0.05). The average effective refractory period was significantly increased during combination therapy (267 ms) compared with no drug therapy (235 ms) and therapy with the class IC drug alone (247 ms) (p less than 0.05). After a mean follow-up interval of 22 months, seven patients continue on the combined treatment and have no ventricular tachycardia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)