-
Pain Physician Sep 2018Intravenous 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...
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.
Topics: Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Mexiletine; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30282405
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, the presence of electrical strom (ES) and its management still debated.
BACKGROUND
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, the presence of electrical strom (ES) and its management still debated.
OBJECTIVES
We present the outcome and management of 44 BrS patients suffering from ES.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and pooled analysis Through database review including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Libary and Cinahl studies were analyzed. Evidence from 7 reports of 808 BrS patients was identified.
RESULTS
The mean age of patients suffering from ES was 34 ± 9.5 months (94.7% males, 65.8% spontaneous BrS type I). Using electrophysiological study ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation were inducible in 12/23 (52.2%). Recurrence of ES was documented in 6.1%. Death from ES was 8.2% after a follow-up of 83.5 ± 53.4. In up to 27 ES resolved without treatment. External shock was required in 35.6%, internal ICD shock in 13.3%, Overdrive pacing, left cardiac sympathetic block and atropin in 2.2%. Short-term antiarrhythmic management was as the following: Isopreterenol or Isopreterenol in combination with quinidine 35.5%, orciprenaline in 2.2%, quinidine 2.2%, disopyramide 2.2% or denopamide 2.2%. However, lidocaine, magensium sulfate, mexiletine and propanolol failed to control ES.
CONCLUSION
Although ES is rare in BrS, this entity challenges physicians. Despite its high mortality rate, spontaneous termination is possible. Short-term management using Isoproterenol and/or quinidine might be safe. Prospective studies on management of ES are warranted.
PubMed: 36386327
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.981715 -
Neurology Apr 2016To determine the safety and tolerability of mexiletine in a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial of sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (SALS). (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To determine the safety and tolerability of mexiletine in a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial of sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (SALS).
METHODS
Sixty participants with SALS from 10 centers were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, mexiletine 300 mg/d, or mexiletine 900 mg/d and followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetic study from plasma and CSF, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score, slow vital capacity (SVC), and muscle cramp frequency and severity.
RESULTS
The only serious adverse event among active arm participants was one episode of imbalance. Thirty-two percent of participants receiving 900 mg of mexiletine discontinued study drug vs 5% on placebo (p = 0.026). Pharmacokinetic study demonstrated a peak plasma concentration 2 hours postdose and strong correlation between plasma and CSF (p < 0.001). Rates of decline of ALSFRS-R and SVC did not differ from placebo. Analysis of all randomized patients demonstrated significant reductions of muscle cramp frequency (300 mg: rate = 31% of placebo, p = 0.047; 900 mg: 16% of placebo, p = 0.002) and cramp intensity (300 mg: mean = 45% of placebo, p = 0.08; 900 mg: 25% of placebo, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
Mexiletine was safe at both doses and well-tolerated at 300 mg/d but adverse effects at 900 mg/d led to a high rate of discontinuation. Mexiletine treatment resulted in large dose-dependent reductions in muscle cramp frequency and severity. No effect on rate of progression was detected, but clinically important differences could not be excluded in this small and short-duration study.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
This study provides Class I evidence that mexiletine is safe when given daily to patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at 300 and 900 mg and well-tolerated at the lower dose.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Disease Progression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mexiletine; Middle Aged; Muscle Cramp; Postural Balance; Treatment Outcome; Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 26911633
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002507 -
SAGE Open Medicine 2016The therapeutic trough range for mexiletine (0.8-2 mcg/mL) was largely established in the setting of arrhythmia prophylaxis following myocardial infarction.
INTRODUCTION
The therapeutic trough range for mexiletine (0.8-2 mcg/mL) was largely established in the setting of arrhythmia prophylaxis following myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVE
Describe the usage patterns of serum mexiletine concentrations and the impact of these concentrations on mexiletine dosing in modern practice for ventricular arrhythmia treatment.
METHODS
A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted using the electronic medical record to identify serum mexiletine concentrations drawn between December 2004 and December 2014. The primary endpoint was the incidence of mexiletine concentrations drawn as troughs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of mexiletine concentrations that prompted a dose change, association between adverse events and elevated concentrations, and association between baseline characteristics and mexiletine concentrations.
RESULTS
A total of 237 individual concentrations were included for analysis with 109 (46.0%) drawn appropriately as trough concentrations. Only 31 (13.1%) of the 237 concentrations drawn prompted a dose change. Mexiletine was primarily used for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias (96.2%), and 108 (45.6%) concentrations were drawn in an effort to assess efficacy. The median concentration was statistically different between patients with and without an adverse event (0.8 vs 0.7 mcg/mL, respectively; p = 0.017), but may not represent a clinical significance. Patients with hepatic dysfunction had higher median concentrations compared to those without hepatic dysfunction (1.30 vs 1.07 mcg/mL; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Mexiletine concentrations are often drawn at inappropriate times and seldom influence a dose change. This study suggests that routine monitoring of mexiletine concentrations may not be necessary; however, therapeutic drug monitoring may be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction or to confirm mexiletine absorption in patients where this represents a concern.
PubMed: 27708780
DOI: 10.1177/2050312116670659 -
Circulation Journal : Official Journal... Nov 2023Cardiac calmodulinopathy, characterized by a life-threatening arrhythmia and sudden death in the young, is extremely rare and caused by genes encoding calmodulin, namely...
BACKGROUND
Cardiac calmodulinopathy, characterized by a life-threatening arrhythmia and sudden death in the young, is extremely rare and caused by genes encoding calmodulin, namely calmodulin 1 (CALM1), CALM2, and CALM3.Methods and Results: We screened 195 symptomatic children (age 0-12 years) who were suspected of inherited arrhythmias for 48 candidate genes, using a next-generation sequencer. Ten probands were identified as carrying variants in any of CALM1-3 (5%; median age 5 years), who were initially diagnosed with long QT syndrome (LQTS; n=5), catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT; n=3), and overlap syndrome (n=2). Two probands harbored a CALM1 variant and 8 probands harbored 6 CALM2 variants. There were 4 clinical phenotypes: (1) documented lethal arrhythmic events (LAEs): 4 carriers of N98S in CALM1 or CALM2; (2) suspected LAEs: CALM2 p.D96G and D132G carriers experienced syncope and transient cardiopulmonary arrest under emotional stimulation; (3) critical cardiac complication: CALM2 p.D96V and p.E141K carriers showed severe cardiac dysfunction with QTc prolongation; and (4) neurological and developmental disorders: 2 carriers of CALM2 p.E46K showed cardiac phenotypes of CPVT. Beta-blocker therapy was effective in all cases except cardiac dysfunction, especially in combination with flecainide (CPVT-like phenotype) and mexiletine (LQTS-like).
CONCLUSIONS
Calmodulinopathy patients presented severe cardiac features, and their onset of LAEs was earlier in life, requiring diagnosis and treatment at the earliest age possible.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Calmodulin; East Asian People; Long QT Syndrome; Phenotype; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Death, Sudden, Cardiac
PubMed: 37380439
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-23-0195 -
Clinical and Translational Science May 2021The risk of fatal arrhythmias is the major concern for using chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the reported...
The risk of fatal arrhythmias is the major concern for using chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the reported number of life-threatening arrhythmic events or deaths is relatively small. The objective of this study was to assess the arrhythmogenic risk of these two drugs using a multiscale heart simulation, which allows testing even at high concentrations, including those that cause fatal arrhythmias. We measured the inhibitory action of CQ, HCQ, and HCQ with 30 μM azithromycin (AZ) on six ion currents (fast [INa] and late [INa,L] components of the sodium current, L-type calcium current [ICa,L], rapid [IKr/hERG], and slow [IKs] components of delayed rectifier potassium, and inward rectifier potassium [IK1]) over a wide range of concentrations using the automated patch-clamp system. Using the concentration-inhibition relationship that was thus obtained, we simulated the drug effects while increasing the concentration until the life-threatening arrhythmia, torsade de pointes (TdP), was observed. The obtained threshold concentrations for TdP were 12.5, 35, and 22.5 μM for CQ, HCQ, and HCQ with AZ, respectively. Adding therapeutic concentrations of mexiletine or verapamil successfully prevented the occurrence of TdP, and verapamil was more effective. CQ, HCQ, and HCQ with AZ thresholds for TdP were larger than both antiviral concentrations that were reported by in vitro experiments and free plasma concentrations that were attained by the clinically used dosage. The current simulation data provided a safety margin to the currently used clinical dose for CQ and HCQ/AZ. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Despite the potent in vitro antiviral effect, clinical trials have failed to show the therapeutic effects of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/azithromycin (AZ) to treat coronavirus disease 2019. Torsadogenic potentials may limit the dosage of these drugs, but the reported incidence of fatal arrhythmias is rare. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? Our objective was to assess the arrhythmogenicity of CQ and HCQ/AZ over a wide range of drug concentrations using a multiscale heart simulation. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Our study showed that CQ and HCQ/AZ do not induce fatal arrhythmias even at concentrations much higher than in vitro antiviral half-maximal effective concentration (EC ) values at which QT prolongation exceeds 150 ms. We also found that estimated free plasma concentrations of CQ and HCQ/AZ achieved by currently used dosing protocols are lower than the antiviral EC for these drugs. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Our simulation data provided a safety margin to the currently used clinical dose for CQ and HCQ/AZ.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Chloroquine; Computer Simulation; Electrocardiography; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33404133
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12976 -
JAMA Neurology Jan 2021Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN.
OBJECTIVE
To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment's sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates.
RESULTS
Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics; Bayes Theorem; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Humans; Male; Mexiletine; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Nortriptyline; Pain Management; Polyneuropathies; Pregabalin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32809014
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2590 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021The short QT syndrome type 1 (SQT1) is linked to hERG channel mutations (e.g., N588K). Drug effects on hERG channel gating kinetics in SQT1-cells have not been...
The short QT syndrome type 1 (SQT1) is linked to hERG channel mutations (e.g., N588K). Drug effects on hERG channel gating kinetics in SQT1-cells have not been investigated. This study used hiPSC-CMs of a healthy donor and a SQT1-patient carrying the N588K mutation and patch clamp to examine the drug effects on hERG channel gating kinetics. Ajmaline, amiodarone, ivabradine, flecainide, quinidine, mexiletine and ranolazine inhibited the hERG channel current (I) less strongly in hiPSC-CMs from the SQTS1-patient (SQT1-hiPSC-CMs) comparing with cells from the healthy donor (donor-hiPSC-CMs). Quinidine and mexiletine reduced, but ajmaline, amiodarone, ivabradine and ranolazine increased the time to peak of I similarly in SQT1-hiPSC-CMs and donor-hiPSC-CMs. Although regarding the shift of activation and inactivation curves, tested drugs showed differential effects in donor- and SQT1-hiPSC-CMs, quinidine, ajmaline, ivabradine and mexiletine but not amiodarone, flecainide and ranolazine reduced the window current in SQT1-hiPSC-CMs. Quinidine, ajmaline, ivabradine and mexiletine differentially changed the time constant of recovery from inactivation, but all of them increased the time constant of deactivation in SQT1-hiPSC-CMs. The window current-reducing and deactivation-slowing effects may be important for the antiarrhythmic effect of ajmaline, ivabradine, quinidine and mexiletine in SQT1-cells. This information may be helpful for selecting drugs for treating SQT1-patients with hERG channel mutation.
PubMed: 34025432
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.675003 -
The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2023Mexiletine, 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...
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.
Topics: Humans; Dyskinesias; Mexiletine; Female; Adolescent; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Drug Overdose; Erythromelalgia; Biperiden; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37661688
DOI: 10.24953/turkjped.2023.84 -
Neuromuscular Disorders : NMD Feb 2023Although mexiletine effectively treats myotonia, supply disruptions affected Europe between 2008-2018. MyoPath was a mixed-methods, cross-sectional, market research...
Although mexiletine effectively treats myotonia, supply disruptions affected Europe between 2008-2018. MyoPath was a mixed-methods, cross-sectional, market research survey conducted January-June 2018 to evaluate consequences of limited access to/awareness of mexiletine in people with myotonia. Part A: qualitative structured interviews (clinicians; advocates for adult patients); Part B: quantitative online questionnaire completed by people with self-reported history of myotonia. Part A: Interviews (clinicians, n=12; patient advocates, n=5; 12 countries) indicated poor mexiletine awareness among general neurologists. Patients chose between living with myotonia (other treatments were generally unsatisfactory) or importing mexiletine. Part B: Questionnaire respondents, myotonic dystrophy (DM)1, n=213; DM2, n=128; non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM), n=41; other n=8; (11 countries). Of the respondents, 76/390 (20%) people with awareness of/access to mexiletine described profound improvements in myotonia and health-related quality of life following treatment. Respondents with NDM had greatest mexiletine experience (n=28/41). Mexiletine was associated with fewer falls, less muscle stiffness, increased mobility. Treatment interruptions worsened myotonia and were associated with fatigue, pain, dysphagia, breathing difficulty, impaired digestion, poor sleep. However, 36/54 (67%) of currently treated people expressed anxiety about mexiletine's availability: this finding was expected (MyoPath was undertaken before mexiletine's approval in NDM). MyoPath provides the largest European exploration of patients' views regarding impact of mexiletine on myotonia. Anticipated effects of mexiletine differ between people with different myotonic disorders: myotonia is the main symptom in NDM but one of many potential symptoms affecting those with DM. Nevertheless, findings indicate substantial harm caused to people with myotonia when mexiletine awareness/access is limited.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Mexiletine; Myotonia; Quality of Life; Cross-Sectional Studies; Myotonic Dystrophy; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 36706619
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2022.12.008