-
Journal of Cardiovascular... Nov 2021β-Blockers are first-line therapy in patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS). However, β-blockers had genotype dependent efficacy (LQT1>LQT2>LQT3). Sodium channel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
β-Blockers are first-line therapy in patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS). However, β-blockers had genotype dependent efficacy (LQT1>LQT2>LQT3). Sodium channel blockers have been recommended as add-on therapy for LQT3 patients. However, the pooled effect of sodium channel blockers in all LQTS patients remains unknown.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic electronic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed effects model was used to assess the effect of sodium channel blockers on QTc, cardiac events (CEs), and the proportion of QTc ≥ 500 ms and QTc ≤ 460 ms in LQTS patients.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis of 14 studies with 213 LQTS (9 LQT1 + 63 LQT2 + 135 LQT3 + 6 others) patients showed that sodium channel blockers significantly shortened QTc by nearly 50 ms (mean difference [MD], -49.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], -57.80 to -41.05, p < .001), reduced the incidence of CEs (risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.47; p < .001) and the proportion of QTc ≥ 500 ms (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.47; p < .001), and increased the proportion of QTc ≤ 460 ms (RR, 10.33; 95% CI, 4.62-23.09; p < .001). Sodium channel blockers significantly shortened QTc both in LQT3 and LQT2 patients, while the QTc shortening effect in LQT3 was superior to that in LQT2 (57.39 vs. 36.61 ms). Mexiletine, flecainide, and ranolazine all significantly shortened QTc, and the QTc shortening effect by mexiletine was the best (60.70 vs. 49.08 vs. 50.10 ms).
CONCLUSIONS
Sodium channel blockers can be useful both in LQT3 and LQT2 patients. Mexiletine, flecainide and ranolazine significantly shortened QTc in LQTS patients, and the QTc shortening effect by mexiletine was the best.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Electrocardiography; Flecainide; Humans; Long QT Syndrome; Mexiletine; Ranolazine; Sodium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 34427958
DOI: 10.1111/jce.15223 -
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry May 2021Ventricular cardiac arrhythmia (VA) arises in acquired or congenital heart disease. Long QT syndrome type-3 (LQT3) is a congenital form of VA caused by cardiac sodium...
Ventricular cardiac arrhythmia (VA) arises in acquired or congenital heart disease. Long QT syndrome type-3 (LQT3) is a congenital form of VA caused by cardiac sodium channel (I) SCN5A mutations that prolongs cardiac action potential (AP) and enhances I current. Mexiletine inhibits I and shortens the QT interval in LQT3 patients. Above therapeutic doses, mexiletine prolongs the cardiac AP. We explored structure-activity relationships (SAR) for AP shortening and prolongation using dynamic medicinal chemistry and AP kinetics in human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs). Using patient-derived LQT3 and healthy hiPSC-CMs, we resolved distinct SAR for AP shortening and prolongation effects in mexiletine analogues and synthesized new analogues with enhanced potency and selectivity for I. This resulted in compounds with decreased AP prolongation effects, increased metabolic stability, increased I selectivity, and decreased avidity for the potassium channel. This study highlights using hiPSC-CMs to guide medicinal chemistry and "drug development in a dish".
Topics: Action Potentials; Animals; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Behavior, Animal; Cardiac Conduction System Disease; Cells, Cultured; Drug Design; Drug Stability; Half-Life; Humans; Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells; Long QT Syndrome; Male; Mexiletine; Mice; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Myocytes, Cardiac; NAV1.5 Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Structure-Activity Relationship
PubMed: 33942619
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c01545 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Na1.4 is a voltage-gated sodium channel subtype that is predominantly expressed in skeletal muscle cells. It is essential for producing action potentials and stimulating... (Review)
Review
Na1.4 is a voltage-gated sodium channel subtype that is predominantly expressed in skeletal muscle cells. It is essential for producing action potentials and stimulating muscle contraction, and mutations in Na1.4 can cause various muscle disorders. The discovery of the cryo-EM structure of Na1.4 in complex with β1 has opened new possibilities for designing drugs and toxins that target Na1.4. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of channelopathies, the binding sites and functions of chemicals including medicine and toxins that interact with Na1.4. These substances could be considered novel candidate compounds or tools to develop more potent and selective drugs targeting Na1.4. Therefore, studying Na1.4 pharmacology is both theoretically and practically meaningful.
PubMed: 38725668
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1378315 -
NeuroRehabilitation 2020The role of systemic use of local anesthetics in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) is still unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of systemic use of local anesthetics in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) is still unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of systemic local anesthetics for NP.
METHODS
To summarize and to discuss the rehabilitation perspective on the published Cochrane Systematic Review "Systemic administration of local anesthetic agents to relieve neuropathic pain" by Challapalli V et al.RESULTS:The review included 30 RCTs including patients with NP treated with iv lidocaine, oral mexiletine, lidocaine and mexiletine, or oral tocainide. Low-to-moderate quality of the evidence suggest that intravenous lidocaine or oral mexiletine may slightly reduce NP vs placebo, but the efficacy of these drugs is comparable to anticonvulsants or morphine.
CONCLUSIONS
Systemic administration of local anesthetics is not supported by scientific evidence for pain relief as well as for functional improvement.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Mexiletine; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32716331
DOI: 10.3233/NRE-209006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31684682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003345.pub2 -
Clinical and Translational Science Aug 2022Lamotrigine, approved for use as an antiseizure medication as well as the treatment of bipolar disorder, inhibits sodium channels in the brain to reduce repetitive...
Lamotrigine, approved for use as an antiseizure medication as well as the treatment of bipolar disorder, inhibits sodium channels in the brain to reduce repetitive neuronal firing and pathological release of glutamate. The shared homology of sodium channels and lack of selectivity associated with channel blocking agents can cause slowing of cardiac conduction and increased proarrhythmic potential. The Vaughan-Williams classification system differentiates sodium channel blockers using biophysical properties of binding. As such, Class Ib inhibitors, including mexiletine, do not slow cardiac conduction as measured by the electrocardiogram, at therapeutically relevant exposure. Our goal was to characterize the biophysical properties of Na 1.5 block and to support the observed clinical safety of lamotrigine. We used HEK-293 cells stably expressing the hNa 1.5 channel and voltage clamp electrophysiology to quantify the potency (half-maximal inhibitory concentration) against peak and late channel current, on-/off-rate binding kinetics, voltage-dependence, and tonic block of the cardiac sodium channel by lamotrigine; and compared to clinically relevant Class Ia (quinidine), Ib (mexiletine), and Ic (flecainide) inhibitors. Lamotrigine blocked peak and late Na 1.5 current at therapeutically relevant exposure, with rapid kinetics and biophysical properties similar to the class Ib inhibitor mexiletine. However, no clinically meaningful prolongation in QRS or PR interval was observed in healthy subjects in a new analysis of a previously reported thorough QT clinical trial (SCA104648). In conclusion, the weak Na 1.5 block and rapid kinetics do not translate into clinically relevant conduction slowing at therapeutic exposure and support the clinical safety of lamotrigine in patients suffering from epilepsy and bipolar disorder.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Flecainide; HEK293 Cells; Humans; Lamotrigine; Mexiletine; Sodium Channel Blockers; Sodium Channels
PubMed: 35579204
DOI: 10.1111/cts.13311 -
Neuromuscular Disorders : NMD Nov 2021The MYOMEX study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study aimed to compare the effects of mexiletine vs. placebo in patients... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The MYOMEX study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study aimed to compare the effects of mexiletine vs. placebo in patients with myotonia congenita (MC) and paramyotonia congenita (PC). The primary endpoint was the self-reported score of stiffness severity on a 100 mm visual analogic scale (VAS). Mexiletine treatment started at 200 mg/day and was up-titrated by 200 mg increment each three days to reach a maximum dose of 600 mg/day for total treatment duration of 18 days for each cross-over period. The modified intent-to-treat population included 25 patients (13 with MC and 12 with PC; mean age, 43.0 years; male, 68.0%). The median VAS score for mexiletine was 71.0 at baseline and decreased to 16.0 at the end of the treatment while the score did not change for placebo (81.0 at baseline vs. 78.0 at end of treatment). A mixed effects linear model analysis on ranked absolute changes showed a significant effect of treatment (p < 0.001). The overall score of the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life questionnaire (INQoL) was significantly improved (p < 0.001). No clinically significant adverse events were reported. In conclusion, mexiletine improved stiffness and quality of life in patients with nondystrophic myotonia and was well tolerated.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Mexiletine; Middle Aged; Myotonia; Myotonia Congenita; Myotonic Disorders; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34702654
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2021.06.010 -
Pflugers Archiv : European Journal of... Jul 2020In 1970, the study of the pathomechanisms underlying myotonia in muscle fibers isolated from myotonic goats highlighted the importance of chloride conductance for... (Review)
Review
In 1970, the study of the pathomechanisms underlying myotonia in muscle fibers isolated from myotonic goats highlighted the importance of chloride conductance for skeletal muscle function; 20 years later, the human ClC-1 chloride channel has been cloned; last year, the crystal structure of human protein has been solved. Over the years, the efforts of many researchers led to significant advances in acknowledging the role of ClC-1 in skeletal muscle physiology and the mechanisms through which ClC-1 dysfunctions lead to impaired muscle function. The wide spectrum of pathophysiological conditions associated with modification of ClC-1 activity, either as the primary cause, such as in myotonia congenita, or as a secondary adaptive mechanism in other neuromuscular diseases, supports the idea that ClC-1 is relevant to preserve not only for skeletal muscle excitability, but also for skeletal muscle adaptation to physiological or harmful events. Improving this understanding could open promising avenues toward the development of selective and safe drugs targeting ClC-1, with the aim to restore normal muscle function. This review summarizes the most relevant research on ClC-1 channel physiology, associated diseases, and pharmacology.
Topics: Animals; Chloride Channels; Chlorides; Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Myotonia Congenita
PubMed: 32361781
DOI: 10.1007/s00424-020-02376-3 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 2020: Comorbidities of epilepsy may significantly interfere with its treatment as diseases in the general population are also encountered in epilepsy patients and some of... (Review)
Review
: Comorbidities of epilepsy may significantly interfere with its treatment as diseases in the general population are also encountered in epilepsy patients and some of them even more frequently (for instance, depression, anxiety, or heart disease). Obviously, some drugs approved for other than epilepsy indications can modify the anticonvulsant activity of antiepileptics. : This review highlights the drug-drug interactions between antiepileptics and aminophylline, some antidepressant, antiarrhythmic (class I-IV), selected antihypertensive drugs and non-barbiturate injectable anesthetics (ketamine, propofol, etomidate, and alphaxalone). The data were reviewed mainly from experimental models of seizures. Whenever possible, clinical data were provided. PUBMED data base was the main search source.: Aminophylline generally reduced the protective activity of antiepileptics, which, to a certain degree, was consistent with scarce clinical data on methylxanthine derivatives and worse seizure control. The only antiarrhythmic with this profile of action was mexiletine when co-administered with VPA. Among antidepressants and non-barbiturate injectable anesthetics, trazodone, mianserin and etomidate or alphaxalone, respectively, negatively affected the anticonvulsant action of some antiepileptic drugs. Clinical data indicate that only amoxapine, bupropion, clomipramine and maprotiline should be used with caution. Possibly, drugs reducing the anticonvulsant potential of antiepileptics should be avoided in epilepsy patients.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Comorbidity; Drug Interactions; Epilepsy; Humans; Seizures
PubMed: 33305639
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2020.1850258 -
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