-
Neurological Sciences : Official... Feb 2024The rare nature of dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonia has limited the available evidence on the efficacy of mexiletine as a potential treatment. To address this gap,...
BACKGROUND
The rare nature of dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonia has limited the available evidence on the efficacy of mexiletine as a potential treatment. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine for both dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonic patients.
METHODS
The search was conducted on various electronic databases up to March 2023, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing mexiletine versus placebo in myotonic patients. A risk of bias assessment was carried out, and relevant data was extracted manually into an online sheet. RevMan software (version 5.4) was employed for analysis.
RESULTS
A total of five studies, comprising 186 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that mexiletine was significantly more effective than placebo in improving stiffness score (SMD = - 1.19, 95% CI [- 1.53, - 0.85]), as well as in reducing hand grip myotonia (MD = - 1.36 s, 95% CI [- 1.83, - 0.89]). Mexiletine also significantly improved SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Score in patients with non-dystrophic myotonia only. Regarding safety, mexiletine did not significantly alter ECG parameters but was associated with greater gastrointestinal symptoms (GIT) compared to placebo (RR 3.7, 95% CI [1.79, 7.64]). Other adverse events showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION
The results support that mexiletine is effective and safe in myotonic patients; however, it is associated with a higher risk of GIT symptoms. Due to the scarcity of published RCTs and the prevalence of GIT symptoms, we recommend further well-designed RCTs testing various drug combinations to reduce GIT symptoms.
PubMed: 38403671
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-024-07412-z -
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 -
Minerva Cardiology and Angiology Dec 2023To evaluate the clinical outcomes of oral mexiletine (oMXT) to treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs) in the era of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)...
INTRODUCTION
To evaluate the clinical outcomes of oral mexiletine (oMXT) to treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs) in the era of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) technology.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases following the PRISMA guidelines to collect literature data reporting oMXT efficacy and safety outcomes in treating VTAs in ICD recipients.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Final analysis included four studies accounting for a total of 91 patients with recurrent VTAs treated with oMXT. Amiodarone therapy was initially attempted in most patients (91.2%), while catheter ablation was performed in one-third of patients. VTA recurrences were observed in 55/91 patients (60.4%) during oMXT treatment compared to 91/91 (100%) before treatment (P<0.001). Appropriate therapies occurred in 55/88 ICD patients (62.5%) during oMXT treatment compared to 80/88 (90.9%) before treatment (P<0.001). After oMXT introduction, there was a significant reduction of the individual burden of VTA episodes and appropriate ICD therapies per patient, showing Hedges'g values of -1.103 (P=0.002) and -1.474 (P=0.008), respectively. Safety analysis showed a sample-weighted overall side-effect rate of 30%, while 21% of patients required drug reduction or discontinuation. Aggregated meta-regression analysis of the included studies and remote literature revealed a linear correlation between oMXT dosage and the overall side effects rate (r = 0.48; P=0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
Oral mexiletine provides an adjunctive treatment to manage VTAs and reduces appropriate therapies in ICD patients with moderate efficacy and acceptable safety profiles. These observations await confirmation through randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Mexiletine; Defibrillators, Implantable; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Treatment Outcome; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 36305779
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.22.06176-2 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Nov 2022While mexiletine has been used for over 40 years for prevention of (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and for myotonia, patient access has recently been critically...
AIMS
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.
METHODS AND RESULTS
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).
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Child, Preschool; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Mexiletine; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Ventricular Fibrillation; Electrocardiography; Heart Ventricles
PubMed: 36036670
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac087 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Oct 2022The aim of the study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness and safety of oral mexiletine administered in monotherapy or in combination with other...
The aim of the study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness and safety of oral mexiletine administered in monotherapy or in combination with other antiarrhythmic drugs for recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, VT/VF) in adult patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 27 August 2021 for prospective and retrospective studies investigating mexiletine in the target population. The main outcome was the reduction of ICD therapy. The main safety outcome was the presence of any serious adverse events (SAEs) leading to mexiletine discontinuation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Four studies comprising 86 mexiletine recipients were included in the review. We also obtained individual data of 50 patients from two studies. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was present in 86% of patients. The quality of included studies was moderate/low. A narrative review was undertaken as studies varied widely in terms of study population and treatment. Across studies, mexiletine treatment (with or without amiodarone) seemed to consistently reduce the number of ICD therapies especially in a population where catheter ablation (CA) was unsuccessful or contraindicated. In ICM patients deemed eligible for CA, mexiletine seemed to be inferior to CA. Mexiletine was discontinued in 14% of cases, mainly for gastrointestinal or neurological SAE. Mexiletine seems to be an option for the long-term treatment of recurrent VT/VF in adult patients with SHD, especially ICM, and ICD in whom CA was unsuccessful or not suitable.
Topics: Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Catheter Ablation; Defibrillators, Implantable; Humans; Mexiletine; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 35851797
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac101 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Apr 2022In an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.
OBJECTIVE
To inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.
FINDINGS
Our search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.
CONCLUSIONS
With few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021230941.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Gabapentin; Humans; Ketamine; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin
PubMed: 35027479
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2021-102981 -
Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases 2021Skeletal muscle ion channelopathies include non-dystrophic myotonias (NDM), periodic paralyses (PP), congenital myasthenic syndrome, and recently identified congenital...
BACKGROUND
Skeletal muscle ion channelopathies include non-dystrophic myotonias (NDM), periodic paralyses (PP), congenital myasthenic syndrome, and recently identified congenital myopathies. The treatment of these diseases is mainly symptomatic, aimed at reducing muscle excitability in NDM or modifying triggers of attacks in PP.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review collected the evidences regarding effects of pharmacological treatment on muscle ion channelopathies, focusing on the possible link between treatments and genetic background.
METHODS
We searched databases for randomized clinical trials (RCT) and other human studies reporting pharmacological treatments. Preclinical studies were considered to gain further information regarding mutation-dependent drug effects. All steps were performed by two independent investigators, while two others critically reviewed the entire process.
RESULTS
For NMD, RCT showed therapeutic benefits of mexiletine and lamotrigine, while other human studies suggest some efficacy of various sodium channel blockers and of the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI) acetazolamide. Preclinical studies suggest that mutations may alter sensitivity of the channel to sodium channel blockers in vitro, which has been translated to humans in some cases. For hyperkalemic and hypokalemic PP, RCT showed efficacy of the CAI dichlorphenamide in preventing paralysis. However, hypokalemic PP patients carrying sodium channel mutations may have fewer benefits from CAI compared to those carrying calcium channel mutations. Few data are available for treatment of congenital myopathies.
CONCLUSIONS
These studies provided limited information about the response to treatments of individual mutations or groups of mutations. A major effort is needed to perform human studies for designing a mutation-driven precision medicine in muscle ion channelopathies.
Topics: Channelopathies; Humans; Hypokalemic Periodic Paralysis; Lamotrigine; Mexiletine; Muscle, Skeletal; Mutation; Myasthenic Syndromes, Congenital; Myotonic Disorders; Precision Medicine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 33325393
DOI: 10.3233/JND-200582 -
Neurodegenerative Disease Management Dec 2020Mexiletine is a potential drug in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that has been tested in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to determine the...
Mexiletine is a potential drug in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that has been tested in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in ALS via systematic review of existing evidences. Relevant records were searched using major healthcare electronic databases. Data on functional disability, impairment, survival, muscle cramp frequency and severity, and adverse events were obtained. Three relevant randomized controlled trials with 141 patients were included in this review. Mexiletine has no effect on the functional disability, impairment and survival in ALS. However, significant improvement in reducing muscle cramp severity and frequency was shown. The most common adverse effect associated with mexiletine intake among ALS patients are nausea (n = 11, 7.8%) and tremors (n = 5, 3.6%).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Female; Humans; Male; Mexiletine; Middle Aged; Muscle Cramp; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 32867586
DOI: 10.2217/nmt-2020-0026 -
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 -
International Journal of Cardiology Mar 2019The most common cardiac feature of Kearns-Sayre syndrome (KSS) is atrioventricular block (AVB), and pacemaker implantations (PMIs) are recommended for KSS patients with...
The most common cardiac feature of Kearns-Sayre syndrome (KSS) is atrioventricular block (AVB), and pacemaker implantations (PMIs) are recommended for KSS patients with advanced AVB. However, some KSS patients develop fatal arrhythmias such as polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (PMVT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) and die suddenly even after PMIs. We report a patient with KSS who developed PMVT, VF, and QT prolongation, and was treated with mexiletine and successfully managed with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We reviewed the literature on arrhythmias in KSS published from 1975 to 2018. There were 112 patients with arrhythmia-associated KSS, 10 died, and 6 died suddenly after the PMI. The first manifestation of an arrhythmia was bundle branch block, then it progressed to AVB, and developed into complete AVB (CAVB) in about half the KSS patients. Ventricular arrhythmias were documented in 12 patients, and 8 were implanted with defibrillators afterwards. One patient after the implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) was treated for VF by an appropriate shock. This fact suggested that VF occurred even under proper pacing, and that defibrillators were effective. Pacemakers may suppress early afterdepolarizations (EADs) associated with a QT prolongation due to bradycardia. Similarly, mexiletine may suppress EADs by blocking the late sodium and Ca currents. Ventricular arrhythmias observed under suppression of EADs may be caused by delayed afterdepolarization (DADs) via an increasing intracellular Ca concentration due to mitochondrial dysfunction. Therefore, a PMI alone may not be sufficient to prevent sudden death, and an ICD implantation should be necessary.
Topics: Adolescent; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Kearns-Sayre Syndrome; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 30642644
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.12.064