4.4 Article

Drug-Induced QTC Prolongation Dangerously Underestimates Proarrhythmic Potential: Lessons From Terfenadine

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 589-597

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3182135e91

关键词

terfenadine; Torsade de Pointes; ventricular tachycardia; ventricular fibrillation

资金

  1. HPC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Terfenadine's proarrhythmia prompted market with-drawal; therapeutic antihistaminic concentration is less than 1 nM, whereas IC50 of I-Kr and I-Na exceed 200 nM. Methods and Results: Rabbit hearts were perfused with terfenadine (1-10,000 nM; 10-450 minutes). A dosage of 1 nM tended to shorten action potential duration (APD(60)) (-30 +/- 30.5 ms; n = 6); 10 nM (450 minutes) significantly prolonged APD(60) (46 +/- 11 ms; n = 6), but after 1 hour washout, APD(60) further prolonged. Above 30 nM, APD(60) shortening was followed by prolongation; net effect depended on exposure time (n = 33). In the mu M range, cardiac wavelength (lambda) shortened (APD(60) shortened, conduction slowed; P < 0.05). Terfenadine induced triangulation, reverse use dependence, instability and dispersion of repolarization (TRIaD) at 1 to 1000 nM, increasing with concentration (450 minutes: 1 nM yielded 50% of hearts, 10 nM 100%) and exposure (100 nM: 10 minutes yielded 16%, 30 minutes 33%, 150 minutes 66%, 450 minutes 100%). TRIaD with APD prolongation preceded two Torsade de Pointes, with shortening seven ventricular tachycardia and five ventricular fibrillation. Terfenadine causes normally little QT(c) prolongation in patients and Food and Drug Administration records suggest that incidence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation exceeds Torsade de Pointes. Conclusion: For terfenadine, TRIaD predicts drug-induced proarrhythmia: with lambda prolongation, Torsade de Pointes is preferred, otherwise ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation. APD/QT(c) alone is clearly inadequate for proarrhythmia evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据