The Annals New | Pharmaco Epidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 550-554.
© 1993 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mohiuddin, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sketch MH, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mohiuddin, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sketch MH, S.


Research Articles

Loss of efficacy during long-term cifenline therapy: development of antiarrhythmic resistance?

SM Mohiuddin, TT Hee, CB Hunter, DE Hilleman, and Sr Sketch MH

OBJECTIVE: To describe the possible development of antiarrhythmic resistance to cifenline, an investigational Class I agent. METHODS: Forty patients with chronic ventricular premature depolarizations (VPDs) underwent dose-ranging studies with cifenline, an investigational Class I antiarrhythmic agent. Patients had a minimum of 30 VPDs/h detected by ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring over a 48-hour baseline placebo lead-in period. Twenty-two patients (55 percent) who initially responded received long-term cifenline therapy. Ambulatory ECG monitoring over 24 hours was repeated during active cifenline therapy at three-month intervals and during placebo reintroduction at six-month intervals. RESULTS: After an average follow-up of 28 months, VPD frequency during cifenline therapy was similar to that during initial baseline placebo therapy in 8 of the 22 patients (36 percent) who initially responded. Placebo reintroduction following cifenline failure showed a VPD frequency similar to that with active therapy. All patients had further cifenline dosage increases without success. Plasma cifenline concentrations increased in all patients and were in the high therapeutic range. All 8 patients were switched to other Class I antiarrhythmic agents with successful VPD suppression during treatment with the first alternative drug. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that antiarrhythmic resistance occurred with cifenline in these patients as (1) initial efficacy was established for a minimum of two years, (2) VPD frequency was similar during cifenline therapy and placebo reintroduction, (3) cifenline therapy failure continued despite further dosage titration, and (4) alternative Class I antiarrhythmic therapy was successful in all patients. Repeat intermittent ambulatory ECG monitoring is necessary not only to assess the continued need for antiarrhythmic drug therapy, but also to establish continued long-term efficacy.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1993 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.