Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between mexiletine and propafenone in human beings*1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mexiletine and propafenone are often used concomitantly and are metabolized by the same cytochrome P450 isozymes, namely CYP2D6, CYP1A2, and probably CYP3A4. Our objective was to study the potential pharmacokinetic and electrophysiological interactions between mexiletine and propafenone. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers, 8 extensive metabolizers and 7 poor metabolizers of CYP2D6, received oral doses of mexiletine 100 mg two times daily from day 1 to day 8 and oral doses of propafenone 150 mg two times daily from day 5 to day 12. Interdose studies were performed at steady-state on mexiletine alone (day 4), mexiletine plus propafenone (day 8), and propafenone alone (day 12). RESULTS: In subjects in the extensive metabolizer group, coadministration of propafenone decreased oral clearances of R-(-)-mexiletine (from 41+/-11 L/h to 28+/-7 L/h) and S-(+)-mexiletine (from 43+/-15 L/h to 29+/-11 L/h) to an extent such that these values were no longer different between the extensive and the poor metabolizer groups. Propafenone coadministration also decreased partial metabolic clearances of mexiletine to hydroxymethylmexiletine, p-hydroxymexiletine, and m-hydroxymexiletine in extensive metabolizers by 71%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. In contrast, propafenone did not alter the kinetics of mexiletine enantiomers in subjects in the poor metabolizer group except for a slight decrease in the formation of hydroxymethylmexiletine. Pharmacokinetic parameters of propafenone were not changed during concomitant administration of mexiletine in subjects of either phenotype. Finally, electrocardiographic parameters (QRS duration, QTc, RR, and PR intervals) were not modified during the combined administration of the drugs. CONCLUSION: Propafenone is a potent CYP2D6 inhibitor that may cause an increase in plasma concentrations of coadministered CYP2D6 substrates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".