Distinct Effects of Ibrutinib and Acalabrutinib on Mouse Atrial and Sinoatrial Node Electrophysiology and Arrhythmogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib are Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of B‐cell lymphoproliferative disorders. Ibrutinib is associated with new‐onset atrial fibrillation. Cases of sinus bradycardia and sinus arrest have also been reported following ibrutinib treatment. Conversely, acalabrutinib is less arrhythmogenic. The basis for these different effects is unclear. Methods and Results The effects of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib on atrial electrophysiology were investigated in anesthetized mice using intracardiac electrophysiology, in isolated atrial preparations using high‐resolution optical mapping, and in isolated atrial and sinoatrial node (SAN) myocytes using patch‐clamping. Acute delivery of acalabrutinib did not affect atrial fibrillation susceptibility or other measures of atrial electrophysiology in mice in vivo. Optical mapping demonstrates that ibrutinib dose‐dependently impaired atrial and SAN conduction and slowed beating rate. Acalabrutinib had no effect on atrial and SAN conduction or beating rate. In isolated atrial myocytes, ibrutinib reduced action potential upstroke velocity and Na + current. In contrast, acalabrutinib had no effects on atrial myocyte upstroke velocity or Na + current. Both drugs increased action potential duration, but these effects were smaller for acalabrutinib compared with ibrutinib and occurred by different mechanisms. In SAN myocytes, ibrutinib impaired spontaneous action potential firing by inhibiting the delayed rectifier K + current, while acalabrutinib had no effects on SAN myocyte action potential firing. Conclusions Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib have distinct effects on atrial electrophysiology and ion channel function that provide insight into the basis for increased atrial fibrillation susceptibility and SAN dysfunction with ibrutinib, but not with acalabrutinib.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".