Investigation of cardiac arrhythmia events in patients treated with lamotrigine: FDA adverse event reporing system analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In October 2020 and March 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified lamotrigine as a class IB antiarrhythmic, announcing an increased risk of heart rhythm problems. We sought to investigate the nature of the arrhythmia signal with lamotrigine use compared to anticonvulsants with sodium-blocking and non-sodium-blocking mechanisms. METHODS: This retrospective pharmacovigilance case-non-case study used disproportionality analysis to detect signals of adverse reaction of interest reported with lamotrigine to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between 1998 and 2022. Our regression model adjusted for interacting concomitant medications. Sensitivity analyses included stratifying by indication and publication date. RESULTS: Overall, 2917 cases of heart rhythm problems with anticonvulsants were analyzed (1557 female [58.4%] and 1109 male [41.6%]). The mean age ± standard deviation (SD) was 43 ± 19, the groups did not differ significantly by age. Forty cases (7.91%) in the epileptic indication included more than one concomitant medication that influences cardiac conduction. The disproportionality signal for cardiac arrest did not differ for lamotrigine compared with other anticonvulsants, adjusted reporting odds ratio (adj.ROR, .88; 95% CI, .59-1.29) in the epileptic indication. A significantly lower reporting risk for bradyarrhythmia was identified with lamotrigine users in the epileptic population, (adj.ROR, .45; 95% confidence interval [CI], .29-.68). The psychiatric indication demonstrated a sixfold reporting risk for cardiac arrest compared to the epileptic indication. Concomitant medications that affect cardiac conduction, as well as reports on overdose and suicide attempts, were significant variables in psychiatric patients (ROR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.21-2.71) and (ROR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34-1.55), respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results do not support a significant difference in the reporting risk for cardiac arrest, syncope, tachyarrhythmia, and bradyarrhythmia with lamotrigine in the epileptic indication. Signals of cardiac arrest in lamotrigine could be explained by confounding factors in the psychiatric indication, such as greater concomitant use of medications with cardiac adverse events, and greater reports on overdose and suicide attempts. We recommend that patients with polypharmacy undergo clinical and electrocardiographic monitoring. We illustrate the importance of examining signals for separate indications.

Evaluation of Near Infrared Dyes as Markers of P-Glycoprotein Activity in Tumors.

Aim: The multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1; P-glycoprotein) has been associated with efflux of chemotherapeutic agents from tumor cells and with poor patient prognosis. This study evaluated the feasibility of non-invasive, non-radioactive near infrared (NIR) imaging methodology for detection of MDR1 functional activity in tumors. Methods: Initial accumulation assays were conducted in MDR1-overexpressing MDCK cells (MDCK-MDR1) and control MDCK cells (MDCK-CT) using the NIR dyes indocyanine green (ICG), IR-783, IR-775, rhodamine 800, XenoLight DiR, and Genhance 750, at 0.4 µM-100 µM. ICG and IR-783 were also evaluated in HT-29 cells in which MDR1 overexpression was induced by colchicine (HT-29-MDR1) and their controls (HT-29-CT). In vivo optical imaging studies were conducted using immunodeficient mice bearing HT-29-CT and HT-29-MDR1 xenografts. Results: ICG's emission intensity was 2.0- and 2.2-fold higher in control versus MDR1-overexpressing cells, in MDCK and HT-29 cell lines, respectively. The respective IR-783 control:MDR1 ratio was 1.4 in both MDCK and HT-29 cells. Optical imaging of mice bearing HT-29-CT and HT-29-MDR1 xenografts revealed a statistically non-significant, 1.7-fold difference (p > 0.05) in ICG emission intensity between control and MDR1 tumors. No such differences were observed with IR-783. Conclusion: ICG and IR-783 appear to be weak MDR1 substrates. In vivo, low sensitivity and high between-subject variability impair the ability to use the currently studied probes as markers of tumor MDR1 activity. The results suggest that, for future use of this technology, additional NIR probes should be screened as MDR1 substrates.