Search

In France, mexiletine - a class I antiarrhythmic drug - can be prescribed for the symptomatic treatment of myotonia of the skeletal muscles in adult patients with myotonic dystrophy under a compassionate use programme. Mexiletine is used according to its summary of product characteristics, which describes its use for myotonia treatment in adult patients with non-dystrophic myotonia, a different neuromuscular condition without cardiac involvement. A cardiac assessment is required prior to initiation and throughout treatment due to potential proarrhythmic effects. The presence of conduction system disease, the most common cardiac manifestation of myotonic dystrophy, mandates repeated cardiac evaluations in patients with this condition, and becomes even more important when they are given mexiletine. A group of experts, including three neurologists and five cardiologists from French neuromuscular reference centres, were involved in a task force to develop a treatment algorithm to guide mexiletine use in myotonic dystrophy. The recommendations are based on data from a literature review of the safety of mexiletine-treated patients with myotonic dystrophy, the compassionate use protocol for mexiletine and the personal clinical experience of the experts. The main conclusion of the expert group is that, although existing safety data in mexiletine-treated patients with myotonic dystrophy are reassuring, cardiac assessments should be reinforced in such patients compared with mexiletine-treated patients with non-dystrophic myotonia. This expert opinion to guide mexiletine treatment in patients with myotonic dystrophy should help to reduce the risk of severe adverse events and facilitate interactions between specialists involved in the routine care of patients with myotonic dystrophy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: While mexiletine has been used for over 40 years for prevention of (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and for myotonia, patient access has recently been critically endangered. Here we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of patients with (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias, emphasizing the absolute necessity of its accessibility., Methods and Results: Studies were included in this systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42020213434) if the efficacy or safety of mexiletine in any dose was evaluated in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias with or without comparison with alternative treatments (e.g. placebo). A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and in the clinical trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Risk of bias were assessed and tailored to the different study designs. Large heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures prompted a narrative synthesis approach. In total, 221 studies were included reporting on 8970 patients treated with mexiletine. Age ranged from 0 to 88 years. A decrease in ventricular arrhythmias of >50% was observed in 72% of the studies for pre-mature ventricular complexes, 64% for ventricular tachycardia, and 33% for ventricular fibrillation. Electrocardiographic effects of mexiletine were small; only in a subset of patients with primary arrhythmia syndromes, a relative (desired) QTc decrease was reproducibly observed. As for adverse events, gastrointestinal complaints were most frequently observed (33% of the patients)., Conclusions: In this systematic review, we present all the currently available knowledge of mexiletine in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and show that mexiletine is both effective and safe., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P.G.P. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Cardiovascular Issues (SAG-CVS) of the EMA since 2021. C.E.M.H. is involved in pre-marketing research with Sanofi, Protalix, and Idorsia, outside the submitted work. N.R., N.S., S.B., V.W., B.J., and C.E.M.H. are members of the platform ‘Medicijn voor de Maatschappij’. This is an academic initiative that aims to support sustainable access to medicines for rare diseases, including mexiletine. V.W. reports personal fees from Fair Medicine Foundation, personal fees from Patient One, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The aim of the study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness and safety of oral mexiletine administered in monotherapy or in combination with other antiarrhythmic drugs for recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, VT/VF) in adult patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 27 August 2021 for prospective and retrospective studies investigating mexiletine in the target population. The main outcome was the reduction of ICD therapy. The main safety outcome was the presence of any serious adverse events (SAEs) leading to mexiletine discontinuation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Four studies comprising 86 mexiletine recipients were included in the review. We also obtained individual data of 50 patients from two studies. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was present in 86% of patients. The quality of included studies was moderate/low. A narrative review was undertaken as studies varied widely in terms of study population and treatment. Across studies, mexiletine treatment (with or without amiodarone) seemed to consistently reduce the number of ICD therapies especially in a population where catheter ablation (CA) was unsuccessful or contraindicated. In ICM patients deemed eligible for CA, mexiletine seemed to be inferior to CA. Mexiletine was discontinued in 14% of cases, mainly for gastrointestinal or neurological SAE. Mexiletine seems to be an option for the long-term treatment of recurrent VT/VF in adult patients with SHD, especially ICM, and ICD in whom CA was unsuccessful or not suitable., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Prolongation of the cardiac action potential (AP) and early after depolarizations (EADs) are electrical anomalies of cardiomyocytes that can lead to lethal arrhythmias and are potential liabilities for existing drugs and drug candidates in development. For example, long QT syndrome-3 (LQTS3) is caused by mutations in the Na v 1.5 sodium channel that debilitate channel inactivation and cause arrhythmias. We tested the hypothesis that a useful drug (i.e., mexiletine) with potential liabilities (i.e., potassium channel inhibition and adverse reactions) could be re-engineered by dynamic medicinal chemistry to afford a new drug candidate with greater efficacy and less toxicity. Human cardiomyocytes were generated from LQTS3 patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (hIPSCs) and normal hIPSCs to determine beneficial (on-target) and detrimental effects (off-target) of mexiletine and synthetic analogs, respectively. The approach combined "drug discovery" and "hit to lead" refinement and showed that iterations of medicinal chemistry and physiological testing afforded optimized compound 22. Compared to mexiletine, compound 22 showed a 1.85-fold greater AUC and no detectable CNS toxicity at 100 mg/kg. In vitro hepatic metabolism studies showed that 22 was metabolized via cytochrome P-450, as previously shown, and by the flavin-containing monooxygenase (FMO). Deuterated-22 showed decreased metabolism and showed acceptable cardiovascular and physicochemical properties., (© 2021 The Authors. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The 'translational therapeutic index' (TTI) is a drug's ratio of nonclinical threshold dose (or concentration) for significant benefit versus threshold for adversity. In early nonclinical research, discovery and safety studies are normally undertaken separately. Our aim was to evaluate a novel integrated approach for generating a TTI for drugs intended for prevention of ischaemia-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). We templated the current best available class 1b antiarrhythmic, mexiletine, using the rat Langendorff preparation. Mexiletine's beneficial effects on the incidence of VF caused by 120 min regional ischaemia were contrasted with its concurrent adverse effects (on several variables) in the same hearts, to generate a TTI. Mexiletine 0.1 and 0.5 µM had no adverse effects, but did not reduce VF incidence. Mexiletine 1 µM reduced VF incidence to 0% but had adverse effects on atrioventricular conduction and ventricular repolarization. Separate studies undertaken using an intraventricular balloon revealed no detrimental effects of mexiletine (1 and 5 µM) on mechanical function, or any benefit against reperfusion-related dysfunction. Mexiletine's TTI was found to be less than two, which accords with its clinical therapeutic index. Although non-cardiac adversity, identifiable from additional in vivo studies, may reduce the TTI further, it cannot increase it. Our experimental approach represents a useful early-stage integrated risk/benefit method that, when TTI is found to be low, would eliminate unsuitable class 1b drugs prior to next stage in vivo work, with mexiletine's TTI defining the gold standard that would need to be bettered.

Importance: In rare diseases it is difficult to achieve high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy because of small cohorts and clinical heterogeneity. With emerging treatments for rare diseases, innovative trial designs are needed., Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of mexiletine in nondystrophic myotonia using an aggregated N-of-1 trials design and compare results between this innovative design and a previously conducted RCT., Design, Setting, and Participants: A series of aggregated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1-trials, performed in a single academic referral center. Thirty Dutch adult patients with genetically confirmed nondystrophic myotonia (38 patients screened) were enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015. Follow-up was completed in September 2016., Interventions: Mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs placebo during multiple treatment periods of 4 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness on a scale of 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating more impairment. A Bayesian hierarchical model aggregated individual N-of-1 trial data to determine the posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful effect of a greater than 0.75-point difference., Results: Among 30 enrolled patients (mean age, 43.4 [SD, 15.24] years; 22% men; 19 CLCN1 and 11 SCN4A genotype), 27 completed the study and 3 dropped out (1 because of a serious adverse event). In 24 of the 27 completers, a clinically meaningful treatment effect was found. In the Bayesian hierarchical model, mexiletine resulted in a 100% posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful reduction in self-reported muscle stiffness for the nondystrophic myotonia group overall and the CLCN1 genotype subgroup and 93% posterior probability for the SCN4A genotype subgroup. In the total nondystrophic myotonia group, the median muscle stiffness score was 6.08 (interquartile range, 4.71-6.80) at baseline and was 2.50 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.77-3.24) during the mexiletine period and 5.56 (95% CrI, 4.73-6.39) during the placebo period; difference in symptom score reduction, 3.06 (95% CrI, 1.96-4.15; n = 27) favoring mexiletine. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal discomfort (21 mexiletine [70%], 1 placebo [3%]). One serious adverse event occurred (1 mexiletine [3%]; allergic skin reaction). Using frequentist reanalysis, mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in a mean reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.46-3.78), consistent with the previous RCT treatment effect of 2.69 (95% CI, 2.12-3.26)., Conclusions and Relevance: In a series of N-of-1 trials of mexiletine vs placebo in patients with nondystrophic myotonia, there was a reduction in mean daily-reported muscle stiffness that was consistent with the treatment effect in a previous randomized clinical trial. These findings support the efficacy of mexiletine for treatment of nondystrophic myotonia as well as the feasibility of N-of-1 trials for assessing interventions in some chronic rare diseases., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02045667.

Introduction: Spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) is a slowly progressive neuromuscular disease. Cold exposure often leads to worsening of motor symptoms including paresis. Although mexiletine hydrochloride administration has been shown to be effective for the treatment of several muscular diseases, its effectiveness in SBMA has not been validated to date. The trial will test it as a symptomatic drug for cold paresis. This study is the first trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine hydrochloride administration in patients with SBMA., Methods and Analysis: A placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, crossover clinical trial will be conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of mexiletine hydrochloride in patients with SBMA. The eligible patients will be assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to two groups in a double-blind manner. Participants will take mexiletine hydrochloride (300 mg/day) or a placebo orally three times a day for 4 weeks (period 1). After a 1-week washout period, participants will take the other drug for 4 weeks (period 2). The primary endpoint is the difference in distal latencies between room temperature and cold exposure conditions., Ethics and Dissemination: This study will be conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects by the Japanese government and has been approved by the ethics committee of Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, as a central institutional review board, and by each facility. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: UMIN000026150; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Intravenous lidocaine has multiple applications in the management of acute and chronic pain. Mexiletine, an oral lidocaine analogue, has been used in a number of chronic pain conditions although its use is not well characterized., Objectives: To report our experience using mexiletine in a chronic pain population, specifically looking at tolerability, side effects, and EKG changes., Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study., Setting: Three chronic pain clinics within a hospital system in Detroit, MI., Methods: All patients who had a mexiletine prescription between August 2015 and August 2016 were queried via the electronic medical record. Each chart was examined for demographics, QTc changes on EKG, length of use, and reasons for stoppage., Results: There were 74 total patients identified in the chronic pain management clinics as receiving at least 1 mexiletine prescription over the 1-year time period. Twice as many women as men received mexiletine prescriptions. Neuropathic pain was the most common primary diagnosis (64%) which included diabetic neuropathy, radiculopathy, and others. Fibromyalgia was the next most common primary diagnosis (28%). A QTc change on the EKG showed a mean decrease of 0.1 ms and median increase of 1.5 ms. At 6 months (180 days), approximately 30% of the patients remained on mexiletine therapy, and 28% remained on the therapy at 1 year (360 days). Median duration of use was 60 days and the mean was 288 days. Neurologic and gastrointestinal side effects were the most commons reason for stoppage. All side effects were mild and resolved with stoppage. After side effects, lack of response, or loss of efficacy, were the next most common reasons for stoppage., Limitations: Pain relief and outcomes were not specifically examined due to confounding factors including interventional treatments and multiple treatment modalities. This was a retrospective, cohort study limited to our specific clinic population with a relatively high loss to follow-up rate., Conclusion: Mexiletine is rarely a first line option for chronic pain management and is often used when multiple other modalities have failed. By reporting our experience, we hope other clinicians may have more familiarity with the drug's use in a chronic pain practice. It appears reasonably tolerable, may not require frequent EKG monitoring, and can be an appropriate adjunct in the chronic pain population. More research is needed regarding efficacy and dose titration for mexiletine in chronic pain., Key Words: Chronic pain, mexiletine, IV lidocaine, pain, neuropathic pain, neuropathy, fibromyalgia, QTc, tolerability.

Although various causes are reported for sensory ganglionopathy, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) has not been considered a possibility. We describe a 70-year-old woman, previously administered mexiletine hydrochloride for 4 weeks, who presented with systemic oedematous erythema and subacute progressive gait disturbance. Evaluation revealed lymphadenopathy with atypical lymphocytosis and eosinophilia, and human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) reactivation. Neurological examination indicated the almost complete loss of joint positional sense in her extremities; her tendon reflex was lost and there was marked pseudoathetosis and Romberg's sign. Skin biopsy revealed spongiosis with lymphocyte infiltration. Based on these findings, we diagnosed acute sensory ganglionopathy secondary to DIHS. Although her DIHS-induced symptoms subsided after methylprednisolone treatment, partial remission of sensory ganglionopathy occurred, even after subsequent intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. This case suggests the possibility that reactivation of HHV-6 may be involved in the pathomechanism of sensory ganglionopathy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HS received a research grant from the National Hospital Organization, Tokyo, Japan., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In patients with ischemic heart disease and ventricular tachycardia (VT) refractory to high dose amiodarone, the two most common therapeutic options are adjunctive mexiletine therapy or catheter ablation. There are little existing data on the efficacy of these strategies. We examined the relative efficacy of adjunctive mexiletine and catheter ablation among patients enrolled in the VANISH trial., Methods: All subjects enrolled in the VANISH trial who had VT refractory to high dose (≥ 300 mg daily) amiodarone at baseline were included. Per protocol, subjects randomized to escalated drug therapy received adjunctive mexiletine., Results: Nineteen of the 259 patients were receiving high-dose amiodarone at baseline and 11 were randomized to escalated therapy with mexiletine and 8 to ablation. The adjunctive mexiletine group had a higher rate of the primary composite outcome (death, VT storm, or appropriate shock) in comparison to catheter ablation (HR 6.87 [2.08-22.8]). Over 90% of the patients in the adjunctive mexiletine/group experienced a primary endpoint during a median 9.2 months' follow-up. There was no difference in the rate of adverse events between the two groups., Conclusions: Mexiletine has limited efficacy in the treatment of recurrent VT despite high-dose amiodarone therapy, in patients with ischemic heart disease. Catheter ablation is a superior strategy in this population., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: We performed a clinical, functional, and pharmacologic characterization of the novel p.P1158L Nav1.4 mutation identified in a young girl presenting a severe myotonic phenotype., Methods: Wild-type hNav1.4 channel and P1158L mutant were expressed in tsA201 cells for functional and pharmacologic studies using patch-clamp., Results: The patient shows pronounced myotonia, slowness of movements, and generalized muscle hypertrophy. Because of general discomfort with mexiletine, she was given flecainide with satisfactory response. In vitro, mutant channels show a slower current decay and a rightward shift of the voltage dependence of fast inactivation. The voltage dependence of activation and slow inactivation were not altered. Mutant channels were less sensitive to mexiletine, whereas sensitivity to flecainide was not altered. The reduced inhibition of mutant channels by mexiletine was also observed using clinically relevant drug concentrations in a myotonic-like condition., Conclusions: Clinical phenotype and functional alterations of P1158L support the diagnosis of myotonia permanens. Impairment of fast inactivation is consistent with the possible role of the channel domain III S4-S5 loop in the inactivation gate docking site. The reduced sensitivity of P1158L to mexiletine may have contributed to the unsatisfactory response of the patient. The success of flecainide therapy underscores the usefulness of in vitro functional studies to help in the choice of the best drug for each individual., (© 2016 American Academy of Neurology.)

Using the mouse maximal electroshock test, the reference model of tonic-clonic seizures, the aim of the present study was to determine the type of interaction between mexiletine (a class IB antiarrhythmic drug) and classical antiepileptics: valproate, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and phenobarbital. Isobolographic analysis of obtained data indicated antagonistic interactions between mexiletine and valproate (for fixed ratio combinations of 1:1 and 3:1). Additivity was observed between mexiletine and valproate applied in proportion of 1:3 as well as between mexiletine and remaining antiepileptics for the fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1. Neither motor performance nor long-term memory were impaired by mexiletine or antiepileptic drugs regardless of whether they were administered singly or in combination. Mexiletine did not significantly affected brain concentrations of carbamazepine, phenobarbital or phenytoin. In contrast, the antiarrhythmic drug decreased by 23 % the brain level of valproate. This could be, at least partially, the reason of antagonistic interaction between the two drugs. In conclusion, the observed additivity suggests that mexiletine can be safely applied in epileptic patients treated with carbamazepine, phenytoin or phenobarbital. Because of undesirable pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic interactions with valproate, mexiletine should not be used in such combinations.

Objective: To determine the safety and tolerability of mexiletine in a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial of sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (SALS)., Methods: Sixty participants with SALS from 10 centers were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, mexiletine 300 mg/d, or mexiletine 900 mg/d and followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetic study from plasma and CSF, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score, slow vital capacity (SVC), and muscle cramp frequency and severity., Results: The only serious adverse event among active arm participants was one episode of imbalance. Thirty-two percent of participants receiving 900 mg of mexiletine discontinued study drug vs 5% on placebo (p = 0.026). Pharmacokinetic study demonstrated a peak plasma concentration 2 hours postdose and strong correlation between plasma and CSF (p < 0.001). Rates of decline of ALSFRS-R and SVC did not differ from placebo. Analysis of all randomized patients demonstrated significant reductions of muscle cramp frequency (300 mg: rate = 31% of placebo, p = 0.047; 900 mg: 16% of placebo, p = 0.002) and cramp intensity (300 mg: mean = 45% of placebo, p = 0.08; 900 mg: 25% of placebo, p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Mexiletine was safe at both doses and well-tolerated at 300 mg/d but adverse effects at 900 mg/d led to a high rate of discontinuation. Mexiletine treatment resulted in large dose-dependent reductions in muscle cramp frequency and severity. No effect on rate of progression was detected, but clinically important differences could not be excluded in this small and short-duration study., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that mexiletine is safe when given daily to patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at 300 and 900 mg and well-tolerated at the lower dose., (© 2016 American Academy of Neurology.)

The most effective pharmacological management of frequent ventricular tachyarrhythmia events in patients with an implantable defibrillator who failed or did not tolerate amiodarone is unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of mexiletine in such patients. The patients served as self-controls. The number of treated ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes (primary outcome); mortality, shocks from the defibrillator, and electrical storm events (secondary outcomes) during mexiletine therapy was compared with a matched duration of observation just before initiating mexiletine in 29 patients who were treated with a median dose of 300 mg/d of mexiletine and were followed for a median of 12 months. None of the patients had to stop mexiletine due to side effect. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation episodes (median 2 vs. 12 events, P = 0.001) and shocks (median 0 vs. 2 events, P = 0.003) in the first 3 months of treatment, but long-term efficacy was only observed among patients who continued amiodarone therapy. In conclusion, mexiletine, when added to amiodarone in case of amiodarone inefficacy, reduces ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation events and appropriate therapies in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A randomized trial should validate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine as an adjunctive therapy to amiodarone.

Context: Nondystrophic myotonias (NDMs) are rare diseases caused by mutations in skeletal muscle ion channels. Patients experience delayed muscle relaxation causing functionally limiting stiffness and pain. Mexiletine-induced sodium channel blockade reduced myotonia in small studies; however, as is common in rare diseases, larger studies of safety and efficacy have not previously been considered feasible., Objective: To determine the effects of mexiletine for symptoms and signs of myotonia in patients with NDMs., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-period crossover study at 7 neuromuscular referral centers in 4 countries of 59 patients with NDMs conducted between December 23, 2008, and March 30, 2011, as part of the National Institutes of Health-funded Rare Disease Clinical Research Network., Intervention: Oral 200-mg mexiletine or placebo capsules 3 times daily for 4 weeks, followed by the opposite intervention for 4 weeks, with 1-week washout in between., Main Outcome Measures: Patient-reported severity score of stiffness recorded on an interactive voice response (IVR) diary (scale of 1 = minimal to 9 = worst ever experienced). Secondary end points included IVR-reported changes in pain, weakness, and tiredness; clinical myotonia assessment; quantitative measure of handgrip myotonia; and Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life summary quality of life score (INQOL-QOL, percentage of maximal detrimental impact)., Results: Mexiletine significantly improved patient-reported severity score stiffness on the IVR diary. Because of a statistically significant interaction between treatment and period for this outcome, primary end point is presented by period (period 1 means were 2.53 for mexiletine and 4.21 for placebo; difference, -1.68; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.706; P < .001; period 2 means were 1.60 for mexiletine and 5.27 for placebo; difference, -3.68; 95% CI, -3.85 to -0.139; P = .04). Mexiletine improved the INQOL-QOL score (mexiletine, 14.0 vs placebo, 16.7; difference, -2.69; 95% CI, -4.07 to -1.30; P < .001) and decreased handgrip myotonia on clinical examination (mexiletine, 0.164 seconds vs placebo, 0.494 seconds; difference, -0.330; 95% CI, -0.633 to -0.142; P < .001). The most common adverse effect was gastrointestinal (9 mexiletine and 1 placebo). Two participants experienced transient cardiac effects that did not require stopping the study (1 in each group). One serious adverse event was determined to be not study related., Conclusion: In this preliminary study of patients with NDMs, the use of mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in improved patient-reported stiffness over 4 weeks of treatment, despite some concern about the maintenance of blinding., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00832000.

Erythromelalgia is a rare disorder characterized by recurrent pain attacks, swelling and redness in the distal extremities. The primary forms of the disorder are caused by mutations in voltage-gated sodium channels. Treatment is difficult and controlled therapeutic studies offer little to no guidance. We report on a 12-year-old boy and his first occurrence of primary erythromelalgia. Genetic findings for mutations in the SCN9A gene, which encodes for the α-subunit of sodium channel NaV1.7, were negative. Although initial treatment with sodium nitroprusside was ineffective, subsequent medication with lidocaine and mexiletine, in combination with gabapentin, was successful. Despite negative findings for mutations in the sodium channels, the use of sodium channel blockers should be considered in these patients., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Erythromelalgia is a rare condition characterized by burning pain, erythema, swelling, and increased temperature usually in the extremities. We present an unusual presentation of erythromelalgia of the ears in a patient who has been refractory to multiple therapies and in whom relief of symptoms was achieved with the use of mexiletine. A review of clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and therapeutic options are presented., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Sodium channel blockers are used as gene-specific treatments in long-QT syndrome type 3, which is caused by mutations in the sodium channel gene (SCN5A). Response to treatment is influenced by biophysical properties of mutations., Objective: We sought to investigate the unexpected deleterious effect of mexiletine in a mutation combining gain-of- function and trafficking abnormalities., Methods and Results: A long-QT syndrome type 3 child experienced paradoxical QT prolongation and worsening of arrhythmias after mexiletine treatment. The SCN5A mutation F1473S expressed in HEK293 cells presented a right-ward shift of steady-state inactivation, enlarged window current, and huge sustained sodium current. Unexpectedly, it also reduced the peak sodium current by 80%. Immunostaining showed that mutant Nav1.5 is retained in the cytoplasm. Incubation with 10 micromol/L mexiletine rescued the trafficking defect of F1473S, causing a significant increase in peak current, whereas sustained current was unchanged. Using a Markovian model of the Na channel and a model of human ventricular action potential, we showed that simulated exposure of F1473S to mexiletine paradoxically increased action potential duration, mimicking QT prolongation seen in the index patient on mexiletine treatment., Conclusions: Sodium channel blockers are largely used to shorten QT intervals in carriers of SCN5A mutations. We provided evidence that these agents may facilitate trafficking of mutant proteins, thus exacerbating QT prolongation. These data suggest that caution should be used when recommending this class of drugs to carriers of mutations with undefined electrophysiological properties.

An 82-yr-old man was presented with fever and cough accompanied by generalized erythematous rash. He had taken mexiletine for 5 months, as he had been diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmia. Laboratory studies showed peripheral blood eosinophilia and elevated liver transaminase levels. Chest radiographs showed multiple nodular consolidations in both lungs. Biopsies of the lung and skin lesions revealed eosinophilic infiltration. After a thorough review of his medication history, mexiletine was suspected as the etiologic agent. After discontinuing the mexiletine and starting oral prednisolone, the patient improved, and the skin and lung lesions disappeared. Subsequently, mexiletine was confirmed as the causative agent based on a positive patch test. Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome is a severe adverse reaction to drugs and results from treatment with anticonvulsants, allopurinol, sulfonamides, and many other drugs. Several cases of mexiletine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome have been reported in older Japanese males with manifestation of fever, rash, peripheral blood eosinophilia, liver dysfunction without other organ involvement. Here, we report a case of mexiletine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome which presented as eosinophilic pneumonia in a Korean male.

Objective: To describe the use of mexiletine in the treatment of chronic daily headache in a refractory headache population., Background: Intravenous lidocaine is a novel treatment for chronic daily headache with medication overuse and SUNCT syndrome. Mexiletine is a similar but orally active anti-arrhythmic that has been demonstrated to be an effective analgesic in various types of neuropathic pain. We looked at mexiletine as a preventative treatment for headache in refractory patients., Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients with an order for mexiletine. For each patient, we determined diagnosis, presence of medication overuse on initial evaluation, pain scores, and if the patient received intravenous lidocaine before starting the medication. We then contacted patients by phone to confirm their dose, to review side effects and current pain scores, and to obtain a global impression of effectiveness., Results: We identified 9 patients with a chronic daily headache, including chronic migraine or new daily persistent headache, with significant clinical improvement while using mexiletine as a headache preventative. Each patient had failed to respond to multiple preventative and acute treatments. Seven of the 9 rated mexiletine "much more effective" and 2 "more effective" than previous preventative headache medications. The daily dose ranged from 600 mg/day to 1500 mg/day. Side effects were common and occurred in 7 patients. The majority of patients with an order for mexiletine did not respond to treatment or had intolerable side effects., Discussion: The preliminary study suggests mexiletine is a useful preventative treatment for some patients with chronic daily headache, including refractory patients with medication overuse or those who have failed multiple preventatives in the past.

Background: Stump and phantom pains are debilitating sequelae of amputations that are often resistant to treatment. The efficacy of pharmacologic therapies, including opioids and sodium channel blockers, for postamputation pain is uncertain., Methods: The authors conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in adult patients with postamputation pain of 6 months or longer and greater than 3 on a 0-10 numeric pain rating scale. Each of the three treatment periods (morphine, mexiletine, or placebo) included a 1-week drug-free interval followed by 4-week titration, 2-week maintenance, and 2-week drug-taper phases. The primary outcome measure was change in average pain intensity from the drug-free baseline to the last week of maintenance., Results: Sixty amputees were enrolled; data were analyzed from 56 subjects for one drug period, 45 subjects for two drug periods, and 35 subjects who completed all three drug periods. The mean morphine and mexiletine dosages were 112 and 933 mg, respectively. Morphine treatment provided lower pain scores compared with placebo and mexiletine (P = 0.0003). The mean percent pain relief during treatment with placebo, mexiletine, and morphine was 19, 30, and 53%, respectively (P < 0.0001, morphine vs. placebo and mexiletine). The numbers needed to treat to obtain 50% and 33% decreases in pain intensity with morphine were 5.6 and 4.5, respectively. Treatment with morphine was associated with a higher rate of side effects., Conclusions: Therapy with morphine, but not mexiletine, resulted in a decrease in intensity of postamputation pain but was associated with a higher rate of side effects and no improvement in self-reported levels of overall functional activity and pain-related interference in daily activities.

It has been suggested that reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) infection may be involved in the pathogenesis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. We report a 45-year-old Japanese man who developed a generalized papuloerythematous rash, fever, hepatitis, lymphadenopathy and lymphocytosis with an increased number of atypical lymphocytes. He was diagnosed with DIHS due to mexiletine hydrochloride based on laboratory data, results of a patch test and the clinical course of his complaint, and was treated with systemic steroids. In order to determine whether HHV-6 or -7 was associated with the patient's disease, serological assays and PCR were carried out. Significant increases in antibody titers against HHV-6 and -7 were observed from day 12 to 24. From PCR analysis, none of the peripheral blood mononuclear cells or skin tissue samples contained HHV-6 DNA. All samples, however, were found to contain HHV-7 DNA. Reactivation of HHV-7 could be responsible for drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome., (Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

A 66-year-old man developed a fever of 38 degrees C and generalized pruritic rash about one month after mexiletine hydrochloride administration for ventricular tachycardia. The rash appeared as edematous erythema and papules with purpura on the lower extremities. Liver dysfunction, leukocytosis, and atypical lymphocytes were also present. Elevated antibody titer against human herpes virus 6 (HHV-6) was detected during the course of the disease (1:20 -> 1:640). The patient was diagnosed as having drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) due to mexiletine. Discontinuation of the mexiletine administration and systemic corticosteroid treatment led to a temporary improvement, but tapering the corticosteroid dose twice led to recrudescence. Simultaneous with the recrudescence, elevated antibody titers against HHV-6 and cytomegalovirus were detected, as well as viral DNA in the blood, suggesting that these two viruses may have been involved in the recrudescence. The patient died of myocarditis, most likely related to cytomegalovirus. Our case indicates that, in addition to HHV-6, other herpes viruses such as cytomegalovirus can be reactivated in DIHS and may modify the clinical disease activity.

Many antiarrhythmic drugs may produce a rise in defibrillation threshold. Mexiletine is a frequently used antiarrhythmic drug in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, usually thought of as producing no or minimal effects on the defibrillation threshold. The current case report presents a patient with an endocardial implantable cardioverter defibrillator being treated with mexiletine, which precluded the ability to defibrillate the patient.

A 56-year-old man developed infiltrated erythemas on the trunk, extremities, and face with marked facial edema, one month after taking mexiletine hydrochloride for his arrhythmia. A number of pustules were also noted on the surface of erythemas on his chest and face. Laboratory examination showed liver dysfunction and hypereosinophilia. The culture from pustules was sterile. Histological examination of the biopsied skin from a pustular lesion revealed a subcorneal abscess, and perivascular infiltration of lymphocytes, mononuclear cells and eosinophils in the upper dermis. The skin lesions and facial edema as well were improved within three weeks by withdrawal of mexiletine hydrochloride. Patch tests with 10% and 20% mexiletine hydrochloride in petrolatum showed positive reaction, however, pustules were not provoked on the tested site. We conclude that pustules, infiltrated erythema and facial edema were the signs of acute exanthematous pustular drug eruption induced by mexiletine hydrochloride.

Background and Objectives: Mexiletine is a sodium channel blocker that has been used for the treatment of a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. A recent double-blinded placebo-controlled study concluded that it was ineffective in the treatment of allodynia associated with neuropathic pain. However, this study failed to achieve adequate plasma levels of mexiletine. This was a study in healthy volunteers that sought to push the drug to dose-limiting side effects and then evaluate the effects on human experimental pain., Methods: Twelve healthy volunteers were studied using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. The subjects were titrated to a maximum dose of 1,350 mg/d or dose-limiting side effects, whichever occurred first. At baseline and day 10 and 17, neurosensory testing, train-of-three thermal pulses, and side-effect measurements were performed and on day 17, intradermal capsaicin was injected on the volar aspect of the forearm and the pain and secondary hyperalgesia to von Frey hair, stroking, and thermal stimuli were measured., Results: Peak plasma levels occurred on day 10 and were 0.36 +/- 0.21 microg/mL. All subjects experienced dose-limiting side effects. The mean maximum tolerable daily dose achieved was 859 mg (range, 300 to 1,350 mg). The side effects reported by the subjects included nausea, lightheadedness, muscle twitching and weakness, blurred vision, headache, tremors, difficulty concentrating, dysphoria, sedation, pruritus, and rash. These side effects occurred at an average daily dose of 993 mg (range, 600 to 1,350 mg). Compared with placebo, mexiletine had no significant effects on any of the neurosensory thresholds and pain scores after intradermal capsaicin. There was a significant reduction in the area of secondary hyperalgesia to von Frey hair stimulation only. There was a significant correlation between plasma mexiletine level and flare response., Conclusions: Mexiletine has minimal effects on human experimental pain. It is severely limited by side effects and tolerable doses seem to be void of effects on normal neurosensation and facilitated pain induced by capsaicin and thermal heat pulses.

Background and Objectives: Mexiletine is an oral sodium channel antagonist that has been reported to be effective in a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. However, recent reports question the efficacy of oral mexiletine in neuropathic pain. The objectives of this study were to examine the effect of oral mexiletine on pain, neurosensation, allodynia, and quality of life., Methods: Twenty subjects suffering from neuropathic pain with prominent allodynia were enrolled in a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients were titrated to a maximum dose of 900 mg/d or dose-limiting side effects, whichever occurred first. At baseline and on days 0, 4, 7, and 10, the following tests were performed: (1) Quality of Life Questionnaires; (2) pain scores; (3) area of allodynia; (4) side effects; (5) neurosensory testing; and (6) peak and trough plasma mexiletine levels., Results: Peak plasma levels occurred on day 10 and were 0.54 microg/mL. There was no significant effect on any quality of life measurement. There was no significant effect on any neurosensory threshold or the area of allodynia. There was a significant effect of mexiletine on stroking-induced pain. There were no significant effects on any other pain score. Side effects were negligible., Conclusions: At doses of up to 900 mg/d, mexiletine has minimal effects on pain and allodynia of neuropathic pain. However, side effects may preclude higher doses.

Mexiletine is an antiarrhythmic drug that has been reported to exert antidystonic properties. We performed an open-label study to collect further evidence of the antidystonic effect of mexiletine in spasmodic torticollis (ST) and to evaluate its possible use in generalized dystonia. We administered mexiletine to six patients with dystonia (three with generalized dystonia and three with ST) who had failed to respond to previous pharmacotherapy. The drug was started at a dose of 200 mg/d by mouth and increased up to a maximum dose of 800 mg/d. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals over a 6-week period with use of the Fahn & Marsden Dystonia Scale and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and videotaped. At the end of the trial, the videotapes were reviewed and scored by a blind observer. Patients were then followed for at least 1 year and evaluated every 3 months at the dose reached during the study period. No adverse effects were reported in five patients; in one patient, dizziness developed at the dosage of 800 mg/d, requiring a reduction of the dose. At the end of a 6-week period, a significant improvement in the rating scale for dystonia and in videotape ratings was observed after mexiletine treatment (p < 0.01). Our data indicate that mexiletine is a useful drug in dystonia treatment.

Twenty-four patients with refractory epilepsy were treated with mexiletine as an additional antiepileptic drug. As the initial responses, seizures were decreased by 50% or more in 7 (46.7%) of 15 patients with symptomatic partial epilepsy (SPE), in none of 7 with symptomatic generalized epilepsy (SGE), and in 1 of 2 with undetermined epilepsy. Seizures increased in 3 patients (20.0%) with SPE, and in 3 (42.9%) with SGE. Concerning seizure types, mexiletine had significant effects on 1 of 2 patients with simple partial seizures, on 7 of 13 with complex partial seizures, on 1 of 5 with secondarily generalized seizures, and on 1 of 8 with tonic seizures. No patients with a myoclonic seizure or atypical absence improved. Exacerbation of the seizures was observed in 2 of 13 patients with complex partial seizures, in 1 of 5 with secondarily generalized seizures, in 3 of 8 with tonic seizures, and in 2 of 3 with myoclonic seizures. Partial seizures were controlled well, whereas generalized seizures sometimes worsened. EEG improved in 3 patients with SPE; decrease of focal spikes in 2 patients and disappearance of secondary generalization in 1. Follow-up for more than 3 months showed seizures to be lessened in 2 patients. Mexiletine is useful for the treatment of refractory epilepsies, especially SPE.

Systemically administered mexiletine, an antiarrhythmic, has been shown to also possess analgesic properties in some conditions of neuropathic pain. It has been suggested that the analgesic effect of mexiletine may be derived from the action of one of its optical isomers, (+)(S)-mexiletine. In the present study, we have compared the effects of systemic (-)-(R)- and (+)-(S)-mexiletine, on chronic mechanical allodynia-like behaviour in spinally injured rats, a model of central neuropathic pain in which racemic mexiletine has been shown to be active. I.p. racemic mexiletine as well as (-)-(R)- and (+)(S)-mexiletine at 25 mg/kg all produced significant, but brief, alleviation of mechanical allodynia in a similar fashion as assessed with von-Frey hair elicited vocalization in the spinally injured rats. A slight increase in motor impairment was observed in all three groups which reached statistical significance for the racemic mexiletine and (+)-(S)-mexiletine. Our results suggest that both isomers of mexiletine contribute to the antiallodynic effect in this model of central pain., (Copyright 2000 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Although mexiletine, an antiarrhythmic with local anesthetic properties, has been reported to relieve discomfort in diabetic neuropathy, its usefulness in the treatment of HIV-related painful peripheral neuropathy (PPN) has not been determined. The tolerance and effectiveness of mexiletine in HIV-related PPN were assessed in 22 patients who were randomized to receive mexiletine (maximum dose, 600 mg/day) or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by the alternative intervention for 6 weeks after a 1-week washout period. The daily pain response was assessed using a visual analogue scale card in 19 patients who received at least 2 weeks of the drug, 16 of whom were crossed-over to receive the alternate agent. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean daily pain scores for patients receiving mexiletine versus placebo, irrespective of the order in which the agents were received. Comparing the mean individual daily pain scores for each phase of study, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving mexiletine compared with their response to placebo, 5 patients (31%) had significantly less pain while receiving placebo, and no difference was noted in 6 patients (38%). Crossover and multivariate analyses for repeated measures showed no apparent difference in the response to mexiletine versus placebo. Dose-limiting adverse events occurred in 39% of those receiving mexiletine, but only 1 patient (5%) discontinued placebo. Mexiletine was only modestly well tolerated despite its relatively brief period of administration, and no evidence was found to support its benefit in HIV-related PPN. Although a first-drug effect was not demonstrated, a powerful placebo effect was seen in some patients.

Unlabelled: Mexiletine is an orally active local anaesthetic agent which is structurally related to lidocaine (lignocaine) and has been used for alleviating neuropathic pain of various origins. Mexiletine has been evaluated in several randomised, placebo-controlled trials in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The drug decreased mean visual analogue scale (VAS) pain ratings in all studies that used this measure, although in only 2 studies was this effect significantly greater than the often substantial responses seen with placebo. The clinical significance of these decreases is not clear. Statistically significant (vs placebo) reductions in VAS pain ratings were observed in 16 patients receiving mexiletine 10 mg/kg/day for 10 weeks in 1 study and in nocturnal (but not diurnal) pain in 31 patients receiving mexiletine 675 mg/day for 3 weeks in another. Retrospective analysis of another study revealed that mexiletine recipients (225 to 675 mg/day) who described their pain as stabbing, burning or formication on the pain-rating-index-total instrument of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, experienced statistically significant reductions in VAS pain scores after 5 weeks, compared with placebo recipients. Mexiletine generally did not have a significant influence on the quality of sleep in patients with diabetic neuropathy. In Japanese patients, statistically significant reductions in subjective pain ratings were achieved with mexiletine 300 mg/day in 1 study and with 450 mg/day in a further study. In controlled trials, the frequency of adverse events in patients receiving mexiletine for painful diabetic neuropathy ranged from 13.5 to 50%. Gastrointestinal complaints, of which nausea was the most frequent, were the most common adverse events in mexiletine recipients. Central nervous system complaints were uncommon, but included: sleep disturbance, headache, shakiness, dizziness and tiredness. Serious cardiac arrhythmias have not been reported in patients receiving mexiletine for painful diabetic neuropathy; however, transient tachycardia and palpitations have been reported. There are significant differences in the metabolism of mexiletine between people who have cytochrome P450 2D6 [CYP2D6; extensive metabolisers (EMs)] and those who lack this isoenzyme [poor metabolisers (PMs)]. EMs, but not PMs, are susceptible to drug interactions between mexiletine and drugs that inhibit CYP2D6 (e.g. quinidine). Moreover, mexiletine inhibits CYP2D6-mediated metabolism of metoprolol and cytochrome P450 1A2-mediated metabolism of theophylline. Phenytoin and rifampicin (rifampin) induce the metabolism of mexiletine. Clearance of mexiletine is impaired in patients with hepatic, but not renal, dysfunction. Hence, dosage adjustments may be necessary in patients with liver disease., Conclusions: Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are the agents of choice for painful diabetic neuropathy; however, they are ineffective in approximately 50% of patients and are generally not well tolerated. Mexiletine is an alternative agent for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy in patients who have not had a satisfactory response to, or cannot tolerate, TCAs and/or other drugs.

In nine patients who had inducible monomorphic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), rapid pacing was performed in 11 episodes of morphologically distinct VT at progressively shorter cycle lengths and VT was interrupted at a critical cycle length. The VT interrupting critical cycle length was defined as the block cycle length (BCL) and the effect of Class I antiarrhythmic drugs were examined. Both the VT cycle length (VTCL) and the BCL were prolonged after administration of either drug. The overall mean ratio of the BCL to the VTCL was unchanged after procainamide administration, but increased after the use of mexiletine. The ratio, however, varied in individual VTs and the BCL after treatment with Class I antiarrhythmic drugs could not be predicted from the ratio baseline value, although the ratio was always > 60% and the hazard of VT acceleration might be avoided if the BCL is used.

A 64-year-old man developed a severe generalized pruritic morbilliform skin eruption, fever, eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and liver dysfunction 30 days after ingestion of mexiletine, a sodium channel blocker, prescribed to treat postherpetic neuralgia. Following intravenous dexamethasone, body temperature normalized the next day. However, the skin eruption did not disappear completely for 4 weeks. The patch test was positive for mexiletine. Clinical features and the result of patch test indicated that the patient developed hypersensitivity syndrome, a severe adverse cutaneous drug reaction, caused by mexiletine. We propose that mexiletine be added to the list of drugs that can cause severe adverse cutaneous drug reactions and that patients receiving mexiletine be warned to stop taking the drug immediately if a skin eruption occurs.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy., Research Design and Methods: A total of 216 insulin-treated diabetes patients with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomly allocated to three dosages of mexiletine or placebo. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/discomfort was scored each day during daytime and nighttime, and sleeping disturbances were also recorded by the patients. Plasma levels of mexiletine and 24-h electrocardiogram (ECG) mapping were assessed before and during the 3-week study period., Results: A significant reduction in sleep disturbances and pain during nighttime was observed in the group of patients taking the highest dosages (675 mg/day) of mexiletine compared with the other groups. No significant correlation was found between plasma concentration of mexiletine and the therapeutic effect or adverse events. No serious adverse events were seen. The 24-h ECG mapping did not disclose onset of significant arrhythmias in any patient., Conclusions: Mexiletine in a dosage of 675 mg daily can reduce pain caused by diabetic neuropathy, and the effect of this drug appears to have a rapid onset.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mexiletine in the symptomatic treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN)., Methods: In this prospective, double-blind study, 29 patients were randomized to receive mexiletine 600 mg/d or matching placebo for 3 weeks. A four-item symptom score (FIS), which rated pain, dysesthesias, paresthesias, and nightly exacerbations of symptoms, and a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), which rated pain intensity, were completed by patients before and after treatment. At the end of treatment independent patient and investigator global assessments were made. Patients reported adverse effects after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment., Results: Treatment groups were similar at baseline. The difference between the median changes in FIS scores (mexiletine = 5.5, placebo = 2) was not statistically significant. Overall symptom response was similar in both treatment groups as demonstrated by both global assessments (p = 0.19). The mean change in VAS score from baseline to posttreatment was determined for both groups and the difference between these mean scores was 16.5 mm (95% CI, -7.1 to 40.2 mm) (p = 0.16). Inadequate statistical power (1-beta = 0.40) may have resulted from small sample size, small magnitude of effect, or variability in the measured effect. Adverse effects were more common in the mexiletine group, though not statistically significant. One patient receiving mexiletine was hospitalized for palpitations., Conclusions: Because of conflicting reports of mexiletine's efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic DPN, this drug should be reserved for patients unresponsive or intolerant to standard therapy, without evidence of heart disease, and with sensations of burning heat, formication, or stabbing pain.