Original Article
The Role of Genetically Determined Polymorphic Drug Metabolism in the Beta-Blockade Produced by Propafenone
N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1764-1768June 21, 1990
- Abstract
- Abstract
Propranolol and the sodium-channel–blocking antiarrhythmic agent propafenone share structural features. Although propafenone's beta-blocking actions are readily demonstrable in vitro, clinically significant beta-blockade occurs inconsistently in vivo. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that genetically determined variations in the biotransformation of propafenone to its 5-hydroxy metabolite account for variations in the drug's beta-blocking action.
We assessed beta-blockade by measuring the reduction in tachycardia produced by boluses of isoproterenol and treadmill exercise in 14 normal subjects during treatment with placebo and with 150, 225, and 300 mg of propafenone every eight hours for five days each. Nine subjects (with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype) metabolized most of the propafenone to 5-hydroxy propafenone, and five (with the poor-metabolizer phenotype) did not produce this metabolite.
At the lower dosages, beta-blockade was present in both groups but was significantly greater in the subjects with poor metabolism, in whom deficient 5-hydroxylation was associated with higher plasma propafenone levels. At the highest dose, a similar degree of beta-blockade was observed in the two groups. Propafenone also had a higher affinity for beta2 receptors in vitro than either of its major metabolites.
We conclude that the degree of beta-blockade during propafenone therapy reflects genetically determined variations in the metabolism of the parent drug, which is necessary for beta-blockade, and that this action of propafenone is considerably enhanced in patients with deficient 5-hydroxylation of propafenone. (N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1764–8.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Beta-Blocking Effects of Propafenone as a Function of the Dose in Subjects with the Extensive-Metabolizer Phenotype (Open Bars) and the Poor-Metabolizer Phenotype (Hatched Bars).Figure 2
Beta-Blocking Effects of Propafenone as a Function of the Plasma Propafenone Concentration in Subjects with the Extensive-Metabolizer Phenotype (○) and the Poor-Metabolizer Phenotype (●).Article Activity
- Article
THE antiarrhythmic agent propafenone, a sodium-channel blocker with some structural similarity to propranolol,1 is effective in the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Propafenone has been available in Germany since the mid-1970s and has recently been marketed in the United States. Although propafenone exerts beta-blocking actions in vitro,2 3 4 the extent of beta-blockade found to occur after the administration of propafenone in vivo has been reported to range from none5 to clinically important beta-blockade,2 , 6 indicated by such effects as increased airway reactivity in patients with mild asthma. The explanation for this wide variation in the extent of beta-blockade is unclear.
Propafenone is biotransformed to the active metabolites 5-hydroxy propafenone and N-desalkyl propafenone. In studies in vitro, 5-hydroxy propafenone is at least as effective a sodium-channel–blocking agent as the parent drug, whereas the N-desalkyl metabolite is less potent.7 , 8 As a beta-blocker, however, 5-hydroxy propafenone is less potent than the parent drug in animal studies.9 The metabolism of propafenone to 5-hydroxy propafenone is catalyzed by a specific hepatic isozyme, cytochrome P-450dbl,10 11 12 the activity of which is polymorphically distributed in humans. This distribution results in considerable individual variation in the degree of 5-hydroxylation. Approximately 7 percent of the U.S. population has a genetic deficiency in P-450dbl activity, which results in impairment in the biotransformation of a number of drugs that are substrates for this enzyme.13 Persons with this deficiency, known as the poor-metabolizer phenotype, metabolize propafenone to 5-hydroxy propafenone only to a very limited extent, with the result that their plasma propafenone levels are much higher and their plasma 5-hydroxy propafenone levels much lower than the remaining 93 percent of the population (who have the extensive-metabolizer phenotype).10 The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to test the hypothesis that beta-blockade during propafenone treatment is due to the elevated plasma propafenone concentrations primarily seen in a subgroup of the population that has genetically impaired 5-hydroxylation of propafenone.
Methods
Fourteen healthy volunteers (eight men and six women; mean age [±SD], 32±7 years) took part in this study after providing written informed consent. In 13 of the subjects, the phenotype for the hydroxylation of debrisoquin was determined from the debrisoquin metabolic ratio.14 Biotransformation of the antihypertensive agent debrisoquin to its 4-hydroxy metabolite is catalyzed by P-450dbl; subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype were defined as those who had a urinary ratio of debrisoquin to 4-hydroxy debrisoquin that was greater than 12.8 after the administration of 10 mg of debrisoquin. In the remaining subject, the P-450dbl phenotype was established by determining the ratio of 5-hydroxy propafenone to propafenone in serum.10 , 11
Study Protocol
The first five days of the study consisted of a placebo phase in all patients (one tablet every eight hours). Patients were blinded to all treatments (including placebo). On day 5, an isoproterenol-sensitivity test was performed according to the method of Cleaveland et al.15 with the subjects in a fasting state before the administration of the morning dose. The isoproterenol dose that increased the heart rate by 25 beats per minute (CD25) was determined by linear regression analysis of the steep portion of the logarithm of the dose–response curve for isoproterenol. On day 6, eight hours after the last dose, the subjects performed a treadmill exercise test according to the standard protocol of Bruce et al.16 to determine their maximal exercise heart rate (HRmax) and underwent pulmonary-function tests to determine the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). Each subject underwent a treadmill evaluation with use of the Bruce protocol before entry into the study. Thereafter, all repeat evaluations during the placebo phase and drug treatment were terminated at the same stage and duration of exercise.
Subjects were then assigned to receive one of the three propafenone regimens for five days (150, 225, or 300 mg every eight hours) in a double-blind fashion. For reasons of safety, the first dosage was always either 150 or 225 mg every eight hours (assigned randomly). Isoproterenol-sensitivity tests, treadmill tests, and pulmonary-function tests were performed on days 5 and 6 as described for the placebo phase. In addition, trough blood samples were obtained eight hours after the last propafenone dose on the morning of day 6 of each treatment period and the concentrations of propafenone, 5-hydroxy propafenone, and N-desalkyl propafenone were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography.17 After a 48-hour washout period, the next regimen was then begun. Except as described below, each subject received placebo and all three propafenone regimens.
Affinity of Beta2 Receptors for Propafenone and Its Metabolites
The binding of propafenone and its metabolites to beta2 receptors on human lymphocytes was also assessed. Blood was drawn from five healthy, drug-free, nonsmoking male volunteers (age, 22 to 52 years) with EDTA used as the anticoagulant. Mononuclear-leukocyte membranes were prepared as previously described.18 Competition-binding studies were performed with the radioligand [125I]iodopindolol (8.14×1013 Bq [2200 Ci] per millimole; New England Nuclear, Boston) in the presence of increasing concentrations of propafenone, 5-hydroxy propafenone, or N-desalkyl propafenone (10−10 to 10−4 mol per liter, in duplicate). The data for propafenone alone have been reported previously.3 Curves describing the competition for binding [125I]iodopindolol were analyzed with a four-parameter logistic equation19 that provided estimates of the concentration of the competitor that occupied 50 percent of the specific binding sites (IC50). A constant (Ki) describing the affinity of the receptor for propafenone or its metabolites was determined with the program LIGAND.20
Statistical Analysis
Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to investigate the dose-dependency of beta-blocking actions. The relation between the plasma concentration of propafenone (and its metabolites) and beta-blocking effects was analyzed initially by simple linear regression and then by multiple linear regression. This analysis used one data point per subject, obtained by comparing effects during the first propafenone regimen (150 or 225 mg every eight hours) to those with placebo, since not all subjects completed the full protocol (see below). The measures of beta-blockade used in this analysis were the reduction in the peak exercise heart rate (HRmax during propafenone treatment — HRmax during placebo) and the isoproterenol dose ratio (CD25 during propafenone treatment/CD25 during placebo).15 In addition, the relation between effect and concentration was analyzed for each subject individually (with data from all regimens used), and the concentrations that produced a 10 percent reduction in the maximal exercise heart rate and a dose ratio of 4 were determined by linear regression. Data on subjects with either of the two phenotypes were compared by two-tailed Student's t-tests (unpaired). All results are expressed as means ±SD.
Results
Nine subjects had the extensive-metabolizer phenotype, and five had the poor-metabolizer phenotype. All the subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype completed the protocol. Severe nausea prevented two of the five subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype from completing the protocol; one did not receive the full five days of 225 or 300 mg of propafenone every eight hours, and the other did not receive the full period of treatment with 300 mg every eight hours (plasma propafenone level, 4.93 to 5.40 μmol per liter [1682 to 1842 ng per milliliter]).
Propafenone produced significant dose-related beta-blockade in subjects with both phenotypes (P<0.0001 by analysis of variance) (Fig. 1Figure 1
Beta-Blocking Effects of Propafenone as a Function of the Dose in Subjects with the Extensive-Metabolizer Phenotype (Open Bars) and the Poor-Metabolizer Phenotype (Hatched Bars).). The extent of the increases in CD25 and the reductions in the maximal exercise heart rate were greater in subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype, especially at the lower dosages. As Table 1Table 1
Steady-State Plasma Concentrations of Propafenone and Its Metabolites, According to Metabolizer Phenotype.* indicates, these subjects also had significantly higher trough plasma propafenone concentrations, particularly at the lower dosages. The correlations between the plasma concentration of propafenone and its beta-blocking effects (Fig. 2Figure 2Beta-Blocking Effects of Propafenone as a Function of the Plasma Propafenone Concentration in Subjects with the Extensive-Metabolizer Phenotype (○) and the Poor-Metabolizer Phenotype (●).) support the concept that the accumulation of propafenone in plasma accounted for the variable extent of beta-blockade. No changes in FEV1 were found in these normal subjects.Although the plasma concentrations of propafenone far exceeded those of its metabolites (Table 1), the possibility that the metabolites contributed to the beta-blocking action of propafenone was also evaluated. Simple linear regression analysis indicated significant correlations between the plasma N-desalkyl propafenone level (but not the plasma 5-hydroxy propafenone level) and beta-blocking effects. However, the plasma N-desalkyl propafenone level also correlated highly with plasma concentrations of the parent drug (r = 0.78, P<0.001), and multiple linear regression incorporating concentrations of both propafenone and N-desalkyl propafenone did not indicate that there was a contribution by the N-desalkyl metabolite. Moreover, the concentrations of propafenone estimated to produce a fixed degree of beta-blockade in individual subjects were similar in those with either of the two phenotypes, again suggesting that the metabolites had no major role in mediating beta-blockade. The concentrations estimated to produce a 10 percent reduction in the maximal exercise heart rate were 3.12±1.50 μmol per liter (1065±513 ng per milliliter; range, 0.80 to 5.13 μmol per liter [273 to 1750 ng per milliliter]) in subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype (n = 6) and 3.30±1.10 μmol per liter (1126±377 ng per milliliter; range, 2.09 to 4.76 μmol per liter [715 to 1625 ng per milliliter]; P not significant) in those with the poor-metabolizer phenotype (n = 3). The concentrations estimated to produce a dose ratio of 4 were 3.45±3.54 μmol per liter (1177±1209 ng per milliliter; range, 0.98 to 11.20 μmol per liter [333 to 3824 ng per milliliter]) in subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype (n = 7) and 4.42±0.83 μmol per liter (1509±283 ng per milliliter; range, 3.77 to 5.59 μmol per liter [1288 to 1907 ng per milliliter]; P not significant) in those with the poor-metabolizer phenotype (n = 3).
Further evidence that the beta-blocking actions of propafenone were mediated primarily by the parent drug was provided by the in vitro studies (Fig. 3Figure 3
Displacement of [125I]Iodopindolol from β2 Adrenoceptors on Human Lymphocytes by Propafenone (○), N-Desalkyl Propafenone (■), and 5-Hydroxy Propafenone (
).). Propafenone (IC50 = 32±19 nmol per liter) had almost three times greater affinity for the beta receptor than the N-desalkyl metabolite (IC50 = 90±38 nmol per liter) and approximately 15 times greater affinity than the 5-hydroxy metabolite (IC50 = 478±154 nmol per liter).Discussion
Propafenone, which has the ability to block cardiac sodium channels, is useful in the treatment of ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. Clinical reports of variable beta-blockade during propafenone therapy have been at variance with the drug's readily demonstrated and consistent effects in vitro. In this study we have shown that a major determinant of this apparent variation in beta-blockade is genetically determined polymorphic propafenone metabolism. Subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype had significantly less beta-blockade than did those with the poor-metabolizer phenotype. Deficient 5-hydroxylation in subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype was associated with elevated plasma propafenone and N-desalkyl propafenone levels, which presumably indicated shunting of propafenone metabolism to N-dealkylation in this group. However, the data on the plasma concentrations (Table 1), in combination with the relative affinities of the parent drug and its metabolites at the beta-receptor (Fig. 3), strongly indicate that the accumulation of propafenone itself, and not its metabolites, accounts for the beta-blockade produced by the drug.
Our group has previously demonstrated that side effects are significantly more frequent when trough plasma propafenone concentrations exceed 2.64 μmol per liter (900 ng per milliliter). Such elevated concentrations occur more frequently in subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype10; in this group, the plasma propafenone level increased in linear fashion as a function of the dose. In contrast, in subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype enrolled in this and previous studies,10 , 21 plasma propafenone concentration rose disproportionately as the dose increased, suggesting that the P-450dbl pathway is saturable. These data on disposition agree with the dose–response data (Fig. 1), which show a greater difference between subjects with the two phenotypes at the lower dosages of propafenone than at the higher dosages. Thus, the subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype had significantly more beta-blockade at lower dosages, whereas the difference between phenotypes was not statistically significant at the higher dosages. The dosage range used in this study was within that required for the long-term suppression of arrhythmia. In contrast to the concentration-dependence of beta-blockade, we have found that the prolongation of the QRS complex, an in vivo marker of sodium-channel blockade, is more prominent at any given plasma concentration of propafenone in subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype than in those with the poor-metabolizer phenotype10; this finding indicates that metabolites contribute to sodium-channel blockade but not to beta-blockade. The beta-blocking effect produced by the higher plasma concentrations of propafenone, the reduction of the maximal exercise heart rate by 10 percent, is equivalent to that produced by approximately 0.15 μmol per liter (40 ng per milliliter) of propranolol,22 or 10 to 20 mg of propranolol every eight hours. In contrast to the case with propafenone, however, this concentration of propranolol is much lower than that required to demonstrate "membrane-stabilizing" effects in humans.23
Genetically determined polymorphic drug metabolism can contribute to variations in individual response to some drugs. For example, the lupus erythematosus syndrome is more common among persons with slow acetylation of procainamide than among those with rapid acetylation.24 More recently, genetically determined defects in drug oxidation have been associated with abnormal drug disposition and may explain some side effects seen at usual drug dosages.13 In 7 percent of normal subjects, the biotransformation of debrisoquin to 4-hydroxy debrisoquin is deficient; in these subjects, who have the poor-metabolizer phenotype, the usual doses of debrisoquin are associated with decreased clearance and an increased incidence of symptomatic hypotension.25 Similarly, the alpha-hydroxylation of metoprolol is also determined by P-450dbl activity. In subjects with the poor-metabolizer phenotype, the plasma metoprolol levels were elevated and beta-blocking action enhanced.26 The consequences of such defective biotransformation of drugs obviously depend on the relative potency of the parent drug and any metabolites whose formation may be perturbed, as well as on the presence of any drugs or disease states that alter drug metabolism or protein binding. For example, in contrast to metoprolol and debrisoquin, which are biotransformed to less active metabolites, the antiarrhythmic agent encainide undergoes P-450dbl-dependent oxidation to O-desmethyl encainide, which is a more potent sodium-channel blocker by an order of magnitude than the parent drug.27 In subjects with defective P-450dbl activity, the biotransformation of encainide to O-desmethyl encainide is severely impaired, and the parent drug accumulates in plasma. We have shown that prolongation of the QRS complex, an index of sodium-channel blockade, is significantly greater among subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype who receive single doses of encainide than among those with poor metabolism; moreover, the extent of prolongation of the QRS complex in subjects with the extensive-metabolizer phenotype was markedly decreased when low doses of quinidine, a potent inhibitor of P-450dbl, were administered along with encainide.28
The 5-hydroxylation of propafenone produces a metabolite that has sodium-channel–blocking potency equal to or greater than that of the parent drug.7 , 8 In fact, with propafenone, unlike encainide, the extent of prolongation of the QRS complex during treatment was not altered by the inhibition of P-450dbl by low-dose quinidine.11 However, our results indicate that the concentration of the parent drug alone determines the extent of a different pharmacologic action, beta-blockade. Beta-blockade during propafenone therapy appears to be important in the genesis of side effects; in addition, beta-blockade may contribute to the suppression of arrhythmias in some patients. Hence, this important drug action, which appears to occur sporadically, is actually predictable, largely on the basis of a well-described genetic variation in the metabolism of the drug.
Supported in part by grants (GM 31304, HL26782, and HL14192) from the U.S. Public Health Service, by a Clinical Research Center grant (RR095) from the Division of Research Resources, and by a grant from Knoll Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kroemer was supported by a fellowship from the scientific committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, received through the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst. Dr. Funck-Brentano was supported by a Merck International Fellowship in Clinical Pharmacology.
Source Information
From the Departments of Medicine (J.T.L., A.J.J.W., D.M.R., R.L.W.) and Pharmacology (H.K.K., D.J.S., C.F.-B., M.D.L., A.J.J.W., D.M.R., R.L.W.), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232, where reprint requests should be addressed to Dr. Roden at the Department of Pharmacology.
- References
References
1
Funck-Brentano
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
McLeod
Web of Science | Medline3
Kroemer
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Burnett
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Cheriex
Web of Science | Medline6
Hill
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Thompson
Web of Science | Medline8
Malfatto
Web of Science | Medline9
von Philipsborn
Web of Science | Medline10
Siddoway
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Funck-Brentano
Web of Science | Medline12
Kroemer
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Eichelbaum M. Genetic polymorphism of sparteine/debrisoquine oxidation. In: ISI Atlas of Science. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1988:243–51.
14
Mahgoub
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Cleaveland
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Bruce
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Kates
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Feldman
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline19
De Lean
Web of Science | Medline20
Munson
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Connolly
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Zhou
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline23
Duff
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Woosley
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline25
Idle
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Lennard
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline27
Roden
Web of Science | Medline28
Funck-Brentano
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (21)
Citing Articles
1
Ronald N. Hines. 2012. Age-Dependent Expression of Human Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes. .
CrossRef2
Paul A. Glossop, Christine A. L. Watson, David A. Price, Mark E. Bunnage, Donald S. Middleton, Anthony Wood, Kim James, Dannielle Roberts, Ross S. Strang, Michael Yeadon, Christelle Perros-Huguet, Nicholas P. Clarke, Michael A. Trevethick, Ian Machin, Emilio F. Stuart, Steven M. Evans, Anthony C. Harrison, David A. Fairman, Balaji Agoram, Jane L. Burrows, Neil Feeder, Craig K. Fulton, Barry R. Dillon, David A. Entwistle, Fiona J. Spence. (2011) Inhalation by Design: Novel Tertiary Amine Muscarinic M 3 Receptor Antagonists with Slow Off-Rate Binding Kinetics for Inhaled Once-Daily Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 54:19, 6888-6904
CrossRef3
&NA;. (2010) Genetic variations in cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 activity may have important clinical consequences for some drugs. Drugs & Therapy Perspectives 26:5, 21-26
CrossRef4
Shu-Feng Zhou. (2009) Polymorphism of Human Cytochrome P450 2D6 and Its Clinical Significance. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 48:11, 689-723
CrossRef5
Ronald N. Hines. (2008) The ontogeny of drug metabolism enzymes and implications for adverse drug events. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 118:2, 250-267
CrossRef6
I. Cascorbi. (2007) Pharmakogenetik in der Kardiologie. Der Kardiologe 1:4, 272-280
CrossRef7
DAN M. RODEN. (2003) Antiarrhythmic Drugs:. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 26:12, 2340-2348
CrossRef8
I. Cascorbi. (2003) Pharmacogenetics of cytochrome P4502D6: genetic background and clinical implication. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 33:s2, 17-22
CrossRef9
Huijun Z Ring, Deanna L Kroetz. (2002) Candidate gene approach for pharmacogenetic studies. Pharmacogenomics 3:1, 47-56
CrossRef10
William E. Evans, Julie A. Johnson. (2001) P
HARMACOGENOMICS : The Inherited Basis for Interindividual Differences in Drug Response. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2:1, 9-39
CrossRef11
Jürgen Brockmöller, Julia Kirchheiner, Christian Meisel, Ivar Roots. (2000) Pharmacogenetic diagnostics of cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in clinical drug development and in drug treatment. Pharmacogenomics 1:2, 125-151
CrossRef12
Michael Spino, Yu Chung Tsang, Radu Pop. (2000) Dissolution and in vivo evidence of differences in reference products: impact on development of generic drugs. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics 25:1, 18-24
CrossRef13
Karthik Venkatakrishnan, Lisa L. von Moltke, David J. Greenblatt. (2000) Effects of the Antifungal Agents on Oxidative Drug Metabolism. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 38:2, 111-180
CrossRef14
Bettina A. Hamelin, Peter G. Dorson, Dennis Pabis, Daniel Still, Roch-H. Bouchard, Emmanuel Pourcher, Jimmy Rail, Jacques Turgeon, M. Lynn Crismon. (1999) CYP2D6 Mutations and Therapeutic Outcome in Schizophrenic Patients. Pharmacotherapy 19:9, 1057-1063
CrossRef15
Laura Franqueza, Carmen Valenzuela, Eva Delpón, Mónica Longobardo, Ricardo Caballero, Juan Tamargo. (1998) Effects of propafenone and 5-hydroxy-propafenone on hKv1.5 channels. British Journal of Pharmacology 125:5, 969-978
CrossRef16
N. A. Hanley, J. P. Bourke, A. D. Gascoigne. (1998) Survival in a case of life-threatening flecainide overdose. Intensive Care Medicine 24:7, 740-742
CrossRef17
Jean-Philippe Kévorkian, Catherine Michel, Ute Hofmann, Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain, Heyo K. Kroemer, Marie-Noëlle Peraldi, Michel Eichelbaum, Patrice Jaillon, Christian Funck-Brentano. (1996) Assessment of individual CYP2D6 activity in extensive metabolizers with renal failure: Comparison of sparteine and dextromethorphan*. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 59:5, 583-592
CrossRef18
AUGUSTUS O. GRANT. (1996) Propafenone: An Effective Agent for the Management of Supraventricular Arrhythmias. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 7:4, 353-364
CrossRef19
Klaus Mörike, S. MAGADUM, T. METTANG, E.-U. GRIESE, C. MACHLEIDT, U. KUHLMANN. (1995) Propafenone in a usual dose produces severe side-effects: the impact of genetically determined metabolic status on drug therapy. Journal of Internal Medicine 238:5, 469-472
CrossRef20
Lidia Arcavi, Neal L. Benowitz. (1993) Clinical significance of genetic influences on cardiovascular drug metabolism. Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy 7:3, 311-324
CrossRef21
Angelo Auricchio. (1992) Reversible protective effect of propafenone or flecainide during atrial fibrillation in patients with an accessory atrioventricular connection. American Heart Journal 124:4, 933-937
CrossRef
