Premium
Systematic review: cardiovascular safety profile of 5‐ HT 4 agonists developed for gastrointestinal disorders
Author(s) -
Tack J.,
Camilleri M.,
Chang L.,
Chey W. D.,
Galligan J. J.,
Lacy B. E.,
MüllerLissner S.,
Quigley E. M. M.,
Schuurkes J.,
Maeyer J. H.,
Stanghellini V.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
alimentary pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.308
H-Index - 177
eISSN - 1365-2036
pISSN - 0269-2813
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05011.x
Subject(s) - medicine , tegaserod , cisapride , herg , pharmacology , adverse effect , prokinetic agent , potassium channel , irritable bowel syndrome
Summary Background The nonselective 5‐ HT 4 receptor agonists, cisapride and tegaserod have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events ( AEs ). Aim To perform a systematic review of the safety profile, particularly cardiovascular, of 5‐ HT 4 agonists developed for gastrointestinal disorders, and a nonsystematic summary of their pharmacology and clinical efficacy. Methods Articles reporting data on cisapride, clebopride, prucalopride, mosapride, renzapride, tegaserod, TD ‐5108 (velusetrag) and ATI ‐7505 (naronapride) were identified through a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and Toxfile. Abstracts from UEGW 2006–2008 and DDW 2008–2010 were searched for these drug names, and pharmaceutical companies approached to provide unpublished data. Results Retrieved articles on pharmacokinetics, human pharmacodynamics and clinical data with these 5‐ HT 4 agonists, are reviewed and summarised nonsystematically. Articles relating to cardiac safety and tolerability of these agents, including any relevant case reports, are reported systematically. Two nonselective 5‐ HT 4 agonists had reports of cardiovascular AEs : cisapride ( QT prolongation) and tegaserod (ischaemia). Interactions with, respectively, the hERG cardiac potassium channel and 5‐ HT 1 receptor subtypes have been suggested to account for these effects. No cardiovascular safety concerns were reported for the newer, selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists prucalopride, velusetrag, naronapride, or for nonselective 5‐HT 4 agonists with no hERG or 5‐ HT 1 affinity (renzapride, clebopride, mosapride). Conclusions 5‐ HT 4 agonists for GI disorders differ in chemical structure and selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 receptors. Selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 over non‐5‐ HT 4 receptors may influence the agent's safety and overall risk–benefit profile. Based on available evidence, highly selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists may offer improved safety to treat patients with impaired GI motility.