Tack J, Camilleri M, Chang L, Chey WD, Galligan JJ, Lacy BE, Müller-Lissner S, Quigley EMM, Schuurkes J, De Maeyer JH, Stanghellini V. Systematic review: cardiovascular safety profile of 5-HT(4) agonists developed for gastrointestinal disorders.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;
35:745-67. [PMID:
22356640 PMCID:
PMC3491670 DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05011.x]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 213] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2011] [Revised: 06/07/2011] [Accepted: 01/17/2012] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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UEGW 2006-2008 and DDW 2008-2010 were searched for these drug names, and pharmaceutical companies approached to provide unpublished data.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.
Collapse