Risk of drug-induced Long QT Syndrome associated with the use of repurposed COVID-19 drugs: A systematic review

Veronique Michaud, Pamela Dow, Sweilem B. Al Rihani, Malavika Deodhar, Meghan Arwood, Brian Cicali, Jacques Turgeon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.21.20066761

ABSTRACT

Objective To determine the relative risk of drug-induced Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) associated with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) proposed repurposed drugs compared to well-known torsadogenic compounds.

Setting Computer calculations and simulations were performed using primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data for each proposed drug. Seven different LQTS indices were calculated and compared. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was queried with specific key words relating to arrhythmogenic events.

Interventions A thorough literature search was performed to gather information on the pharmacological properties of six drugs (azithromycin, chloroquine, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and remdesivir) repurposed to treat COVID-19. Researchers emphasized the affinity of these drugs to block the rapid component of the delayed rectifier cardiac potassium current (IKr) encoded by the human ether-a-go-go gene (hERG), their propensity to prolong cardiac repolarization (QT interval), and cause torsade de pointes (TdP). The risk of drug-induced LQTS for these drugs was quantified by comparing six indices that assess such risk.

Primary and secondary outcome measures Level of risk estimated for the six COVID-19 drugs being proposed compared to 23 torsadogenic drugs. Number of proarrhythmic adverse events identified for these drugs in the FAERS.

Results Estimators of LQTS risk levels indicated a very high or high risk for all COVID-19 repurposed drugs with the exception for azithromycin, although cases of TdP have been reported with this drug. There was excellent agreement among the various indices used to assess risk of drug-induced LQTS for the six repurposed drugs and 23 torsadogenic compounds.

Conclusion The risk-benefit assessment for the use of repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19 is complicated since benefits are currently anticipated, not proven. Mandatory monitoring of the QT interval shall be performed, as such monitoring is possible for hospitalized patients or with the use of biodevices for outpatients prescribed these drugs.

Strengths and limitations of this study

  • Our study systematically explores current research and validated indices related to drug-induced LQTS, in addition to consider the various mechanisms of action for these drugs to induce LQTS.

  • To our knowledge, this is the first comparison of risk for a prolonged QT interval and torsade de pointes in the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir or lopinavir/ritonavir to 23 well-known torsadogenic drugs.

  • The comprehensive analysis of arrhythmogenic events reported for COVID-19 drugs and torsadogenic compounds from the FAERS.

  • Our conclusions are limited by the limited availability of basic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and clinical data for some of the newer COVID-19 drugs.

INTRODUCTION

Repurposing of Drugs for COVID-19

Over the last two decades, the world has experienced a number of pandemics, including SARS-CoV-1 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome – Coronavirus), Swine Flu, MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome - Coronavirus), and now, SARS-CoV-2. Unique to these pandemics is that each is believed to have originated in animals and spread to humans, and each resulted in respiratory infection.1-4 First reported in February 2003, SARS-CoV-1 originated in Asia and spread to more than twelve countries on four continents in three months, infecting 8,422 people and killing 916 (10.8%).2 MERS-CoV was retrospectively determined to have originated in Jordan in April 2012. At the end of November 2019, MERS-CoV had been diagnosed in 2,494 people, of whom approximately 35% have died.3, 5 The World Health Organization (WHO) first declared SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) a pandemic on March 11, 2020.6 Originating in Wuhan, China in 2019, WHO was first notified about this viral respiratory illness on December 31, 2019. As of April 21, 2020, there are 2,501,156 confirmed cases worldwide, with 171,810 confirmed deaths (6.87%), in 185 countries.7 As the virus continues to spread, there is an urgent need to develop and find an effective treatment. There are currently no vaccines or proven therapeutic agents to treat COVID-19. So, whether existing approved drugs could be repurposed and used for the treatment of novel COVID-19 disease is being explored.

As of April 21, 2020, there are 725 clinical trials registered for COVID-19, many assessing drugs to be repurposed for use against COVID-19: among those, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir.8 There have been a few promising preliminary in vitro results using some repurposed drugs in the therapeutic management of COVID-19, selected based upon their mechanism of action. Yet, the risk of doing so in COVID-19 cases has not been quantified.9 Whether or not a drug is used appropriately and safely, the administration of repurposed drugs may lead to serious, even fatal, consequences. A systematic approach should be used to assess risk benefit boundaries with the proposed repurposed drugs. The uncertainty about the clinical benefit should be balanced with risk of toxicity to justify the use of unproven indications. Furthermore, safety profiles of repurposed drugs might be different if they have never been used or tested in such different populations of patients. This is especially true if they have a complex drug regimen with polypharmacy and are treated with other narrow therapeutic index drugs.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has recently issued a warning regarding the use of some of these drugs without evidence of whether their benefits outweigh their risks.10 Drugs like hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine prolong the QT interval, and may cause ventricular arrythmia and sudden cardiac arrest. Our team is currently conducting a risk assessment study using simulations in specific populations of patients in whom these repurposed drugs could most likely be associated with unbalanced risk of cardiac toxicity (NCT04339634, Simulation of Risk of Adverse Drug Events Associated with the Initiation of Drugs Repurposed for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Frail Elderly Adults with Polypharmacy).11 This review will look at drugs proposed as potential COVID-19 therapies, assessing their risk of causing QT prolongation and their proarrhythmic properties that lead to a characteristic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia described as torsade de pointes (TdP).12

QT and Drug-induced Long QT Syndrome (LQTS)

The QT interval of the cardiac electrocardiogram is the time period needed for depolarization and repolarization of ventricular myocytes. Human cardiac ventricular myocytes are mainly repolarized by the activity of outward K+ currents, and QT prolongation is mainly caused by delayed repolarization. One of the major currents is the delayed rectifier K+ current IK, which consists of a rapidly (IKr) and a slowly (IKs) activating component.13 The human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG; KCNH2) encodes the α-subunit of the voltage gated K+ channels underlying the native current IKr.14, 15 Inhibition of the hERG proteins (IKr current) can lead to a prolongation of the action potential duration and consequently of the QT interval; when repolarization is prolonged to an extreme, early afterdepolarizations may be generated which may lead to TdP.16 The slow component of IK, IKs, is encoded by Kv7.1 (KCNQ1) and could be the target of some diuretics such as indapamide or triamterene, or anesthetics such as propofol.17-19 Excessive block of I and/or combined block of IKr and IKs could also lead to TdP.20

LQTS is a medical condition resulting from polymorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia which can lead to sudden cardiac arrest under certain circumstances. Congenital LQTS is the inherited form caused by genetic mutations in several genes, the most important ones being KCNQ1, KNCH2 and SCN5A (the sodium current INa).21-26 Acquired LQTS is by far the most prevalent form of LQTS; the incidence rate of drug-induced LQTS is estimated at 0.8 to 1.2 per million person-per year.27, 28 The vast majority of acquired LQTS results from specific medications and/or electrolyte abnormalities.29 Drug-induced LQTS is predominantly associated with serious blocking of hERG channels and the subsequent decrease in IKr current. There is a wide range of pharmacological agents in different therapeutic classes known to block IKr and induce QT prolongation, including type III antiarrhythmics30 and various drugs prescribed for non-cardiovascular indications such as antibiotics (e.g. clarithromycin), antidepressants (e.g. tricyclics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, pimozide), antiemetics (e.g. ondansetron) and antimalarial drugs (e.g. chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine).29

The relationship between the potency of a compound to block IKr and the likelihood to prolong QT and to induce TdP is unclear. In addition, no clear structure activity relationships related to a risk of IKr inhibition has been elucidated. However, it is generally accepted to consider a high potency (low IC50-value) for IKr inhibition as a risk factor for fatal arrhythmias related to QT interval prolongation. This is especially true if the free therapeutic plasma concentration of a drug is near or even below the IC50-value for IKr inhibition.31 To compare the proarrhythmic potential of drugs, it is reasonable to calculate various cardiac safety indices.32, 33

The purpose of this article is to assess the proarrhythmic potential with regard to IKr inhibition of proposed repurposed drugs for COVID-19. Various risk assessments for drug-induced LQTS will be presented and compared as a predictive estimator for unbalanced risk benefit associated with repurposed drugs for COVID-19.

METHODS

STEP 1: A literature search was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). A primary search used the key words “drug-induced QT prolongation index”. From this search, 38 publications were retrieved and considered for analysis. Six different indices were repeatedly referenced, including methodology and data on large numbers of drugs or elements to consider while evaluating the risk of drug-induced Long QT Syndrome. The retained indices are discussed in the Results and Discussion section. We also included for comparison our Long QT-JT index (Patent #PCT/US2017/033539, United States of America, 2017).

STEP 2: A search was performed using pubmed.gov with the following keywords (number of publications retrieved and analyzed are included in parentheses): “azithromycin and QT” (80), “azithromycin and torsade” (35), “azithromycin and arrhythmia” (97), “chloroquine and QT” (50), “chloroquine and torsade” (17), “chloroquine and arrhythmia” (178), “favipiravir and QT” (2), “favipiravir and torsade” (0), “favipiravir and arrhythmia” (1), “hydroxychloroquine and QT” (16), “hydroxychloroquine and torsade” (3), “hydroxychloroquine and arrhythmia” (58), “lopinavir/ritonavir and QT” (8), “lopinavir/ritonavir and torsade” (7), “lopinavir/ritonavir and arrhythmia” (19), “remdesivir and QT” (0), “remdesivir and torsade” (0), and “remdesivir and arrhythmia” (0).

STEP 3: A similar search was conducted by combining the key words “QT”, “torsade”, and “arrhythmia” with 19 “Known Risk”, 3 “Possible Risk” and 1 “Conditional Risk” torsadogenic drugs as reported by CredibleMeds® (https://www.crediblemeds.org/). These drugs were: “astemizole, chlorpromazine, cilostazol, cisapride, clarithromycin, clozapine, dasatinib, domperidone, donepezil, droperidol, escitalopram, halofantrine, haloperidol, lapatinib, methadone, ondansetron, pentamidine, pimozide, propofol, risperidone, terfenadine, thioridazine, and vandetanib”.

STEP 4: Pharmacological information [IC50 for hERG (IKr) block, IC50 for Nav1.5 (INa) block, IC50 for Cav1.2 (ICa-L) block, IC50 for IKs block, Cmax, maximum daily dose, plasma protein binding, inhibition of hERG trafficking, cardiac action potential duration (at 90% repolarization; APD90)] and clinical information (QT prolongation, torsade de pointe), retrieved from STEPs 2 and 3 were used to compute relevant QT indices retained from our analysis in STEP 1 for 6 COVID-19 repurposed drugs and 23 known torsadogenic drugs.

STEP 5: Codes to performed a query to the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) were written for each of the 6 COVID-19 repurposed drugs and 23 known torsadogenic drugs searching for adverse events reported for these drugs and a combination of specific search terms: “Electrocardiogram QT prolonged, Long QT Syndrome, Long QT Syndrome congenital, Torsade de pointes, Ventricular tachycardia, Cardiac arrest, Cardiac death, Cardiac fibrillation, Cardio-respiratory arrest, Electrocardiogram repolarization abnormality, Electrocardiogram U wave inversion, Electrocardiogram U wave present, Electrocardiogram U-wave abnormality, Loss of consciousness, Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, Sudden cardiac death, Sudden death, Syncope, Ventricular arrhythmia, Ventricular fibrillation, Ventricular flutter, Ventricular tachyarrhythmia, Ventricular tachycardia, Cardiac arrest and Cardio-respiratory arrest”.

Patient and Public Involvement

No patient involvement was included in this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Assessing risk of drug-induced LQTS

Several approaches have been proposed to assess risk of drug-induced LQTS. Among the most important were the S7B and E14 International Conference on Harmonisation Guidances for non-clinical and clinical evaluation of new non-antiarrhythmic human pharmaceuticals.34, 35 After the introduction of these guidelines in 2005, no drugs were removed from the market due to TdP risk. However, concerns were raised that the optimal fail-fast fail-safe paradigm in recent drug development programs led to unnecessary removal of promising therapeutic molecules.36 There were also concerns regarding the financial burden associated with these types of studies; therefore, alternative approaches were evaluated.37

In 2003, Redfern et al. published an exhaustive review on a broad range of drugs looking at hERG (IKr) activity, cardiac action potential duration (at 90% repolarization; APD90), and QT prolongation in dogs.38 They compared these properties against QT prolonging effects of drugs and reports of TdP in humans. The investigators considered the free plasma concentrations attained during clinical use and classified drugs into five categories.36 Category 1 includes repolarization-prolonging antiarrhythmics; Category 2 includes drugs that have been withdrawn or suspended from the market in at least one major regulatory territory due to an unacceptable risk of TdP for the condition being treated; Category 3 includes drugs that have a measurable incidence of TdP in humans, and those for which numerous case reports exist in the published literature; Category 4 includes drugs for which there have been isolated reports of TdP in humans; and Category 5 includes drugs for which there have been no published reports of TdP in humans.

In 2013, Kramer et al. assessed concomitant block of multiple ion channels (Multiple Ion Channel Effects, MICE) by measuring the concentration-responses of hERG (IKr), Nav1.5 (INa) and Cav1.2 (ICa-L) currents for 32 torsadogenic and 23 non-torsadogenic drugs from multiple pharmacological classes.39 The best logistic regression models using the MICE assay only required a comparison of the blocking potencies between hERG and Cav1.2. Unfortunately, drug-specific indices or values associated with their drug comparison model were not provided. Other much simpler indices such as K/Cmax, i.e., IC50, for block of IKr/peak plasma concentration (Cmax at maximum dose) or K/ Cmax free, i.e. IC50 for block of IKr/ Cmax unbound concentration (considering plasma protein binding) have also been proposed.38 Values ≤3 and ≤30 for these respective factors are generally considered indicative of high risk of drug-induced LQTS. More recently, the Comprehensive in vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative was established by a partnership of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC), Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS), European Medicine Agency (EMA), Health Canada and Japan National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS). Their main objective was to develop a new paradigm for assessing proarrhythmic risk, building on the emergence of new technologies and an expanded understanding of torsadogenic mechanisms beyond IKr block.40 Their strategy involves three pillars to evaluate drug effects on: 1) human ventricular ionic channel currents in heterologous expression systems, 2) in silico integration of cellular electrophysiologic effects based on ionic current effects, and 3) fully integrated biological systems (stem-cell-derived cardiac myocytes and the human ECG). In their most recent publication, they reported on a list of 28 drugs under three risk categories.41 Their High TdP Risk category includes mostly Class III or Class 1A antiarrhythmics; their Intermediate Risk category groups drugs that are generally accepted to be torsadogenic; and the Low Risk category included drugs known not to be associated with TdP.

Other groups have concentrated their efforts on creating in silico tools for the early detection of drug-induced proarrhythmic risks.42, 43 For instance, Romero et al. looked at the effects of drugs on action potential duration of isolated endocardial, myocardial, and epicardial cells as well as the QT prolongation in virtual tissues using multiple channel-drug interactions and state-of-the-art human ventricular action potential models.44 Based on 206,766 cellular and 7,072 tissue simulations assessing block of IKr, IKs and ICa-L, they studied 84 compounds and classified 40 of them as torsadogenic. They proposed the use of a new index, Tx, for differentiating torsadogenic compounds. Tx was defined as the ratio of the drug concentrations producing 10% prolongation (similar to an IC10 rather than IC50) of the cellular endocardial, midmyocardial, and epicardial APDs, and the QT interval, over the maximum effective free therapeutic plasma concentration.

For many years, a group led by Dr. Raymond Woosley has accumulated information on drugs associated with LQTS.45 CredibleMeds® reviews available evidence for these drugs and places them into one of three designated categories: Known Risk of TdP, Possible Risk of TdP, and Conditional Risk of TdP. They have also created a list of drugs to avoid in patients with genetically inherited LQTS. The merit of CredibleMeds® is the classification of drugs based on clinically observed and documented cases of TdP of QT prolongation.

Another approach to assess risk of drug-induced LQTS is using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a database developed to support the FDA’s post-marketing safety surveillance program that monitors occurrence of 104 classified side-effects for drugs and therapeutic biologic products. This database contains information on adverse drug events and medication error reports submitted to the FDA. Although it presents some limitations, the appropriate adjustment of this data allows the capture of signals suggesting adverse drug events associated with a particular drug. On an individual and/or population basis, FAERS data can be used to identify patients who are at highest risk of adverse drug events. Therefore, our team is currently using such information to feed algorithms calculating the relative odd ratios to enable the computation of a medication risk score (MedWise Risk Score™), as part of our proprietary risk stratification strategy.46

All of the sus-mentioned approaches are complementary while each having their own weaknesses and strengths. Recognizing the complexity of determining the risk of drug-induced LQTS noted by others47, our team has developed the Long QT-JT index, which uses algorithms that consider IC50 for block of relevant ion channels (IKr, IKs, INa, ICa-L), inhibition of hERG trafficking, unbound Cmax at maximum dose, and most importantly the inhibition of the major metabolic pathway involved in the disposition or torsadogenic drugs.48-50 This last factor is considered to be a major determinant of risk associated with drug-induced LQTS when torsadogenic drugs are co-administered with other drugs in patients with polypharmacy. On one hand, it is often stated that combined administration of IKr blocking drugs (expected synergistic pharmacodynamic effects) could lead to increased QT prolongation. Although this appears to be the case, our studies have demonstrated that concomitant block of IKr was not necessarily associated with synergistic or potentiation of drug effects.51 However, our team has shown that a combined block of IKr and IKs was associated with potentiation of drug effects on cardiac repolarization.20 On the other hand, the role of competitive inhibition (pharmacokinetic interactions) due to inhibition of the metabolism of the torsadogenic drug, leading to its increased systemic exposure, is recognized but often overlooked.52-54 For the Long QT-JT index, a value ≤15 is associated with an increased risk of QT prolongation and induction of TdP by the drug, while a value >15 and ≤100 is associated with an increased risk of QT prolongation.

Arrhythmogenic effects of COVID-19 drugs should be expected, potentially contributing to disease outcome.55 This may be of importance for patients with an increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias, either secondary to acquired conditions or co-morbidities or consequent to inherited syndromes.56 Various algorithms have been reported to identify patients that are more susceptible to experiencing drug induced QT prolongation. 57-59

Risk of drug-induced LQTS for repurposed off-label COVID-19 drugs

This section describes the most significant pharmacological properties of selected proposed repurposed drugs to be used off-label for the treatment of COVID-19; the effects of each of these drugs on IKr block is highlighted. Using the various approaches described above, the risk of COVID-19 repurposed drugs to induce LQTS (Table 1) is compared to the risk measures of 23 well-established, torsadogenic drugs (Table 2). Our team also presents the number of arrhythmogenic adverse drug events reported by the FAERS database for all drugs listed in Table 1 and 2 (Table 3). It is recognized that some bias certainly exists in the number of events reported by FAERS, as these events are not normalized for number of observed reports or prescriptions.

View this table:
Table 1.

Relative indices of drug-induced LQTS risk associated with repurposed drugs used for COVID-19 treatment.

View this table:
Table 2.

Relative indices of risk associated with a series of drugs known to be associated with a high risk for drug-induced LQTS.

View this table:
Table 3.

Number of arrhythmogenic adverse drug events reported by the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System for repurposed drugs used for COVID-19 treatment and drugs known to be associated with a high risk for drug-induced LQTS.

Azithromycin

Azithromycin is indicated for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections such as acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute bacterial sinusitis, community-acquired pneumonia, pharyngitis/tonsillitis, uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, urethritis and cervicitis, and genital ulcer disease in men.60 Its use has been proposed in conjunction with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat concomitant bacterial infections in patients with COVID-19.61 Azithromycin is primarily excreted unmetabolized in the bile and less than six percent of the administered dose is found as unchanged drug in urine (over a one-week period).62 Peak plasma concentrations in the range of 400 ng/mL (550 nM) are observed following a single 500 mg oral dose.62-64 Rare cases of serious allergic reactions, including angioedema, anaphylaxis, and dermatologic reactions including Stevens Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis have been reported in patients on azithromycin therapy.65 Other major side-effects include hepatotoxicity and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea.60

QT prolongation and TdP

Prolongation of cardiac repolarization and QT interval, imparting a risk of developing cardiac arrhythmia and TdP, has been reported in patients treated with macrolides.66 All estimators of azithromycin-related risk of drug-induced TdP (Table 1) suggest a weak proarrhythmic effect of the drug (IC50 for block of hERG between 0.856 mM and 1.091 mM), although cases of TdP have been described.67, 68 Furthermore, cases of TdP have been spontaneously reported during post-marketing surveillance (FAERS) in patients receiving azithromycin (Table 3). This explains why CredibleMeds® lists azithromycin as a “Known Risk” drug.

Chloroquine

Chloroquine, approved by the FDA in 1949, was the drug of choice to treat malaria until the commercialization of newer antimalarials such as artemisinin (ATC combinations), mefloquine, or atovaquone/proguanil.69 The drug is also indicated for the treatment of extraintestinal amebiasis.70 Chloroquine is metabolized by CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 through dealkylation to monedethylchloroquine and bisdesethylchloroquine.71, 72 Peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) of chloroquine in the range of 1.0-3.0 μM have been measured following the oral administration of a 600 mg oral dose to healthy subjects or patients.73-79 Severe and most common side-effects include retinopathy/maculopathy, macular degeneration, reduced hearing in patients with preexisting auditory damages, skeletal muscle myopathy or neuromyopathy (leading to progressive weakness and atrophy of proximal muscle groups), increased liver enzymes, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, pleomorphic skin eruptions, convulsive seizures, extrapyramidal disorders, and neuropsychiatric changes.70

QT prolongation and TdP

Chloroquine has been shown to block hERG channels with an IC50 of 2.5 μM.30 Redfern et al. described chloroquine as a Category 4 drug, i.e., drugs for which there have been isolated reports of TdP in humans.38 Indeed, case reports of chloroquine-induced QT prolongation, cardiac electrophysiology disturbance and TdP have been reported.53, 80, 81 Based on CredibleMeds® classification, chloroquine is a drug of “Known Risk” for TdP.45 The Long QT-JT index calculated for chloroquine under conditions of CYP2C8 inhibition is 3.56 (Table 1), a risk-estimate value similar to that calculated for drugs such as astemizole, haloperidol, pimozide and terfenadine (Table 2).48-50

Favipivarir

Favipiravir is a new antiviral drug with a broad activity toward RNA viruses, such as the influenza virus, including the avian influenza (H5N1), rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.82-84 It is currently considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19.85 Favipiravir is a prodrug that is ribosylated and phosphorylated intracellularly to form the active metabolite favipiravir ibofuranosyl-51-triphosphate (T-705RTP). T-705 undergoes conversion into a nucleotide analogue, with monophosphate (T-705 RMP occurs in one step via hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase) and triphosphate (T-705 RTP enzymes responsible for the conversion from RMP to RDP not identified) derivatives. It is believed that T-705 potency is mediated by its ribofuranosyl triphosphate (T-705 RTP) metabolite that could be mutagenic.86 The usual adult dosage is 1,600 mg of favipiravir administered orally twice daily on day one, followed by 600 mg orally twice daily from day two through day five. Favipiravir has an excellent bioavailability (98%) and is not metabolized by the CYP450 system (it is mainly metabolized by aldehyde oxidase and partially by xanthine oxidase).87 In vitro studies indicated that the drug is a mechanism-based inhibitor of aldehyde oxidase which is known to contribute, to some extent, to the metabolism of citalopram, zaleplon, famciclovir and sulindac.88 However, it can inhibit sulfate transferase with an IC50 value of (24 μg/mL) as Cmax in plasma is about 500 μM (78.9 μg/mL; 1,600 mg). It could also inhibit CYP2C8 with an IC50 of 477 μM (74.9 μg/ml)).88

QT prolongation and TdP

Studies looking at the effects of favipiravir on hERG block have shown that a mild suppression of the hERG current was observed at the concentration of 1 mM (157 µg/mL, 2.0 times the observed human Cmax at a dose of 1,600 mg). In a telemetry study conducted in dogs, no effects on blood pressure (systolic, diastolic, mean), heart rate, or ECG parameters (PR interval, QRS, QT and QTc) were observed even at the oral dose of 150 mg/kg [Cmax (mean), 268 µg/mL; 3.4 times the human Cmax)] until 20 hours have passed after the treatment.88 Calculation of K/ Cmax, K/ Cmax free and Long QT-JT Index using an estimated IC50 of 5 mM (5-times the concentration associated with 8.1% block of IKr) yielded parameters in the high to very high-risk categories for drug-induced LQTS. As no reports of LQTS have been published yet, close monitoring of QTc remains advisable.

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine is indicated for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria due to P. falciparum, P. malariae, P. ovale, and P. vivax.89 It is also indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematosus.89 Major metabolic pathway is through N-dealkylation leading to the formation of desethylhydroxychloroquine; desethylchloroquine and bisdesethylchloroquine are minor metabolites. The N-desalkylation pathway seems to be mediated by CYP2C8, CYP3A4, and CYP2D6 (high affinity, but low capacity). Following a single 200 mg oral dose to healthy males, the mean peak plasma concentration was 50.3 ng/mL (150 nM), reached in 3.74 hours with a half-life of 123.5 days. Administration of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg TID led to mean plasma concentrations of 460 ng/mL (1,3 μM).61 Serious side effects include irreversible retinal damage, worsening of psoriasis and porphyria, proximal myopathy and neuropathy, neuropsychiatric events (suicidality), hypoglycemia, and life-threatening and fatal cardiomyopathy, including proarrhythmic effects.89

QT prolongation and TdP

Use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus erythematosus has been associated with occasional reports of QT interval prolongation and TdP.90-93 In their recent study using hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, Chorin et al., observed QTc increases of 40 msec or more in 30% of their patients; in 11% of their 84 patients, QTc increased to more than 500msec.55 CredibleMeds® has classified hydroxychloroquine as a “Known Risk” drug fro TdP. K/ Cmax, K/ Cmax free and Long QT-JT index also identify hydroxychloroquine as a high-risk drug for drug-induced LQTS.

Lopinavir/ritonavir

The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir is indicated in combination with other antiretroviral agents for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults and pediatric patients 14 years and older.94 When administered alone, lopinavir is a low affinity CYP3A4 substrate with a low oral bioavailability. As a high affinity substrate of CYP3A4, ritonavir is coadministered to inhibit the first pass metabolism of lopinavir and increases its plasma concentrations by about 10-fold. Under such conditions, lopinavir peak plasma concentrations reach about 10 μg/ml (15.9 μM) after an 800 mg dose. For its part, ritonavir has a bioavailability of 85%, and peak plasma concentrations of about 11 μg/mL (15.5 μM) are observed after administration of a 600 mg oral dose.95,96 Major side-effects associated with lopinavir/ritonavir combination are pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, new onset of diabetes, immune restitution syndrome, increase in triglycerides and total cholesterol, and fat redistribution.94 Importantly, because of strong CYP3A4 inhibition, major drug-drug interactions are observed with other CYP3A4 substrates.97-101

QT prolongation and TdP

Lopinavir and ritonavir are associated with significant blockade of hERG (IKr) channel102 (Table 1) and cases of TdP have been registered in the FAERS database (Table 3). The monograph of the product also states that cases of QT interval prolongation and TdP have been reported although causality of lopinavir/ritonavir combination could not be established. CredibleMeds® lists the drug under the category “Possible Risk”, while other indices list this combination under High Risk (Table 1).

Remdesivir

Remdesivir is an investigational antiviral compound undergoing clinical trials in China, the United States, and the United Kingdom as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Remdesivir, originally tested in Ebola patients, is not yet licensed or approved anywhere globally and has not been demonstrated to be safe or effective for any use.103-105 Remdesivir is a single stereoisomer monophosphoramidate prodrug of a nucleoside analog. After hydrolysis, its metabolite (GS-441524 monophosphate) undergoes, inside the cells, a subsequent rapid conversion to the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate form GS-443902. In vitro, remdesivir also undergoes metabolism by CYP2C8, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. It is not suitable for oral delivery because of its poor hepatic stability.106 Peak plasma concentrations reached 9.0 μM following administration of a 200 mg intravenous infusion over 30 min.106

QT prolongation and TdP

Very little is known at this stage about the risk of drug-induced LQTS by remdesivir. An IC50 of 28.9 mM has been estimated in vitro for block of hERG (IKr) (Table 1). Calculated values for K/ Cmax, K/ Cmax free, and Long QT-JT index indicate that remdesivir use could carry a significant risk, especially if its intravenous administration leads to high peak levels. Therefore, close monitoring on the QT interval appears warranted.

CONCLUSION

In brief, most proposed drugs to be used off-label and repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19 are associated with a significant risk of drug-induced LQTS. Therefore, mandatory monitoring of the QT interval should be performed, as indicated by the current preliminary studies. Such monitoring could be easily performed for hospitalized patients but would require the use of biodevices for outpatients initiated on these drugs.

Experimental COVID-19 use with mandatory monitoring is defensible because the benefits of using some of the proposed drugs could outweigh the risks. Key considerations supporting their use are:

  • The duration of use for these medications in COVID-19 is shorter than their original indication (chronic vs five to ten days) thus, only a short-term monitoring would be required.

  • The overall potential population-benefits of those drugs if proven to be effective for COVID-19 compared to the number of patients at high risk for QT prolongation.

In addition to monitoring of the QT interval, samples should be collected and biobank created to support research effort in the present and future times. It is recognized that polymorphisms in genes regulating the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics pathways of these drugs may impact an individual’s drug response and consequently, the overall outcomes. The risk-benefit assessment for the use of these drugs remains unclear since benefits are currently anticipated, not proven, but the clinical experience with several of these drugs shows significant risk of toxicity and adverse drug events.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and/or its supplementary materials.

https://www.trhc.spprdi.com/covid19/home

Contributorship Statement

VM, PD, SAR, MD, MA, BC, and JT have each contributed to the overall design, research methods, and analysis of the manuscript and are listed in order of authorship, with corresponding author JT as the final author. J.T. provided the main conceptual idea and outline, as well as contributed significantly to the research, methods, results, and authoring of the manuscript. VM and PD authored the manuscript and contributed to the overall design, research methods, and results. SAR, MD, MA, and BC contributed to the authorship of the manuscript, conceptual ideas, and research. All authors have revised and edited the manuscript, have final approval of the submitted manuscript, and are guarantors of the work.

Competing Interests

Jacques Turgeon, Veronique Michaud, Pamela Dow, Sweilem Al Rihani, Malavika Deodhar, and Meghan Arwood are employees of Tabula Rasa HealthCare. Brian Cicali is a former employee of Tabula Rasa HealthCare and is currently an independent contractor. Jacques Turgeon and Veronique Michaud are faculty at the Université de Montréal.

Funding

Funding for this research was made possible by Tabula Rasa HealthCare.

Data Sharing Statement

All data used in this publication has been included in the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Dana Filippoli and Dr. Calvin H. Knowlton for review and insightful comments on the content of the paper. The authors also recognize the contribution of Ernesto Lucio, Gerald Condon, Ravil Bikmetov, PhD, and Matt K Smith, PhD.

Footnotes

  • vmichaud{at}trhc.com, pdow{at}trhc.com, srihani{at}trhc.com, mdeodhar{at}trhc.com, marwood{at}trhc.com, bcicali{at}ufl.edu, jturgeon{at}trhc.com

References

  1. 1.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus): CDC; 2019 [updated June 11, 2019. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html.
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2020 [Available from: http://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome/.
  3. 3.↵
    World Health Organization. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV): World Health Organization. November 2019. https://www.who.int/emergencies/mers-cov/en/.
  4. 4.↵
    World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.
  5. 5.↵
    World Health Organization. MERS Situation Update 2019. November 2019. http://applications.emro.who.int/docs/EMRPUB-CSR-241-2019-EN.pdf?ua=1&ua=1&ua=1.
  6. 6.↵
    Adhanom T. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 World Health Organization 2020. March 11, 2020. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-1911-march-2020.
  7. 7.↵
    Johns Hopkins University and Medicine. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University [World Map]. 2020. April 13, 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html.
  8. 8.↵
    U.S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov: U.S. National Library of Medicine. April 13, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19.
  9. 9.↵
    Al Rihani SB, Deodhar M, Michaud V, et al. Potential COVID-19 Treatment Options (Off-label: Tabula Rasa HealthCare. April 14, 2020. http://www.trhc.spprdi.com/covid-19-treatment-options
  10. 10.↵
    Simpson T, Kovacs, RJ, Stecker, EC. Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Due to Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin Treatment For COVID-19. Cardiology Magazine. 2020 March 29, 2020.
  11. 11.↵
    Michaud V, Turgeon J, Al Rihani S, Deodhar M. Simulation of Risk of Adverse Drug Events Associated With the Initiation of Drugs Repurposed for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Frail Elderly Adults With Polypharmacy: U.S. National Library of Medicine. April 9, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04339634?term=04339634&recrs=abdefhm&cond=COVID-19&draw=2&rank=1.
  12. 12.↵
    Dissertenne F. La tachycardie ventriculaire a deux foyers opposes variables. Arch Mal Coeur. 1966;59:263–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Sanguinetti MC, Jurkiewicz NK. Two components of cardiac delayed rectifier K+ current. Differential sensitivity to block by class III antiarrhythmic agents. J Gen Physiol. 1990;96(1):195–215.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Sanguinetti MC, Jiang C, Curran ME, Keating MT. A mechanistic link between an inherited and an acquired cardiac arrhythmia: HERG encodes the IKr potassium channel. Cell. 1995;81(2):299–307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Trudeau MC, Warmke JW, Ganetzky B, Robertson GA. HERG, a human inward rectifier in the voltage-gated potassium channel family. Science. 1995;269(5220):92–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Roden DM, Hoffman BF. Action potential prolongation and induction of abnormal automaticity by low quinidine concentrations in canine Purkinje fibers. Relationship to potassium and cycle length. Circ Res. 1985;56(6):857–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Turgeon J, Daleau P, Bennett PB, Wiggins SS, Selby L, Roden DM. Block of IKs, the slow component of the delayed rectifier K+ current, by the diuretic agent indapamide in guinea pig myocytes. Circ Res. 1994;75(5):879–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.
    Daleau P, Lessard E, Groleau MF, Turgeon J. Erythromycin blocks the rapid component of the delayed rectifier potassium current and lengthens repolarization of guinea pig ventricular myocytes. Circulation. 1995;91(12):3010–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Yang L, Liu H, Sun H-Y, Li GR. Intravenous anesthetic propofol inhibits multiple human cardiac potassium channels. Anesthesiology. 2015;122(3):571–84.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Geelen P, Drolet B, Lessard E, Gilbert P, O’Hara GE, Turgeon J. Concomitant Block of the Rapid (IKr) and Slow (IKs) Components of the Delayed Rectifier Potassium Current is Associated With Additional Drug Effects on Lengthening of Cardiac Repolarization. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 1999;4(3):143–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Curran ME, Splawski I, Timothy KW, Vincent GM, Green ED, Keating MT. A molecular basis for cardiac arrhythmia: HERG mutations cause long QT syndrome. Cell. 1995;80(5):795–803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    Keating M, Dunn C, Atkinson D, Timothy K, Vincent GM, Leppert M. Consistent linkage of the long-QT syndrome to the Harvey ras-1 locus on chromosome 11. Am J Hum Genet. 1991;49(6):1335–9.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    Wang Q, Shen J, Splawski I, Atkinson D, Li Z, Robinson JL, et al. SCN5A mutations associated with an inherited cardiac arrhythmia, long QT syndrome. Cell. 1995;80(5):805–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.
    Romano C, Gemme G, Pongiglione R. [Rare Cardiac Arrythmias of the Pediatric Age. Ii. Syncopal Attacks Due to Paroxysmal Ventricular Fibrillation. (Presentation of 1st Case in Italian Pediatric Literature)]. Clin Pediatr (Bologna). 1963;45:656–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.
    Yang KC, Kyle JW, Makielski JC, Dudley SC, Jr.. Mechanisms of sudden cardiac death: oxidants and metabolism. Circ Res. 2015;116(12):1937–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Ward OC. A New Familial Cardiac Syndrome in Children. J Ir Med Assoc. 1964;54:103–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Molokhia M, Pathak A, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Caturla L, Montastruc JL. L’Association Francaise des Centres Regionaux de P, et al. Case ascertainment and estimated incidence of drug-induced long-QT syndrome: study in Southwest France. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;66(3):386–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    El-Sherif N, Turitto G. Electrolyte disorders and arrhythmogenesis. Cardiol J. 2011;18(3):233–45.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Kannankeril P, Roden DM, Darbar D. Drug-induced long QT syndrome. Pharmacol Rev. 2010;62(4):760–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Traebert M, Dumotier B, Meister L, Hoffmann P, Dominguez-Estevez M, Suter W. Inhibition of hERG K+ currents by antimalarial drugs in stably transfected HEK293 cells. Eur J Pharmacol. 2004;484(1):41–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Webster R, Leishman D, Walker D. Towards a drug concentration effect relationship for QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2002;5(1):116–26.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Crump W, Cavero II. QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular drugs: issues and solutions for novel drug development. Pharm Sci Technolo Today. 1999;2(7):270–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Cavero I, Mestre M, Guillon JM, Crumb W. Drugs that prolong QT interval as an unwanted effect: assessing their likelihood of inducing hazardous cardiac dysrhythmias. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2000;1(5):947–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    International Conference on Harmonisation; guidance on S7B Nonclinical Evaluation of the Potential for Delayed Ventricular Repolarization (QT Interval Prolongation) by Human Pharmaceuticals; availability. Notice. Fed Regist. 2005;70(202):61133–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    International Conference on Harmonisation; guidance on E14 Clinical Evaluation of QT/QTc Interval Prolongation and Proarrhythmic Potential for Non-Antiarrhythmic Drugs; availability. Notice. Fed Regist. 2005;70(202):61134–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):203–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Bouvy JC, Koopmanschap MA, Shah RR, Schellekens H. The cost-effectiveness of drug regulation: the example of thorough QT/QTc studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(2):281–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Redfern WS, Carlsson L, Davis AS, et al. Relationships between preclinical cardiac electrophysiology, clinical QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes for a broad range of drugs: evidence for a provisional safety margin in drug development. Cardiovasc Res. 2003;58(1):32–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Kramer J, Obejero-Paz CA, Myatt G, et al. MICE models: superior to the HERG model in predicting Torsade de Pointes. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Sager PT, Gintant G, Turner JR, Pettit S, Stockbridge N. Rechanneling the cardiac proarrhythmia safety paradigm: a meeting report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium. Am Heart J. 2014;167(3):292–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Colatsky T, Fermini B, Gintant G, et al. The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative -Update on progress. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2016;81:15–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Romero L, Cano J, Gomis-Tena J, et al. In Silico QT and APD Prolongation Assay for Early Screening of Drug-Induced Proarrhythmic Risk. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(4):867–78.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Patel N, Wisniowska B, Polak S. Virtual Thorough QT (TQT) Trial-Extrapolation of In Vitro Cardiac Safety Data to In Vivo Situation Using Multi-Scale Physiologically Based Ventricular Cell-wall Model Exemplified with Tolterodine and Fesoterodine. Aaps j. 2018;20(5):83.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    O’Hara T, Virág L, Varró A, Rudy Y. Simulation of the undiseased human cardiac ventricular action potential: model formulation and experimental validation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7(5):e1002061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    CredibleMeds [Internet]. 2020. https://www.crediblemeds.org/.
  46. 46.↵
    Cicali B, Michaud V, Knowlton CH, Turgeon J. Application of a Novel Medication-Related Risk Stratification Strategy to a Self-Funded Employer Population. Benefits Quarterly. 2018;34(2):49–55.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Lee W, Windley MJ, Vandenberg JI, Hill AP. In Vitro and In Silico Risk Assessment in Acquired Long QT Syndrome: The Devil Is in the Details. Front Physiol. 2017;8:934.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Steffen LE, Knowlton CH, Turgeon J. Abstract 15939: Development of a Drug-specific Long QT-JT Index for Prediction of Drug-induced QT Prolongation. Circulation. 2016.
  49. 49.
    Steffen LE, Badea, G., Cicali, B., Knowlton, C.H., Turgeon, J. Medication-Specific Long QT-JT Index And Patient-Specific Long QT-JT Score For Assessing Risk Of Torsade De Pointes: Validation In An Ambulatory Population. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2017;101(S1):S48.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Turgeon J, Steffen LE, Badea G, Michaud, V. Methods of Treatment Having Reduced Drug-Related Toxicity and Methods of Identifying the Likelihood of Patient Harm Arising from Prescribed Medications. Patent PCT/US2017/033539. United States of America 2017.
  51. 51.↵
    Hreiche R, Plante I, Drolet B, Morissette P, Turgeon J. Lengthening of cardiac repolarization in isolated guinea pigs hearts by sequential or concomitant administration of two IKr blockers. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100(6):2469–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Morissette P, Hreiche R, Turgeon J. Drug-induced long QT syndrome and torsade de pointes. Can J Cardiol. 2005;21(10):857–64.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    Simkó J, Csilek A, Karászi J, Lorincz I. Proarrhythmic potential of antimicrobial agents. Infection. 2008;36(3):194–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    Yap YG, Camm AJ. Drug induced QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Heart. 2003;89(11):1363–72.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    Chorin E, Dai M, Shulman E, et al. The QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.02.20047050.
  56. 56.↵
    Wu CI, Postema PG, Arbelo E, et al. SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and inherited arrhythmia syndromes. Heart Rhythm. 2020.
  57. 57.↵
    Tisdale JE, Jaynes HA, Kingery JR, et al. Development and validation of a risk score to predict QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):479–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.
    Steffen LE, Knowlton CH, Turgeon J. Abstract 16114: Risk Identification of Drug-induced Long QT Syndrome Using a Patient-specific Long QT-JT Risk Score. Circulation. 2016;134(suppl_1):A16114–A.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Roden DM, Harrington RA, Poppas A, Russo AM. Considerations for Drug Interactions on QTc in Exploratory COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) Treatment. Circulation.
  60. 60.↵
    Drug Label. Zithromax® (azithromycin tablets) and (azithromycin for oral suspension). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013.
  61. 61.↵
    Gautreta P, Lagiera JC, Parolaa P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an openlabel non-randomized clinical trial International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2020.
  62. 62.↵
    Drew RH, Gallis HA. Azithromycin--spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetics, and clinical applications. Pharmacotherapy. 1992;12(3):161–73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.
    Cooper M, Nye K, Andrews J, Wise R. The pharmacokinetics and inflammatory fluid penetration of orally administered azithromycin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1990;26(4):533–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.↵
    Foulds G, Shepard R, Johnson R. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1990;25(suppl_A):73–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. 65.↵
    Brkljacić N, Gracin S, Prkacin I, Sabljar-Matovinović M, Mrzljak A, Nemet Z. Stevens-Johnson syndrome as an unusual adverse effect of azithromycin. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2006;14(1):40–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    Milberg P, Eckardt L, Bruns HJ, et al. Divergent proarrhythmic potential of macrolide antibiotics despite similar QT prolongation: fast phase 3 repolarization prevents early afterdepolarizations and torsade de pointes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;303(1):218–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    Huang BH, Wu CH, Hsia CP, Yin Chen, C. Azithromycin-induced torsade de pointes. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2007;30(12):1579–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Kezerashvili A, Khattak H, Barsky A, Nazari R, Fisher JD. Azithromycin as a cause of QT-interval prolongation and torsade de pointes in the absence of other known precipitating factors. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2007;18(3):243–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
  70. 70.↵
    Drug Label. Aralen® Chloroquine phosphate, USP. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013.
  71. 71.↵
    Kim KA, Park JY, Lee JS, Lim S. Cytochrome P450 2C8 and CYP3A4/5 are involved in chloroquine metabolism in human liver microsomes. Arch Pharm Res. 2003;26(8):631–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.↵
    Projean D, Baune B, Farinotti R, et al. In vitro metabolism of chlororquine: Identification of CYP2C8, CYP3A4, and CYP2D6 as the main isoforms catalyzing n-desethylchloroquine formation. Drug Metabolism and Disposition. 2003;31(6):748–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    Krishna S, White NJ. Pharmacokinetics of quinine, chloroquine and amodiaquine. Clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1996;30(4):263–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.
    Walker O, Salako LA, Alván G, Ericsson O, Sjöqvist F. The disposition of chloroquine in healthy Nigerians after single intravenous and oral doses. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 1987;23(3):295–301.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. 75.
    Na-Bangchang K, Limpaibul L, Thanavibul A, Tan-Ariya P, Karbwang J. The pharmacokinetics of chloroquine in healthy Thai subjects and patients with Plasmodium vivax malaria. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 1994;38(3):278–81.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.
    Salako LA, Aderounmu AF, Walker O. Influence of route of administration on the pharmacokinetics of chloroquine and desethylchloroquine. Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65(1):47–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. 77.
    Gustafsson L, Walker O, Alvan G, et al. Disposition of chloroquine in man after single intravenous and oral doses. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 1983;15(4):471–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.
    Ducharme J, Farinotti R. Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Chloroquine. Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 1996;31(4):257–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. 79.↵
    Ademowo OG, Sodeinde O, Walker O. The disposition of chloroquine and its main metabolite desethylchloroquine in volunteers with and without chloroquine-induced pruritus: Evidence for decreased chloroquine metabolism in volunteers with pruritus. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2000;67(3):237–41.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Stas P, Faes D, Noyens P. Conduction disorder and QT prolongation secondary to long-term treatment with chloroquine. Int J Cardiol. 2008;127(2):e80–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    Demazière J, Fourcade JM, Busseuil CT, Adeleine P, Meyer SM, Saïssy JM. The hazards of chloroquine self prescription in west Africa. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1995;33(4):369–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    Furuta Y, Takahashi K, Fukuda Y, et al. In vitro and in vivo activities of anti-influenza virus compound T-705. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(4):977–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.
    Kiso M, Takahashi K, Sakai-Tagawa Y, et al. T-705 (favipiravir) activity against lethal H5N1 influenza A viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(2):882–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    Furuta Y, Takahashi K, Shiraki K, et al. T-705 (favipiravir) and related compounds: Novel broad-spectrum inhibitors of RNA viral infections. Antiviral Res. 2009;82(3):95–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. 85.↵
    Li G, De Clercq E. Therapeutic options for the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19(3):149–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    Jin Z, Smith LK, Rajwanshi VK, Kim B, Deval J. The Ambiguous Base-Pairing and High Substrate Efficiency of T-705 (Favipiravir) Ribofuranosyl 51-Triphosphate towards Influenza A Virus Polymerase. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(7):e68347.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    Madelain V, Nguyen TH, Olivo A, et al. Ebola Virus Infection: Review of the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties of Drugs Considered for Testing in Human Efficacy Trials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(8):907–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. 88.↵
    Japan Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency. Report on the deliberation results (Favipiravir). Evaluation and Licensing Division, editor. 2011.
  89. 89.↵
    Drug Label. Plaquenil® hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets, USP. U.S. ood and Drug Administration; 2018.
  90. 90.↵
    Chen CY, Wang FL, Lin CC. Chronic hydroxychloroquine use associated with QT prolongation and refractory ventricular arrhythmia. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2006;44(2):173–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.
    Morgan ND, Patel SV, Dvorkina O. Suspected hydroxychloroquine-associated QT-interval prolongation in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Rheumatol. 2013;19(5):286–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.
    O’Laughlin JP, Mehta PH, Wong BC. Life Threatening Severe QTc Prolongation in Patient with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus due to Hydroxychloroquine. Case Rep Cardiol. 2016;2016:4626279.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.↵
    de Olano J, Howland MA, Su MK, Hoffman RS, Biary R. Toxicokinetics of hydroxychloroquine following a massive overdose. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(12):2264.e5-.e8.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    Drug Label. Kaletra: Highlights of Prescribing Information. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2019.
  95. 95.↵
    Ouedraogo HG, Matteelli A, Sulis G, et al. Pharmacokinetics of plasma lopinavir and ritonavir in tuberculosis–HIV co-infected African adult patients also receiving rifabutin 150 or 300 mg three times per week. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2020;19(1):3. 96.
    OpenUrl
  96. 96.↵
    Kityo C, Walker AS, Dickinson L, et al. Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir with and without nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in Ugandan HIV-infected adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(7):2965–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.↵
    Piscitelli SC, Gallicano KD. Interactions among drugs for HIV and opportunistic infections. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(13):984–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  98. 98.
    Vourvahis M, Kashuba AD. Mechanisms of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions associated with ritonavir-enhanced tipranavir. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(6):888–909.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.
    Hsu A, Granneman GR, Bertz RJ. Ritonavir. Clinical pharmacokinetics and interactions with other anti-HIV agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998;35(4):275–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  100. 100.
    de Maat MM, Ekhart GC, Huitema AD, Koks CH, Mulder JW, Beijnen JH. Drug interactions between antiretroviral drugs and comedicated agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(3):223–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  101. 101.↵
    Foisy MM, Yakiwchuk EM, Hughes CA. Induction Effects of Ritonavir: Implications for Drug Interactions. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2008;42(7-8):1048–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    Anson BD, Weaver JG, Ackerman MJ, et al. Blockade of HERG channels by HIV protease inhibitors. Lancet. 2005;365(9460):682–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  103. 103.↵
    Sheahan TP, Sims AC, Leist SR, et al. Comparative therapeutic efficacy of remdesivir and combination lopinavir, ritonavir, and interferon beta against MERS-CoV. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):
  104. 104.
    Amirian ES, Levy JK. Current knowledge about the antivirals remdesivir (GS-5734) and GS-441524 as therapeutic options for coronaviruses. One Health. 2020;9:100128.
    OpenUrl
  105. 105.↵
    Remdesivir Approval Status 2020. https://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html.
  106. 106.↵
    1. Division HM
    European Medicines Agency. Summary on compassionate use (Remdesivir Gilead). In: Division HM, editor. 2020.
Back to top
Posted April 29, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Risk of drug-induced Long QT Syndrome associated with the use of repurposed COVID-19 drugs: A systematic review
Veronique Michaud, Pamela Dow, Sweilem B. Al Rihani, Malavika Deodhar, Meghan Arwood, Brian Cicali, Jacques Turgeon
medRxiv 2020.04.21.20066761; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.21.20066761
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area