Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 599–611 | Cite as

Effects of Sugammadex Doses up to 32 mg/kg Alone or in Combination with Rocuronium or Vecuronium on QTc Prolongation

A Thorough QTc Study
  • Pieter-Jan de Kam
  • Jacqueline van Kuijk
  • Marita Prohn
  • Torben Thomsen
  • Pierre Peeters
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Sugammadex reverses the effects of rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, which are achieved by encapsulation. It is known that some non-antiarrhythmic drugs have the potential to delay cardiac repolarization and it is therefore recommended that the effects of all new drugs on the QT interval are assessed.

Objective

This thorough corrected QT (QTc) study evaluated the effect of sugammadex alone and in combination with rocuronium or vecuronium on the individually corrected QTc interval (QTcI).

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, six-period crossover, placebo-controlled study, with an open-label active-controlled component (moxifloxacin). The study was designed according to International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E14 guidelines. The study was conducted in a clinical research unit from November 2006 to April 2007. Healthy male and female subjects (n = 84) were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized to six treatment sequences comprising single intravenous doses of placebo, moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control), sugammadex 4 mg/kg, sugammadex 32 mg/kg, sugammadex 32 mg/kg with rocuronium 1.2 mg/kg and sugammadex 32 mg/kg with vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg. Triplicate ECGs were recorded at 13 timepoints up to 23.5 hours after study drug administration and QT intervals were evaluated manually under blinded conditions. The primary outcome was the largest time-matched mean difference in QTcI change from baseline compared with placebo across the 13 timepoints up to 23.5 hours after study drug administration. Blood samples were also collected for pharmacokinetic analysis.

Results

Of the 84 randomized healthy subjects, 80 completed the study. After moxifloxacin, QTcI prolongations were observed compared with placebo; the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the largest time-matched mean difference in QTcI change compared with placebo was 20.8 msec (90% CI 18.5, 23.1), thus exceeding the ICH E14 safety margin of 5 msec and demonstrating assay sensitivity. In contrast, the largest time-matched mean difference in QTcI (msec) from placebo with sugammadex treatments ranged from 2.1 (sugammadex 4 mg/kg alone) to 4.3 (sugammadex 32 mg/kg with vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg). For the largest time-matched mean difference in QTcI change compared with placebo the corresponding upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI was well below the 10 msec margin for both sugammadex doses. Telemetry results revealed that one subject experienced a non-sustained ventricular tachycardia 4 hours after sugammadex 32 mg/kg, which was self-terminating after 20 beats and considered unlikely to be drug related. Pharmacokinetic-QTc analysis showed a statistically significant (p<0.01) relationship between sugammadex plasma concentration and QTcI; however, at mean maximum plasma concentrations of the therapeutic and supratherapeutic sugammadex dose, the predicted one-sided upper 95% CI for the largest time-matched QTcI difference from placebo was below 10 msec. Rocuronium or vecuronium co-administration did not affect the relationship between sugammadex concentrations and QTc.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study of healthy subjects, it can be concluded that sugammadex alone or in combination with rocuronium or vecuronium is not associated with QTc prolongation.

Keywords

Moxifloxacin Vecuronium Rocuronium Single Intravenous Dose Serious Adverse Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the study and preparation of this manuscript was provided by MSD, Oss, the Netherlands. Ganimed GmbH ECG laboratory performed the manual evaluation of the ECG interval data, and CRS Clinical Research Services GmbH, Mönchengladbach, Germany conducted the study. Medical writing support was provided by Melanie More at Prime Medica (Knutsford, Cheshire, UK) during the preparation of this manuscript. Emiel van Heumen, an employee of MSD, Oss, the Netherlands, provided his safety input into the manuscript. The design and conduct of the study, as well as the analysis of the study data and the opinions, conclusions and interpretation of the data are the responsibility of the authors.

Pieter-Jan de Kam is a consultant of MSD, Oss, the Netherlands. Jacqueline van Kuijk, Marita Prohn and Pierre Peeters are employees of MSD, Oss, the Netherlands.

This work was presented at the European Society of Anaesthesiology Annual Meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 31 May–3 June 2008.

References

  1. 1.
    Guidance for industry E14 clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for non-antiarrhythmic drugs: 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/CbER/gdlns/iche14qtc.htm [Accessed 2008 Jun 11]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suresh D, Carter JA, Whithead JP, et al. Cardiovascular changes at antagonism of atracurium: effects of different doses of premixed neostigmine and glycopyrronium in a ratio of 5:1. Anaesthesia 1991 Oct; 46(10): 877–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caldwell JE. Reversal of residual neuromuscular block with neostigmine at one to four hours after a single intubating dose of vecuronium. Anesth Analg 1995 Jun; 80(6): 1168–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feinberg M. The problems of anticholinergic adverse effects in older patients. Drugs Aging 1993 Jul–Aug; 3(4): 335–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adam JM, Bennett DJ, Bom A, et al. Cyclodextrin-derived host molecules as reversal agents for the neuromuscular blocker rocuronium bromide: synthesis and structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem 2002 Apr 25; 45(9): 1806–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bom A, Bradley M, Cameron K, et al. A novel concept of reversing neuromuscular block: chemical encapsulation of rocuronium bromide by a cyclodextrin-based synthetic host. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2002 Jan 18; 41(2): 266–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shields M, Giovannelli M, Mirakhur RK, et al. Org 25969 (sugammadex), a selective relaxant binding agent for antagonism of prolonged rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth 2006 Jan; 96(1): 36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorgenfrei IF, Norrild K, Larsen PB, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block by the selective relaxant binding agent sugammadex: a dose-finding and safety study. Anesthesiology 2006 Apr; 104(4): 667–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groudine SB, Soto R, Lien C, et al. A randomized, dose-finding, phase II study of the selective relaxant binding drug, sugammadex, capable of safely reversing profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg 2007 Mar; 104(13): 555–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sparr HJ, Vermeyen KM, Beaufort AM, et al. Early reversal of profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block by the selective relaxant binding agent sugammadex. Anesthesiology 2007 May; 106(5): 935–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suy K, Morias K, Cammu G, et al. Effective reversal of moderate rocuronium-or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex, a selective relaxant binding agent. Anesthesiology 2007 Feb; 106(2): 283–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanacker BF, Vermeyen KM, Struys MMRF, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with the novel drug sugammadex is equally effective under maintenance anesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane. Anesth Analg 2007 Mar; 104(3): 563–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paventi S, Santevecchi A, Ranieri R. Effects of sevoflurane versus propofol on QT interval. Minerva Anestesiol 2001 Sept; 67(9): 637–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yildirsim H, Adanir T, Atay A. The effects of sevoflurane, isoflurane and desflurane on QT interval of the ECG. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004 Jul; 21(7): 566–70Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cammu G, de Kam PJ, Demeyer I, et al. Safety and tolerability of single intravenous doses of sugammadex administered simultaneously with rocuronium or vecuronium in healthy volunteers. Br J Anaesth 2008 Mar; 100(3): 373–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 2003Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah A, Haijan G. A maximum likelihood approach for estimating the QT correction factor using mixed effects model. Stat Med 2003 Jun; 22(11): 1901–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ, editors. NONMEM users guides. Ellicott City (MD): Icon Development Solutions}, 1989–2006Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malhotra BK, Glue P, Sweeney K, et al, et al. Thorough QT study with recommended and supratherapeutic doses of tolterodine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006 Mar; 81(3): 377–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hulhoven R, Rosillon D, Bridson WE, et al. Effect of levetiracetam on cardiac repolarization in healthy subjects: a single-dose, randomized, placebo-and active-controlled, four-way crossover study. Clin Ther 2008 Feb; 30(2): 260–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peeters PAM, van den Heuvel M, van Heumen E, et al. Evaluating the safety and pharmacokinetics of sugammadex using single high doses (up to 96 mg/kg) in healthy adult subjects. Clin Drug Investig. In pressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gijsenbergh F, Ramael S, Houwing N, et al. First human exposure of Org 25969, a novel agent to reverse the action of rocuronium bromide. Anesthesiology 2005 Oct; 103(4): 695–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Boer HD, Driessen JJ, Marcus MA, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced (1.2mg/kg) profound neuromuscular block by sugammadex: a multicenter, dose-finding and safety study. Anesthesiology 2007 Aug; 107(2): 239–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacan O, White PF, Tufanogullari B, et al. Sugammadex reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: a comparison with neostigmine glycopyrrolate and edrophonium-atropine. Anesth Analg 2007 Mar; 104(3): 569–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Kam PJ, van Kuijk J, Smeets J, et al. Single IV sugammadex doses up to 32 mg/kg are not associated with QT/QTc prolongation. In: The Annual Meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologist; 2007 October 13–17; San Francisco (CA). Anesthesiology 2007; 107: A1580Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dahl V, Pendeville E, Hollmann MW, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade by sugammadex in cardiac patients. In: The Annual Meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologist; 2007 October 13–17; San Francisco (CA). Anesthesiology 2007; 107: A1581Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saarnivaara L, Simola M. Effects of four anticholin-esterases-anticholinergic combinations and tracheal extubation on QTc interval of the ECG, heart rate and arterial pressure. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998 Apr; 42(4): 460–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van lymen M, Parlow JL. The effects of reversal of neuromuscular blockade on autonomic control in the perioperative period. Anesth Analg 1997 Jan; 84(1): 148–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter-Jan de Kam
    • 1
  • Jacqueline van Kuijk
    • 2
  • Marita Prohn
    • 3
  • Torben Thomsen
    • 4
  • Pierre Peeters
    • 1
  1. 1.Early Stage DevelopmentMSDOssthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences (BARDS)MSDOssthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics & PharmacometricsMSDOssthe Netherlands
  4. 4.CRS Clinical Research Services GmbHMönchengladbachGermany

Personalised recommendations