5‐HT1D receptor agonists and human coronary artery reactivity in vitro: crossover comparisons of 5‐HT and sumatriptan with rizatriptan and L‐741,519

Abstract

1Rizatriptan (MK‐462, (N,N‐dimethyl‐2‐[5‐(1,2,4‐triazol‐1‐ylmethyl)‐1H‐indol‐3‐yl]ethylamine)) and its structurally related analogue L‐741,519 (N‐methyl‐4‐[5‐(1,2,4‐triazol‐4‐yl)‐1H‐indol‐3‐yl]piperidine) are novel 5‐HT1D‐receptor agonists. Rizatriptan has shown efficacy as an anti‐migraine agent in clinical trials. Since angiographic studies in patients have shown that sumatriptan (an established 5‐HT1D‐receptor agonist) can cause coronary artery vasoconstriction, we compared the effects of rizatriptan and L‐741,519 with those of 5‐HT and sumatriptan on endothelium‐denuded segments of human coronary artery in vitro. 2Coronary arteries were obtained from explanted hearts from patients undergoing cardiac transplantation (n=16 viable arteries from 13 males, 3 females, aged 38–68 years) and arterial segments (5–6 mm in length) were mounted in organ baths for isometric tension recording. Each segment was first exposed to 45mm KCl and then to 5‐HT (1 nm–100 μm). Concentration–effect curves to rizatriptan and sumatriptan (Study 1, n=6 or 7 arteries) or sumatriptan and L‐741,519 (Study 2, n=8 arteries) were then performed in a consecutive and random manner. The response to repeated application of 5‐HT was obtained in separate segments. 3One artery showed severe atheroma and was not included in the analysis. ANOVA showed that 5‐HT responsiveness varied significantly between arteries from different patients, but not between arterial segments from the same patient. Desensitization was seen consistently across all agonists but did not significantly affect inter‐agonist comparisons. 4There was graded effectiveness in the ability of the agonists to cause contraction with the rank order of Emax values being 5‐HTsumatriptan>L‐741,519>rizatriptan. In terms of EC50 values, L‐741,519 was significantly more potent than sumatriptan. 5The present study (using a ‘cross‐over’ experimental protocol) confirms our previous observation that rizatriptan is less effective than sumatriptan in causing contraction of human isolated coronary artery. Furthermore, it shows that the lower maximum contractile response to rizatriptan, compared with that of sumatriptan, is not merely the consequence of variability in response to 5‐HT1D‐ receptor agonists between patients or between segments from the same artery.