-
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine Jul 2019Although amiodarone is considered the most effective antiarrhythmic agent, its use is limited by a wide variety of potential toxicities. The purpose of this review is to...
Although amiodarone is considered the most effective antiarrhythmic agent, its use is limited by a wide variety of potential toxicities. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive "bench to bedside" overview of the ways amiodarone influences thyroid function. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other clinically relevant studies. The search was limited to English-language reports published between 1950 and 2017. Amiodarone was searched using the terms adverse effects, hypothyroidism, myxedema, hyperthyroidism, thyroid storm, atrial fibrillation, ventricular arrhythmia, and electrical storm. Google and Google scholar as well as bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed for additional references. We included 163 germane references in this review. Because amiodarone is one of the most frequently prescribed antiarrhythmic drugs in the United States, the mechanistic, diagnostic and therapeutic information provided is relevant for practicing clinicians in a wide range of medical specialties.
Topics: Amiodarone; Animals; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Thyroid Diseases; Thyroid Function Tests; Thyroid Gland
PubMed: 30309693
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2018.09.005 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Apr 2020Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition with increased intracranial pressure of unknown etiology. Its presenting symptoms include persistent headache,...
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition with increased intracranial pressure of unknown etiology. Its presenting symptoms include persistent headache, pulsatile tinnitus, and visual obscuration. It tends to occur in obese women of childbearing age, and its greatest risk is irreversible loss of vision. Some of the commonly used medications in dermatology, especially those for acne vulgaris, have been associated with IIH. However, the creation of specific risk categories for drugs as a guide for clinicians has never been performed.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to critically assess all published cases of IIH and identify high-risk drugs associated with drug-induced intracranial hypertension (DIIH), to assist dermatologists and other physicians with patient education and monitoring of symptoms of secondary intracranial hypertension.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases were searched for all cases of IIH thought to be drug-related between January 1900 and June 2019. A total of 5117 articles were identified, and 235 articles were found to be relevant. All cases were assessed to satisfy the modified Dandy criteria for diagnosis of IIH, and the likelihood of each case being a 'definite' adverse drug reaction (ADR) was determined using the Koh algorithm for ADR. An association category (from weakly associated [Category I] to strongly associated [Category V]) was assigned based on the number of cases meeting these two criteria.
RESULTS
There were 259 verifiable cases of DIIH. Vitamin A derivatives, tetracycline-class antibiotics, recombinant growth hormone, and lithium were found to be most strongly associated with DIIH (Categories IV and V). Corticosteroids were moderately associated with DIIH (Category III). Drugs that were weakly associated with DIIH (Categories I and II) include cyclosporine, progestin-only contraceptives, combined oral contraceptives, second- and third-generation fluoroquinolones, sulfenazone, gonadotropin-releasing hormones and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist, nalidixic acid, amiodarone, stanozolol, danazol, divalproic acid, sulfasalazine, ketoconazole, and ustekinumab.
CONCLUSION
We suggest using the term 'drug-induced intracranial hypertension' (DIIH) and propose a set of diagnostic criteria for DIIH. Our review attempts to identify DIIH-associated drugs based on a strict diagnostic and drug-causality algorithm, then stratify them into appropriate risks categories. This may ultimately assist physicians in counselling patients about the risk of DIIH when prescribing medications and recognizing this uncommon yet sight-threatening condition.
Topics: Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension
PubMed: 31741184
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-019-00485-z -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2018Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DIILD) occurs as a result of numerous agents, but the risk often only becomes apparent after the marketing authorisation of such... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DIILD) occurs as a result of numerous agents, but the risk often only becomes apparent after the marketing authorisation of such agents.
METHODS
In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review, we aimed to evaluate and synthesise the current literature on DIILD.
RESULTS
Following a quality assessment, 156 full-text papers describing more than 6000 DIILD cases were included in the review. However, the majority of the papers were of low or very low quality in relation to the review question (78%). Thus, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, and descriptive review was undertaken instead. DIILD incidence rates varied between 4.1 and 12.4 cases/million/year. DIILD accounted for 3⁻5% of prevalent ILD cases. Cancer drugs, followed by rheumatology drugs, amiodarone and antibiotics, were the most common causes of DIILD. The radiopathological phenotype of DIILD varied between and within agents, and no typical radiological pattern specific to DIILD was identified. Mortality rates of over 50% were reported in some studies. Severity at presentation was the most reliable predictor of mortality. Glucocorticoids (GCs) were commonly used to treat DIILD, but no prospective studies examined their effect on outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall high-quality evidence in DIILD is lacking, and the current review will inform larger prospective studies to investigate the diagnosis and management of DIILD.
PubMed: 30326612
DOI: 10.3390/jcm7100356 -
Cureus Nov 2023A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in... (Review)
Review
A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in children and infants (one hour to 17 years of age) with no structural heart disease by PRISMA guideline. Our team conducted an exhaustive systematic literature review (SLR), utilizing an extensive search methodology across recognized databases like PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We included 10 scholarly articles that satisfied our rigorous selection criteria including systematic reviews/meta-analysis, and randomized control trials, shedding light on treatment with amiodarone and adenosine for SVT in pediatric patients. There is no first- or second-line treatment for SVT in pediatrics, and drug effectiveness can vary significantly between patients. Adenosine has a shorter half-life than other drugs, instead, it is safer and more valuable when an electrocardiogram is uncertain, it is recommended as an acute management, and it continues as the first-line option for paroxysmal SVT. Amiodarone management patients with acute STV within, its use showed better results when administered 48 hours after diagnosis. Furthermore, it is recommended to reduce the incidence of junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET), by pre-operative prophylaxis, also for chronic control in this and other types of SVT. In none of the evaluated studies were documented significant adverse effects in pediatric patients. Side effects that did occur were mild and easily managed. The studies also emphasize that although both amiodarone and adenosine can successfully convert SVT to sinus rhythm, better results have been observed when using combined therapies of each recommended medication. Therefore, more randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews are needed to solidify and possibly standardize an effective and safe pharmacological treatment for SVT and its types in pediatric patients.
PubMed: 38073952
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48507 -
International Journal of Cardiology Oct 2016The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the effects of amiodarone on survival and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from 1940 to March 2016 without language restrictions. Randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies were selected.
RESULTS
Our search initially identified 1663 studies, 1458 from MEDLINE and 205 from Cochrane Library. Of them, 4 randomized controlled studies and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for further review. Three randomized studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission (OR=1.402, 95% CI: 1.068-1.840, Z=2.43, P=0.015), but neither survival to hospital discharge (RR=0.850, 95% CI: 0.631-1.144, Z=1.07, P=0.284) nor neurological outcome compared to placebo or nifekalant (OR=1.114, 95% CI: 0.923-1.345, Z=1.12, P=0.475).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission. However there is no benefit of amiodarone in survival to discharge or neurological outcomes compared to placebo or other antiarrhythmics.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Arrest; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Admission; Patient Discharge; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate
PubMed: 27434349
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.138 -
Resuscitation Oct 2016Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not available. Recent underpowered evidence suggests that amiodarone, lidocaine or placebo are equivalent with respect to survival at hospital discharge, but amiodarone and lidocaine showed higher hospital admission rates. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy of amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo.
METHODS
We included studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until May 15th, 2016. The primary outcomes were survival at hospital admission and discharge in OOH-CA patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCT) according to resuscitation with amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. If feasible, secondary analysis was performed including in the analysis also patients with in-hospital CA and data from non-RCT.
RESULTS
A total of seven findings were included in the metanalysis (three RCTs, 4 non-RCTs). Amiodarone was as beneficial as lidocaine for survival at hospital admission (primary analysis odds ratio-OR 0.86-1.23, p=0.40) and discharge (primary analysis OR 0.87-1.30, p=0.56; secondary analysis OR 0.86-1.27, p=0.67). As compared with placebo, survival at hospital admission was higher both for amiodarone (primary analysis OR 1.12-1.54, p<0.0001; secondary analysis OR 1.07-1.45, p<0.005) and lidocaine (secondary analysis only OR 1.14-1.58, p=0.0005). With regards to hospital discharge there were no differences between placebo and amiodarone (primary outcome OR 0.98-1.44, p=0.08; secondary outcome OR 0.92-1.33, p=0.28) or lidocaine (secondary outcome only OR 0.97-1.45, p=0.10).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone and lidocaine equally improve survival at hospital admission as compared with placebo. However, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine improve long-term outcome.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Hospitalization; Humans; Lidocaine; Long Term Adverse Effects; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 27496262
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.07.235 -
CJC Open Jan 2021Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate cancer risk among patients receiving amiodarone.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to May 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with follow-up ≥2 years that compared amiodarone (any dose) to any comparator (placebo, active pharmacologic or interventional comparator, or usual care), and reported ≥1 outcome of interest. We contacted authors of published chronic amiodarone trials for potentially unreported cancer outcomes. The primary outcome was cancer incidence. Secondary outcomes were cancer-related death and site-specific cancers. We determined risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity using . We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses for amiodarone indication, amiodarone dose, duration of therapy, and trial-level risk of bias.
RESULTS
From 1439 articles, we included 5 RCTs (n = 4357). Mean follow-up duration ranged from 21 to 37 months. We included previously unpublished cancer outcome data from 1 RCT. Our primary outcome was not reported in any RCT. There was no significant difference in cancer-related death between amiodarone (1.69%) and the comparator (1.75%) (risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.63; = 0%). There were no significant interactions from our subgroup or sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic amiodarone use did not increase cancer-related deaths. Data from RCTs do not support an increased risk of cancer-related harms with amiodarone use, and these concerns should not deter use of amiodarone when indicated.
PubMed: 33458637
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.09.013 -
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine May 2023Amiodarone is a common anti-arrhythmic agent mostly used to treat and prevent different kinds of arrhythmia with several considerable side effects, most commonly on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Amiodarone is a common anti-arrhythmic agent mostly used to treat and prevent different kinds of arrhythmia with several considerable side effects, most commonly on the thyroid gland. We aimed to assess the frequency of hypothyroidism among chronic amiodarone users. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were screened in the title and abstract sections with no time limitation. Relevant published records reported amiodarone-induced hypothyroidism (AIH) among patients with normal thyroid function at baseline were recruited with further analysis according to gender and study locations. We found 29 records on 14143 individuals. Total population age ranged from 18 to 92 years (males: 58.2% (8158 out of 13,999)). The AIH prevalence was found to be 14% (95% confidence interval (CI): 12-17%). Further gender stratified showed an insignificant higher AIH frequency in females versus males (17%, 95% CI: 13-22% vs. 14%, 95% CI: 11-19% P= 0.304, respectively). Despite no significant difference in AIH prevalence according to different continents, African subjects had marginally lower AIH frequency compared to Asian (7%, 95% CI: 4-13% vs. 15%, 95% CI: 12-19%, P= 0.012) and South American persons (7%, 95% CI: 4-13% vs. 54%, 95% CI: 9-93%, P= 0.038). This review suggests the occurrence of AIH is quite considerable regardless of gender and area of residence, and several periodic thyroid assessment strategies should be developed for earlier recognition and therapeutic interventions in clinical settings.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amiodarone; Prevalence; Thyrotoxicosis; Hypothyroidism; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
PubMed: 35026394
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2022.01.001 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 2023Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic drug with a significant adverse effect profile, including neurotoxicity. While ataxia, neuropathy, and tremors are more commonly seen... (Review)
Review
Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic drug with a significant adverse effect profile, including neurotoxicity. While ataxia, neuropathy, and tremors are more commonly seen forms of amiodarone neurotoxicity, very few cases of nystagmus are reported. We report the case of an 86-year-old man who presented with abrupt-onset ataxia, dizziness, and inability to ambulate, 10 days after initiating amiodarone for atrial fibrillation. His examination revealed gaze-evoked nystagmus along with features of cerebellar dysfunction. After excluding other etiologies, amiodarone was stopped. His nystagmus resolved, and his ataxia improved within 48 h of stopping amiodarone. Due to the rarity of this drug-induced adverse effect, we performed a systematic review of available case reports in the literature (PubMed and Scopus) using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and presented our findings. Nystagmus is a rarely reported adverse effect of amiodarone, which can occur within days to months of starting the medication. Treatment includes stopping the drug and monitoring for resolution of nystagmus.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Male; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Ataxia; Atrial Fibrillation; Dizziness; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Tremor; Case Reports as Topic
PubMed: 37571970
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2330 -
The Journal of Innovations in Cardiac... Apr 2020Amiodarone is commonly used for a variety of arrhythmias and, in some parts of the world, is the only available antiarrhythmic drug (AAD). Yet, amiodarone is known to...
Amiodarone is commonly used for a variety of arrhythmias and, in some parts of the world, is the only available antiarrhythmic drug (AAD). Yet, amiodarone is known to have a wide range of potential side effects, many of which are dose- and duration-dependent. We sought to study the incidence of side effects leading to the discontinuation of low-dose amiodarone, arbitrarily defined as 200 mg/day or less, and very-low-dose amiodarone, defined as 100 mg/day or less. In this study, literature databases were searched through June 2019. Studies that reported the incidence or prevalence of side effects of amiodarone were included. Effect estimates from individual studies were extracted and combined using the random-effects generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. A total of 10 observational cohort studies involving 901 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled estimated incidence of overall side effects for low-dose amiodarone was 0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-0.22]. In addition, the pooled estimated incidence of side effects requiring medication discontinuation was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.11). As compared with 200 mg/day of amiodarone, the pooled estimated incidence of overall side effects was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.04-0.27), while the incidence of side effects requiring medication discontinuation was 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.06) for the dose of 100 mg/day. In conclusion, very-low-dose amiodarone displays a low incidence of significant side effects requiring medication discontinuation.
PubMed: 32368381
DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2020.110403