Exploring the minimal dose of amiodarone with antiarrhythmic and hemodynamic activity

Low dose amiodarone reduces tumor growth and angiogenesis

Amiodarone is an anti-arrhythmic drug that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1985. Pre-clinical studies suggest that Amiodarone induces cytotoxicity in several types of cancer cells, thus making it a potential candidate for use as an anti-cancer treatment. However, it is also known to cause a variety of severe side effects. We hypothesized that in addition to the cytotoxic effects observed in cancer cells Amiodarone also has an indirect effect on angiogensis, a key factor in the tumor microenvironment. In this study, we examined Amiodarone's effects on a murine tumor model comprised of U-87 MG glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells, known to form highly vascularized tumors. We performed several in vitro assays using tumor and endothelial cells, along with in vivo assays utilizing three murine models. Low dose Amiodarone markedly reduced the size of GBM xenograft tumors and displayed a strong anti-angiogenic effect, suggesting dual cancer fighting properties. Our findings lay the ground for further research of Amiodarone as a possible clinical agent that, used in safe doses, maintains its dual properties while averting the drug's harmful side effects.

Low-dose Amiodarone Is Safe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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.

Dataset for amiodarone adverse events compared to placebo using data from randomized controlled trials

The dataset presented here provides a detailed description of the adverse events of amiodarone versus placebo using data from 43 randomized controlled trials. Two authors (M.M., M.R.) independently extracted the data. The dataset also includes baseline patient characteristics, amiodarone loading and maintenance doses, as well as forest plots describing the relative risk (RR) of developing an adverse event related to the pulmonary, thyroid, hepatic, cardiac, skin, gastrointestinal, neurological, and ocular systems. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to determine the relative risk of adverse events of amiodarone compared to placebo. This dataset is complementary to our article “Meta-analysis Comparing the Relative Risk of Adverse Events for Amiodarone Versus Placebo”, which was published in the American Journal of Cardiology [1]. The data can be used to assess certain adverse events and their relation to amiodarone loading and/or maintenance dose.

Amiodarone versus other pharmacological interventions for prevention of sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.

Amiodarone concentrations in plasma and fat tissue during chronic treatment and related toxicity

AIMS

To determine if amiodarone, highly lipophilic, accumulates in excess with respect to dose in fat tissue during long-term administration, and study if plasma and fat tissue concentrations are correlated with adverse effects.

METHODS

Trough concentrations of amiodarone and N-desethyl-amiodarone were measured simultaneously in plasma and fat tissue, in 30 consecutive patients treated with amiodarone for 3 months to 12 years. Subcutaneous adipose tissue was obtained by needle aspiration from lumbar and abdominal areas. Concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Plasma levels of amiodarone and N-desethyl-amiodarone were significantly correlated with daily maintenance doses (R= 0.52, P= 0.003). Amiodarone concentrations in fat tissue were four to 226 times (mean 55) higher than in plasma, and well correlated with plasma levels (R= 0.68, P < 0.001). Concentrations of amiodarone and N-desethyl-amiodarone in adipose tissue did not significantly increase with higher total cumulated doses or longer treatment duration. Nine of 12 patients who had received amiodarone for > or =2 years developed clinically important adverse effects, predominantly hypothyroidism (n= 6), compared with two of 18 patients treated for less time (relative risk 6.75; 95% confidence interval 1.8, 26). The incidence of those adverse effects was not significantly associated with amiodarone concentrations, whether in plasma or in adipose tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of excessive or unexpected accumulation of amiodarone in fat tissue on long-term administration. Late amiodarone adverse effects, particularly hypothyroidism, are associated with longer exposure times, but do not seem to be explained by higher concentrations in plasma or in fat tissue.

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 4

This fourth best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine are examined in this review: (1) safety monitoring for three common drugs; (2) use of prostate-specific antigen; (3) investigation of vaginal discharge; and (4) investigation of subfertility. The review is presented in question-answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a precis of the guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents and evidence-based medicine reviews, supplemented by Medline Embase searches to identify relevant primary research documents. They are not standards but form a guide to be set in the clinical context. Most of them are consensus based rather than evidence based. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.

Use of cardiovascular medications in the elderly

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in patients aged 65 and above. Although elderly persons represent only 12.4% of the US population, they account for about a third of drug expenditures. However the appropriate use of cardiovascular medications in these patients has been shown to reduce the rate of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The normal aging and the disease process in the elderly result in significant changes at the structural and molecular level in the elderly. The changes that take place in the autonomic nervous system, the kidneys, and the liver in the elderly modify the metabolism and clinical effects of most medications. Elderly patients are also susceptible to side effects and adverse drug reactions. Physicians should have a clear understanding of the normal aging processes, the abnormal changes due to disease process and the changes in the pharmacology of drugs in the elderly to deliver proper care to the elderly patient.

Combination therapy with carvedilol and amiodarone in patients with severe heart failure

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol and at least in some studies, amiodarone have been shown to improve symptoms and prognosis of patients with heart failure. There are no reports on the outcome of combined treatment with both drugs on top of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), diuretics and digitalis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 109 patients with severe heart failure submitted for heart transplantation at one single center between the years 1996 and 1998 [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 24.6+/-11%, 85% males, 52% idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), mean observation time 1. 9+/-0.4 years] a therapy with low-dose amiodarone (1000 mg/week) plus titrated doses of carvedilol (target 50 mg/day) was instituted. In addition, patients received a prophylactic dual chamber pacemaker (PM) in order to protect from bradycardia and for continuous holter monitoring. The devices were programmed in back-up mode with a basal rate of 40 i.p.m. with a hysteresis of 25%. Significantly, more patients were in sinus rhythm after 1 year than at study entry (85% vs. 63%, P<0.01). In 47 patients, under therapy over at least 1 year, the resting heart rate fell from 90+/-19 to 59+/-5 b.p.m. (P<0.001). Ventricular premature contractions in 24-h holter ECGs were suppressed from 1.0+/-3 to 0.1+/-0.3%/24 h (P167 b.p.m. detected by the pacemaker (1.2+/-2.8 episodes/patient/3 months vs. 0.3+/-0.8 episodes/patient/3 months after 1 year (P<0.01). The LVEF increased from 26+/-10 to 39+/-13% (P<0.001). NYHA class improved from 3. 17+/-0.3 to 1.8+/-0.6 (P<0.001) as well as right heart catheterization data. From the total cohort, seven patients (6%) developed symptomatic documented bradycardic rhythm disturbances requiring reprogramming of their pacemakers to DDD(R)/VVI(R) mode with higher basic rates. Two of these patients developed AV block, four sinu-atrial blocks or sinus bradycardia and one patient had bradycardic atrial fibrillation. During the observation period five patients died (3 sudden, 1 due to heart failure and 1 due to mesenteric infarction). Two patients had undergone heart transplants. The 1-year survival rate (Kaplan-Meier) without transplantation was 89%. Compared to historic control patients with amiodarone only (n=154) or without either agent (n=283) this rate was 64 and 57% (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Heart failure patients benefit from a combined therapy with carvedilol and amiodarone resulting in a markedly improved NYHA stage, an increase in LV ejection fraction, a stabilization of sinus rhythm, a significant reduction in heart rate, a delay of electrical signal conduction and a suppression of ventricular ectopies. Approximately 6% of patients under such a regime became pacemaker-dependent in the first year. Compared to historic controls prognosis was better and the need for heart transplantation was lower. The exact role of either agent in combination or alone should be clarified in larger randomized studies.

Impact of concurrent amiodarone treatment on the tolerability and efficacy of carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of carvedilol when administered to heart failure patients already receiving amiodarone.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of the clinical outcome of 230 patients treated with carvedilol for chronic heart failure, stratified according to whether they were already receiving amiodarone (amiodarone group, 80 patients) or not (non-amiodarone group, 130 patients) at baseline.

SETTING

Heart failure clinic at a university affiliated public teaching hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of adverse events; changes in functional status and echocardiographic dimensions at three months.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions to carvedilol occurred in 33 (41%) of the amiodarone group and 43 (29%) of the non-amiodarone group (p = 0.049). Carvedilol was discontinued in 21 (26%) of the amiodarone group and 37 (25%) of the non-amiodarone group (NS). The clinical outcome at three months did not differ significantly between the two groups; 31 (39%) of the amiodarone group improved their New York Heart Association status, 28 (35%) were unchanged, and 21 (26%) deteriorated compared with 67 (45%), 51 (34%), and 32 (21%), respectively, for the non-amiodarone group (NS). Both groups had highly significant decreases in heart rate and left ventricular end systolic dimension, and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction after three months of carvedilol treatment, with no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The beneficial effects of carvedilol on left ventricular remodelling, systolic function, and symptomatic status are not affected by concurrent treatment with amiodarone. Adverse reactions necessitating cessation of carvedilol are no more frequent in patients receiving amiodarone.

Cardiovascular pharmacology of aging

Despite the relative paucity of drug trials in the old and especially the very old (> 85 years), some general principles of pharmacology in the aging patient can be taken from available data and clinical experience. The pharmacokinetic changes most consistently seen with aging occur in the volume of distribution, clearance, and half-life of a drug. Renal drug clearance is consistently diminished with aging. Hepatic metabolism is more variably affected, and in contrast to renal clearance, no reliable formula exists to estimate hepatic drug clearance. Pharmacodynamic changes, although present, are less well studied or described in the elderly. Drug interactions and adverse drug reactions increase with increasing numbers of medications prescribed and represent a complex interplay of age, underlying disease, and number and types of medications. The clinical caveats that apply to drug prescription in the very old include reduced starting doses with slow incremental increases; elimination of unnecessary medications; and anticipating and monitoring for drug interactions and ADRs, especially when prescribing warfarin, digoxin, and amiodarone. Future studies that look at the aging patient in the presence of effects of age, physiology, gender, comorbid illness, and multiple drug therapies may help evolve a new set of paradigms for geriatric drug prescribing.

Overview and meta-analysis of randomised trials of amiodarone in chronic heart failure

Unlike other antiarrhythmic class I drugs, amiodarone showed in preliminary studies, benefits also in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. These positive results have induced the development of large randomised controlled studies: their results are reviewed and the controversial points are discussed. In a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials the use of amiodarone in heart failure was associated with an approximate 20 to 25% reduction in deaths. However, amiodarone was also associated with a 120 to 124% increase in side effects.

Arrhythmias and sudden death in heart failure

Survival of patients with heart failure has improved over the past decade due to advances in medical therapy. Sudden death continues to cause 20 to 50% of deaths. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with heart failure. Ventricular hypertrophy, scars from prior myocardial infarction, sympathetic activation, and electrolyte abnormalities contribute. Some sudden deaths are due to bradyarrhythmias and electromechanical dissociation rather than ventricular arrhythmias. The risks and benefits of antiarrhythmic therapies continue to be defined. Class I antiarrhythmic drugs should be avoided due to proarrhythmic and negative inotropic effects that may increase mortality. For patients resuscitated from sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be considered. ICDs markedly reduce sudden death in VT/VF survivors, but in advanced heart failure, this may not markedly extend survival. Catheter or surgical ablation can be considered for selected patients with bundle branch reentry VT or difficult to control monomorphic VT. For patients who have not had sustained VT/VF antiarrhythmic therapy should generally be avoided, but may benefit some high risk patients. Amiodarone may be beneficial in patients with advanced heart failure and rapid resting heart rates. ICDs may improve survival in selected survivors of myocardial infarction who have inducible VT.

Adverse effects of low dose amiodarone: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the odds of experiencing adverse effects with low dose amiodarone therapy compared with placebo.

BACKGROUND

An estimate of the likelihood of experiencing amiodarone-related adverse effects with exposure to low daily doses of the drug is lacking in the published reports, and little information is available on adverse effect event rates in control groups not receiving the drug.

METHODS

Data from four published trials involving 1,465 patients were included in a meta-analysis design. The criteria for inclusion were 1) double-blind, placebo-controlled design; 2) absence of a crossover design between patient groups; 3) mean follow-up of at least 12 months; 4) maintenance amiodarone dose < or = 400 mg/day; and 5) presence of an explicit description of adverse effects. Data were pooled after testing for homogeneity of treatment effects across trials, and summary odds ratios were calculated by the Peto-modified Mantel-Haenszel method for each adverse effect.

RESULTS

The mean amiodarone dose per day ranged from 152 to 330 mg; 738 patients were randomized to receive amiodarone and 727 placebo. Exposure to amiodarone in this dose range, for a minimal duration of 12 months, resulted in odds similar to those of placebo for hepatic and gastrointestinal adverse effects, but in significantly higher odds than those of placebo (p < 0.05) for experiencing thyroid (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0 to 8.7), neurologic (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7), skin (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.2), ocular (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 9.6) and bradycardic (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.3) adverse effects. A trend toward increased odds of pulmonary toxicity was noted (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.3), but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). The unadjusted total incidence of drug discontinuation was 22.9% in the amiodarone group and 15.4% in the placebo group. The odds of discontinuing the drug in the amiodarone group was approximately 1.5 times that of the placebo group (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9) (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, there is a higher likelihood of experiencing several amiodarone-related adverse effects with exposure to low daily doses of the drug. Thus, although low dose amiodarone may be well tolerated, it is not free of adverse effects.

Heart rate is a marker of amiodarone mortality reduction in severe heart failure. The GESICA-GEMA Investigators. Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina-Grupo de Estudios Multicéntricos en Argentina

OBJECTIVES

The impact of amiodarone on mortality in patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) (New York Heart Association functional classes II [advanced], III and IV; left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%) In the Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA) trial was analyzed in relation to initial mean baseline heart rate (BHR) and its change after 6 months of follow-up.

BACKGROUND

Trials of amiodarone therapy in CHF have produced discordant results, suggesting that the effect is not uniform in all patient subgroups with regard to survival.

METHODS

The present analysis was carried out in 516 patients randomized to receive amiodarone, 300 mg/day (n = 260), or nonantiarrhythmic therapy (n = 256, control group) and followed up for 2 years. Survival was evaluated for patients with a BHR > or = 90 beats/min (control: n = 132; amiodarone: n = 122) and < 90 beats/min (control: n = 124; amiodarone: n = 138). Survival was also analyzed according to heart rate reduction at 6 months for 367 patients.

RESULTS

For patients with a BHR > or = 90 beats/min, amiodarone therapy reduced mortality to 38.4% compared with 62.4% in control patients (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.95, p < 0.002). Both sudden death (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90, p < 0.02) and progressive heart failure death (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.03, p < 0.06) were reduced, and functional capacity was improved. In patients with a BHR < 90 beats/min, amiodarone did not alter survival. Among 367 patients who completed 6 months of follow-up, amiodarone reduced 2-year mortality only in those with a BHR > or = 90 beats/min, which was reduced at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated rest heart rates in severe CHF identify a subgroup of patients who benefit from treatment with amiodarone. Amiodarone-induced heart rate slowing may be an important benefit for patients.