Dronedarone-associated acute renal failure: evidence coming from the Italian spontaneous ADR reporting database

The use of dronedarone for recurrent ventricular tachycardia: a case report and review of the literature

Background

Dronedarone is a benzofuran derivative resembling amiodarone that was intended to reduce the iodine-associated tissue deposition and organ toxicity seen with the latter. The utility of dronedarone for patients with ventricular arrhythmias has not been thoroughly evaluated. We present our experience with its use to treat refractory ventricular tachycardia storm and review the literature.

Case presentation

An 85 year-old gentleman with multiple medical comorbidities including ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with severe biventricular systolic dysfunction presented with ventricular tachycardia storm. Therapeutic options were limited given his frail medical status, failures of sotalol, mexilitine, and catheter ablation therapies along with drug-toxicities from amiodarone. Dronedarone was thus considered as off-label use following informed consent. The patient unfortunately developed fatal multisystem organ failure including acute severe hepatotoxicity from dronedarone.

Conclusion

Novel therapies for drug-refractory ventricular arrhythmias are long overdue given the limitations of available pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic options. Off-label use of antiarrhythmic agents such as dronedarone is considered a treatment of last-resort in patients who otherwise have no therapeutic options. Given the paucity of reported cases regarding dronedarone for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, no conclusive recommendations can be made at this time aside from words of caution. Despite the potential ventricular antiarrhythmic effects of dronedarone, careful patient evaluation is required to identify those at greatest risk of drug-related adverse events particularly in those patients with significant comorbidities such as advanced hepatic, renal, and cardiovascular disease.

Acute renal failure in patients treated with dronedarone or amiodarone: a large population-based cohort study in Italy

PURPOSE

Causes of ARF are numerous including drugs. In 2012, spontaneous reporting showed a possible association between dronedarone and ARF. To further investigate such association, a retrospective cohort study on health-service claim databases was performed taking amiodarone as comparison.

METHODS

All patients receiving new prescription of amiodarone or dronedarone between September 2010 and December 2012 were selected. Cox regression models to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), for dronedarone versus amiodarone were performed. HRs were calculated: (i) for the entire cohort; (ii) for matched cohorts using propensity score; (iii) and high-dimensional propensity score.

RESULTS

New users without previous episodes of ARF were 56,739 and 1761 on dronedarone and 54,978 on amiodarone. After 1:1 matching for propensity score, new users with dronedarone and amiodarone were 1467 and 1467, respectively. The cumulative incidence rate of ARF was 1.6 % (95 % CI 0.7-3.6 %) among dronedarone group and 2.3 % (1.0-5.1 %) among amiodarone group (p from log rank test = 0.4884). The unadjusted HR of ARF was 0.34 (0.18-0.64) in dronedarone new users compared to amiodarone; in propensity score matched cohort, it was 0.75 (0.26-2.16), and in high-dimensional propensity score, it was 0.83 (0.25-2.73).

CONCLUSIONS

This large community-based study did not confirm the signal of an increased nephrotoxicity from dronedarone compared to amiodarone. Nevertheless, given the increasing number of reports collected from pharmacovigilance databases worldwide on this association, it is advisable for clinicians and patients to be aware of the possible kidney damage due to dronedarone in order to improve clinical outcomes with early intervention.

Dronedarone and renal impairment: evaluation of Spanish postmarketing reports and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Renal impairment associated with dronedarone use is hardly known. Our aim is to describe the characteristics of spontaneous reports involving renal adverse reactions with use of dronedarone.

METHODS

In the Spanish Pharmacovigilance database, reports with renal reactions and dronedarone until May 2014 were retrieved and analyzed. Also, a review of case reports of renal failure and dronedarone was conducted in MEDLINE.

RESULTS

Dronedarone was found as a suspected drug in 192 reports, 10 (5.2%) of these reports described renal reactions. Renal reactions appeared until 3 months after the onset of dronedarone treatment. In 5 out of 10 cases, dronedarone was withdrawn and the patient recovered. The Reporting Odds Ratio was 2.88 [95% CI 1.52 - 5.46; p < 0.05]. Additionally, eight cases were found in the medical literature. In five of them, the patient outcome was described as recovered. One patient had to undergo hemodialysis for the treatment of their renal impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of dronedarone on the renal function is supported by limited information; therefore, the cases from spontaneous reporting system and those from the medical literature could give relevant additional information. Our analysis shows a potential relationship between dronedarone use and renal impairment. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.