Differential Pharmacokinetics of Digoxin in Elderly Patients

Digoxin remains one of the most commonly prescribed of all cardiac medications. The main indications for digoxin usage include atrial fibrillation and heart failure; both these conditions are more prevalent in older patients. Given the aging population and the increasing incidence of heart failure we would expect prescribing of digoxin to remain as frequent or to even increase in older patients. Older patients are also more likely to develop toxicity and diagnosis of digoxin toxicity can be difficult in this group. Numerous components contribute to the development of toxicity in older patients, ranging from aging-related changes in renal function or body mass to polypharmacy and possible interactions with digoxin. It is therefore important to understand how the pharmacokinetics of digoxin may be altered in the older population. Application of basic pharmacological principles may be helpful in anticipating these problems. This review describes the pharmacokinetics of digoxin, the changes in pharmacokinetics with increasing age and how concomitant disease states or drug interactions may affect the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. Greater knowledge about the causes and prevention of digoxin toxicity should further reduce the morbidity and mortality arising from digoxin toxicity, especially in the elderly population.
For over 200 years debate has raged regarding the use of digitalis glycosides in cardiac disease. At present digoxin is the most commonly prescribed digitalis compound. This review describes the pharmacokinetics of digoxin and in particular how they are altered with increasing age. When considering the elderly population it is important to recognise the heterogeneity of response in this group, therefore there are no rules, with regards to prescribing, that can apply to the entire elderly population.

Digoxin toxicity in the aged. Characterising and avoiding the problem

Digoxin is one of the most frequently prescribed drugs, particularly in the elderly population where there is an increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation and cardiac failure. The drug has a narrow therapeutic range and has gained a reputation for producing adverse effects in older patients. The more frail elderly patients with coexistent disease, often taking other treatments, are more at risk from digoxin toxicity due to inappropriate dosing, noncompliance, or increased sensitivity to digoxin resulting from pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions. Application of basic pharmacological principles may be helpful in anticipating these problems. Elderly patients more commonly receive digoxin than younger patients, which in part accounts for the higher rates of toxicity in this group. Numerous components contribute to the development of toxicity, and diagnosis of toxicity is difficult in this age group. The measurement of serum concentrations can contribute to the clinical diagnosis. A major problem is the accurate diagnosis of digoxin toxicity which may have numerous nonspecific clinical manifestations, many of which are related to coexisting disease in elderly patients. This diagnostic imprecision is well recognised but has been helped by the introduction of serum digoxin measurement. However, reliance on serum concentrations should not replace clinical judgement, since these do not always correlate with toxicity. The apparently decreasing incidence of toxicity over recent years probably reflects several factors: the improvement in digoxin formulations, awareness of digoxin pharmacology, utilisation of serum concentrations, and the realisation that digoxin withdrawal is a viable proposition in elderly patients. Greater knowledge about the causes and prevention of digoxin toxicity should further reduce the morbidity and mortality arising from digoxin overdose, especially in the elderly population.

Digoxin use after diagnosis of breast cancer and survival: a population-based cohort study

Digoxin has been shown to have an estrogenic effect and is associated with increased risk of gynecomastia and estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast and uterus cancer. These findings, particularly recent observations of increased breast cancer risk, raise questions about the safety of digoxin use in breast cancer patients. Therefore, we investigated whether digoxin use after breast cancer diagnosis increased the risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in breast cancer patients. A cohort of 17,842 breast cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 was identified from English cancer registries (from the National Cancer Data Repository). This cohort was linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (to provide digoxin and other prescription records) and to the Office of National Statistics mortality data (to identify breast cancer-specific deaths). Using time-dependent Cox regression models, unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the association between post-diagnostic exposure to digoxin and breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. In 17,842 breast cancer patients, there were 2219 breast cancer-specific deaths. Digoxin users appeared to have increased breast cancer-specific mortality compared with non-users (HR 1.73; 95 % CI 1.39–2.15) but this association was entirely attenuated after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted HR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.72–1.14). In this large population-based breast cancer cohort study, there was little evidence of an increase in breast cancer-specific mortality with digoxin use after diagnosis. These results provide some reassurance that digoxin use is safe in breast cancer patients.

Digoxin use after diagnosis of colorectal cancer and survival: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND:

Digoxin has been shown to affect a number of pathways that are of relevance to cancer, and its use has been associated with increased risks of breast and uterus cancer and, more recently, a 40% increase in colorectal cancer risk. These findings raise questions about the safety of digoxin use in colorectal cancer patients, and, therefore, we investigated whether digoxin use after colorectal cancer diagnosis increased the risk of colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS:

A cohort of 10,357 colorectal cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 was identified from English cancer registries and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (to provide digoxin and other prescription records) and to the Office of National Statistics mortality data (to identify 2,724 colorectal cancer-specific deaths). Using time-dependent Cox regression models, unadjusted and adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the association between postdiagnostic exposure to digoxin and colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS:

Overall, 682 (6%) colorectal cancer patients used digoxin after diagnosis. Digoxin use was associated with a small increase in colorectal cancer-specific mortality before adjustment (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46), but after adjustment for confounders, the association was attenuated (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34) and there was no evidence of a dose response.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this large population-based colorectal cancer cohort, there was little evidence of an increase in colorectal cancer-specific mortality with digoxin use after diagnosis.

IMPACT:

These results provide some reassurance that digoxin use is safe in colorectal cancer patients.

Digoxin use after diagnosis of prostate cancer and survival: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE:
Preclinical studies have shown that digoxin exerts anticancer effects on different cancer cell lines including prostate cancer. A recent observational study has shown that digoxin use was associated with a 25% reduction in prostate cancer risk. The aim of this study was to investigate whether digoxin use after diagnosis of prostate cancer was associated with decreased prostate cancer-specific mortality.
METHODS:
A cohort of 13 134 patients with prostate cancer newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 was identified from English cancer registries and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (to provide digoxin and other prescription records) and to the Office of National Statistics mortality data (to identify 2010 prostate cancer-specific deaths). Using time-dependent Cox regression models, unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the association between post-diagnostic exposure to digoxin and prostate cancer-specific mortality.
RESULTS:
Overall, 701 (5%) patients with prostate cancer used digoxin after diagnosis. Digoxin use was associated with an increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality before adjustment (HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.32-1.91), but after adjustment for confounders, the association was attenuated (adjusted HR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.93-1.37) and there was no evidence of a dose response.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this large population-based prostate cancer cohort, there was no evidence of a reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality with digoxin use after diagnosis.