42 resultados para digoxin
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Digoxin intoxication results in predominantly digestive, cardiac and neurological symptoms. This case is outstanding in that the intoxication occurred in a nonagenarian and induced severe, extensively documented visual symptoms as well as dysphagia and proprioceptive illusions. Moreover, it went undiagnosed for a whole month despite close medical follow-up, illustrating the difficulty in recognizing drug-induced effects in a polymorbid patient. CASE PRESENTATION: Digoxin 0.25 mg qd for atrial fibrillation was prescribed to a 91-year-old woman with an estimated creatinine clearance of 18 ml/min. Over the following 2-3 weeks she developed nausea, vomiting and dysphagia, snowy and blurry vision, photopsia, dyschromatopsia, aggravated pre-existing formed visual hallucinations and proprioceptive illusions. She saw her family doctor twice and visited the eye clinic once until, 1 month after starting digoxin, she was admitted to the emergency room. Intoxication was confirmed by a serum digoxin level of 5.7 ng/ml (reference range 0.8-2 ng/ml). After stopping digoxin, general symptoms resolved in a few days, but visual complaints persisted. Examination by the ophthalmologist revealed decreased visual acuity in both eyes, 4/10 in the right eye (OD) and 5/10 in the left eye (OS), decreased color vision as demonstrated by a score of 1/13 in both eyes (OU) on Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates, OS cataract, and dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Computerized static perimetry showed non-specific diffuse alterations suggestive of either bilateral retinopathy or optic neuropathy. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) disclosed moderate diffuse rod and cone dysfunction and multifocal ERG revealed central loss of function OU. Visual symptoms progressively improved over the next 2 months, but multifocal ERG did not. The patient was finally discharged home after a 5 week hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This case is a reminder of a complication of digoxin treatment to be considered by any treating physician. If digoxin is prescribed in a vulnerable patient, close monitoring is mandatory. In general, when facing a new health problem in a polymorbid patient, it is crucial to elicit a complete history, with all recent drug changes and detailed complaints, and to include a drug adverse reaction in the differential diagnosis.
Resumo:
Background: This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index. Objectives: To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program. Methods: We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin. Results: Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0·65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0·001). The mean difference was 0·12 μg/L (SD 0·26; 95% CI 0·04, 0·19, P = 0·005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended. Conclusion: PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients.
Resumo:
After the publication of DIG trial, the therapeutic target of serum digoxin concentration (SDC) for the treatment of heart failure (HF) has been lowered (0.40-1.00 ng/ml). However, the majority of equations to calculate digoxin dosages were developed for higher SDCs. Recently, a new equation was validated in Asian population for low SDCs by Konishi et al., but results in Caucasians are unknown.
Resumo:
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.