Key result
Amiodarone was associated with lower average rates of baseline (55% vs 99.6%) and follow-up (57% vs 85%) monitoring compared to dofetilide.
Why the study?
What is the frequency of adverse event monitoring in ambulatory patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide?
Observational (n=100)
What is the frequency of adverse event monitoring in ambulatory patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide?
Absolute Event Rate: 55% vs 99.6%
Adherence to guideline-recommended adverse event monitoring is substantially lower for amiodarone compared to dofetilide in ambulatory patients, indicating a gap in care that could impact patient safety.
Highlights a significant safety gap in guideline-directed amiodarone surveillance; leaves.
BACKGROUND: Published studies state that adherence to regular laboratory assessments for anti-arrhythmic drugs is as low as 20%. Monitoring adherence is important as other studies have shown that up to 93% of patients on amiodarone experience an adverse drug event leading to a potentially lethal event. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide are being monitored according to package labeling and guideline recommendations for adverse events. METHODS: Patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide from a 2-year period were eligible for inclusion. Patients with ventricular arrhythmias, prescribed more than 1 anti-arrhythmic agent, or received anti-arrhythmic monitoring outside the health-care system were excluded. Adherence to monitoring parameters was assessed according to labeled recommendations and published guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the frequency of baseline and follow-up monitoring recommendations for patients receiving amiodarone or dofetilide. The secondary objective was to determine rates of adverse drug events. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated (amiodarone n = 50, dofetilide n = 50). Average rates of baseline and follow-up amiodarone monitoring parameters were 55% and 57%, respectively. Average rates of baseline and follow-up dofetilide monitoring were 99.6% and 85%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in abnormally elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels (8%-30%, P ≤ .005) after patients were prescribed amiodarone. Twelve percent of patients taking dofetilide had an increase in QTc interval by >15%. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone adverse event monitoring was lower than dofetilide in this cohort. Improving the monitoring of these agents may decrease morbidity risk in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rickard et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Ambulatory patients on amiodarone or dofetilide (n=100). Amiodarone vs. Dofetilide was evaluated on Frequency of baseline monitoring recommendations. Amiodarone was associated with lower average rates of baseline (55% vs 99.6%) and follow-up (57% vs 85%) monitoring compared to dofetilide.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: