ReviewDrug safety2013
Benefit-risk assessment of dronedarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Review in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2014 AATS guidelines for the prevention and management of perioperative atrial fibrillation and flutter for thoracic surgical procedures.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2014Guideline
- A Case of Dronedarone-Induced Hypotensive Shock.Cureus · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) can be achieved using pharmacological therapy. Amiodarone is the most efficacious anti-arrhythmic agent; however, its use is limited due to an unfavourable safety profile, including pro-arrhythmia, thyroid, liver, skin and pulmonary complications. Dronedarone, which is structurally similar to amiodarone, was developed to try and achieve a favourable balance of efficacy and risk. Dronedarone has been evaluated in several large clinical trials, which have shown reduced mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with non-permanent AF. In patients with permanent AF and/or heart failure, dronedarone has been shown to cause increased mortality and morbidity and should not be used in these groups. Compared with amiodarone, dronedarone has fewer toxic effects (thyroid, skin, pulmonary) and, although less efficacious, may be used as first-line therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with non-permanent AF. Clinicians must be vigilant in monitoring their patients to ensure they do not develop permanent AF or heart failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23329540What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.