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

Albert Jesus Figueras Suñe, Mónica Tarapués, Gloria Cereza, Albert Figueras

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2015 Informa UK, Ltd. 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 In 5 out of 10 cases, dronedarone was withdrawn and the patient recovered.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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)807-813
JournalExpert Opinion on Drug Safety
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2015

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Dronedarone
  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Renal failure

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Dronedarone and renal impairment: Evaluation of Spanish postmarketing reports and review of literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this