Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Digoxin”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Cardio protective effect of glucose-insulin infusion on acute digoxin toxicity in rat.

UNLABELLED: We recently observed a case of digoxin and insulin self-poisoning without cardiac repercussion. We raised the hypothesis that insulin may have a cardio-protective effect in case of digoxin toxicity. We have therefore evaluated the effect of glucose-insulin infusion on mortality and ECG abnormalities during acute digoxin toxicity in rats. Before and after a hyperinsulinemia-euglycemia clamp, rats in glucose-insulin-digoxin (GID) group (n=10) received an intravenous infusion of 12ml/h or 2,5ml/h digoxin (0.25mg/ml) respectively until death occured. Animals receiving digoxin or saline solution intravenously served as control (n=10). ECG recording was performed in all animals over the entire period. Serum insulin and digoxin concentrations were measured by ELISA method after digoxin administration. When digoxin was administered after the clamp, all animals in GID group were alive, whereas 80% of animals in the digoxin group were dead (p<0.001) after 30min. The administration of Digoxin provoked rapid death of rats in the digoxin group in 15+/-12min whereas in GID group the survival period was significantly increased to 38+/-3min (p<0.001). Twenty minutes after digoxin administration, P waves disappeared for 78% of animals in digoxin group while they were present in all rats of GID group (p<0.001). Animal death occurred after a digoxin infusion volume of 7.7+/-0.6ml and 3.0+/-2.4ml in GID and digoxin group respectively (p<0.001). Five minutes after digoxin administration, potassium plasmatic level increased significantly in digoxin group as compared to GID group: 7.1+/-2mmol/l versus 4.4+/-0.4mmol/l (p<0.001). When digoxin was infused before the clamp, 40% of animals in GID group were alive after 180min and the other 60% died after 137+/-40min whereas death of rats in the digoxin group occurred within 80+/-10min (p<0.001). The death of animals was preceded by the P waves disappearing. Thirty minutes after digoxin administration, the potassium plasmatic level increased significantly in the digoxin group as compared to the GID group: 6.9+/-0.5mmol/l versus 4.9+/-0.3mmol/l (p<0.001). At the time of death, both volume of digoxin infusion and serum digoxin concentration were increased in GID group as compared to digoxin group: 5.7+/-1.6ml versus 3.3+/-0.4ml (p<0.001) and 10.7+/-8.3mg/l versus 8.5+/-4.6mg/l. CONCLUSION: Glucose-insulin infusion delayed the abnormalities in cardiac conduction and improved rat survival after acute digoxin toxicity. These results suggest a cardioprotective effect of insulin in case of acute digoxin toxicity.

Animals↗
PubMed1999

Lack of mutual pharmacokinetic interaction between cerivastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, and digoxin in healthy normocholesterolemic volunteers.

The potential mutual interaction between cerivastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, and digoxin was assessed in this nonmasked, nonrandomized, multiple-dose study. The effect of cerivastatin 0.2 mg on mean plasma digoxin levels and the effect of digoxin on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin were assessed in 20 healthy normocholesterolemic men between 18 and 45 years of age weighing 140 to 200 lbs (63.3 to 90.0 kg). Subjects were given a single dose of cerivastatin 0.2 mg. After a 2-day washout period, subjects were given a loading dose of digoxin 0.5 mg for 3 days followed by 0.25 mg daily for 5 additional days (period 1-digoxin alone). Concurrent dosing with cerivastatin 0.2 mg continued for 14 days (period 2-digoxin and cerivastatin), followed by an 8-day course of digoxin-only administration and an optional 6-day extension of digoxin-only treatment for a total of 14 days (period 3). Safety was assessed through physical examination, electrocardiography, laboratory tests, and ophthalmologic examination. Ratio analyses of mean digoxin plasma trough levels, 24-hour urinary digoxin levels, and digoxin clearance with and without concurrent cerivastatin dosing also were carried out. In addition, single-dose pharmacokinetic variables for cerivastatin, including area under the curve (AUC(0-24)), peak concentration (C(max)), time to peak concentration (T(max)), and elimination half-life (t1/2), were examined with and without concurrent digoxin dosing. Eleven of the 20 subjects completed the entire study. Seven subjects discontinued the study because of treatment-emergent adverse events or laboratory abnormalities that were mostly unrelated to cerivastatin, and 2 subjects were discontinued because of protocol violations. Treatment-emergent adverse events developed in 12 subjects receiving cerivastatin; 11 of these subjects were receiving digoxin concurrently. Six adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment were unrelated to cerivastatin but were related to digoxin or to a preexisting condition. The most commonly reported event was headache, which occurred with equal frequency compared with placebo groups in large cerivastatin clinical trials. Other events were mild or moderate and resolved without intervention. Mild and transient elevations in hepatic transaminase and creatine kinase values (all <2 times the upper limit of normal) were observed in 7 subjects. After 14 days of concurrent dosing of cerivastatin and digoxin, steady-state digoxin plasma levels, urinary digoxin levels, and urinary digoxin clearance were unchanged compared with steady-state digoxin levels when digoxin was given alone. Compared with dosing with digoxin alone, the AUC(0-24), Cmax, and t1/2 for cerivastatin increased 3%, 20%, and 7%, respectively, while the T(max) was reduced by 18% during concurrent treatment with digoxin. These changes are minimal and would not be expected to be clinically relevant. These results demonstrate that when cerivastatin is administered concurrently with digoxin, neither digoxin nor cerivastatin plasma levels are altered. The combination therapy was generally well tolerated.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Pharmacokinetic aspects of digoxin-specific Fab therapy in the management of digitalis toxicity.

Digoxin intoxication occurs frequently and may require treatment with digoxin-specific Fab therapy. Little is known, however, regarding the biological fate of this compound. Pharmacokinetic studies have not been performed in healthy volunteers, but there are limited kinetic data from patients who have received therapy for the treatment of digoxin toxicity. Digoxin-specific Fab is eliminated via renal and nonrenal routes, having a volume of distribution slightly exceeding extracellular volume (0.40 L/kg) and an elimination half-life of 16 to 20 hours. Patients with renal impairment and end-stage renal disease have elimination half-life values that are prolonged up to 10-fold in magnitude, while volume of distribution is unaffected. Systemic clearance of digoxin-specific Fab is approximately 0.32 ml/min/kg in digoxin-toxic patients with preserved renal function. Renal failure also decreases Fab clearance by up to 75%. Therefore, Fab may reside in the serum of anephric patients for 2 to 3 weeks after administration. More important is the effect of Fab on the disposition of digoxin. Because digoxin-specific Fab has a stronger digoxin-binding affinity than do biological membranes, it can sequester tissue-bound and intracellular digoxin into the extracellular spaces. This results in a rapid increase in digoxin serum concentrations in the central compartment. Since the majority of digoxin is bound by Fab, it cannot interact with its biological receptor and thus reverses digoxin toxicity. The pharmacokinetic fate of total digoxin after administration of digoxin-specific Fab follows that of Fab. However, it appears that the elimination half-life of Fab is slightly shorter than that of total digoxin in patients with end-stage renal disease, suggesting that the clearance of Fab is slightly faster than that of total digoxin. Free digoxin concentrations fall rapidly after Fab administration and then rebound upwards within 12 to 24 hours. This rebound in free digoxin concentrations, however, is delayed by 12 to 130 hours in patients with renal dysfunction and end-stage renal disease. Rebound in free digoxin concentrations occurs during the initial phase of the biexponential decline of the serum concentration-time profile for digoxin-specific Fab, suggesting that distribution from the vascular spaces is the likely cause. Following the increase, free digoxin concentrations decline in a manner that is dependent on renal and nonrenal routes of elimination. During this time period it is evident that Fab retains it capability of binding digoxin while it resides in plasma. There is no evidence to support a dissociation between the Fab-digoxin complex over extended periods of time.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Development of digoxin dry elixir as a novel dosage form using a spray-drying technique.

A rapidly absorbed new novel oral dosage form for digoxin termed 'digoxin dry elixir' was developed by the spray-drying technique. Digoxin, dextrin and sodium lauryl sulphate were dissolved in a ethanol-water mixture (20:25 w/w) and therefore spray-dried to form the digoxin dry elixir. According to scanning electron micrographs, digoxin dry elixir is spherical in shape with a smooth surface. The geometric mean diameter of dry elixir determined by laser particle size analysis was about 13 microns. The appearance and flow properties were almost unchanged and about 10% of ethanol contents in the dry elixir decreased during 180 days in a sealed bottle at room temperature. Comparative studies on the in vitro dissolution and in vivo absorption of digoxin in the form of digoxin dry elixir, digoxin elixir and digoxin powder were carried out. Digoxin in the dry elixirs was completely dissolved within 2 min. On the other hand, only about 87% of digoxin powder dissolved in 60 min. The initial dissolution rates of digoxin in the dry elixirs markedly increased in distilled water at 37 degrees C, which were over 100 fold higher than that of digoxin powder alone. The maximal plasma concentration of digoxin (Cmax) and area under the digoxin concentration-time curve from zero to 6 h (AUC0-6h) after the oral administration of digoxin dry elixir were almost 3.8 and 5.5 fold increased compared to digoxin powder alone. No significant difference of AUC0-6 h between dry elixir and elixir was observed, but the Cmax of digoxin in the form of dry elixir was significantly reduced compared to the digoxin elixir (0.57 versus 0.83). Digoxin dry elixir might be a useful solid dosage form to improve the dissolution rate and bioavailability of poorly water-soluble digoxin compared to digoxin powder alone. It also indicates that dry elixir might reduce the side effects in oral digitalis glycoside therapy compared to the digoxin elixir due to the reduction of Cmax.

Animals↗
PubMed1984

Myocardial monovalent cation transport during the quinidine-digoxin interaction in dogs.

To study the relationship of the serum digoxin concentration to the digoxin effect on monovalent cation transport during the quinidine-digoxin interaction, we used radiolabeled rubidium to measure monovalent cation active transport in myocardial biopsy samples from dogs. In a preliminary study, we showed that quinidine did not affect rubidium uptake by myocardial samples from intact dogs. Then, we studied four groups, each consisting of 13 dogs, which received either saline, low dose digoxin, high dose digoxin, or low dose digoxin plus quinidine treatment. In these groups of dogs, the following steady state serum digoxin concentrations were achieved: saline-treated, 0 ng/ml; low dose digoxin, 1.2 +/- 0.2 ng/ml (mean +/- SD); high dose digoxin, 2.4 +/- 0.4 ng/ml; and low-dose digoxin plus quinidine treated, 2.3 +/- 1.1 ng/ml. Compared to control values, rubidium uptake was decreased by 17% in dogs treated with low dose digoxin (P less than 0.05) and by 38% in dogs treated with high dose digoxin (P less than 0.01 vs. saline-treated, P less than 0.01 vs. low dose digoxin). Although low dose digoxin plus quinidine-treated dogs had the same mean serum digoxin concentration as the high dose digoxin-treated dogs, rubidium uptake in low dose digoxin plus quinidine-treated dogs was decreased by only 17% compared to control (P less than 0.05 vs. saline-treated, (P less than 0.01 vs. high dose digoxin). During the quinidine-digoxin interaction in the intact dog, the reduction in myocardial rubidium uptake is less than expected from the increase in serum digoxin concentration.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Clinical and pharmacokinetic profiles of digoxin immune Fab in four patients with renal impairment.

Minimal pharmacokinetic data on digoxin immune Fab are currently available, especially in patients with impaired renal function. The serum concentration-time profiles of total digoxin, free digoxin, and digoxin immune Fab in four patients with moderate to severe renal impairment who received digoxin immune Fab are presented. The calculated elimination half-life of digoxin immune Fab was 25-73 hours. The calculated elimination half-life of total digoxin was 24-72 hours. Free digoxin concentrations rebounded to a peak of 1-2.9 ng/mL 44-97 hours after the administration of digoxin immune Fab. The areas under the curve for digoxin immune Fab were 213-1026 micrograms.h/mL, and total body clearances were 2.3-7.1 mL/min. The total digoxin concentrations peaked at 14-33 times the pre-Fab digoxin concentrations 5-30 hours after digoxin immune Fab administration. In comparing these data with data available from patients with normal renal function, the half-life of digoxin immune Fab and total digoxin was longer, the peak total digoxin concentration occurred later, the ratio of the peak total digoxin concentration to pre-Fab digoxin concentration was larger, and the rebound in free digoxin occurred later in patients with renal impairment. The Fab dose should not be reduced in patients with renal impairment; however, post-Fab monitoring should be extended to compensate for the prolonged half-life of Fab and later rebound of free digoxin.

Adult↗
PubMed1983

[Renal and extracorporeal elimination of digoxin and its methylated and acetylated derivatives].

This study was performed to get more informations on the renal and extracorporeal elimination of digoxin. The first part of this study demonstrated that a radioimmunoassay for digoxin or a specific tritium label of digoxin is necessary to measure renal digoxin clearances. Randomly labeled 3H-digoxin may loose its label and thus give incoherent results. A comparison of digoxin and inulin clearances in patients demonstrates glomerular filtration as the major renal excretion pathway of digoxin, but a major fraction of the glycoside is excreted by tubular secretion. Opposite to digoxin, beta-methyl-digoxin undergoes less tubular secretion but eventually additional tubular reabsorption. The insertion of digoxin and quinidine may be a further prove for the existence of a tubular secretion of digoxin. While the renal clearance of digoxin is significantly bigger than the renal clearance of creatinine, additional quinidine therapy reduces the renal clearance of digoxin to the one of creatinine. We studied the renal excretion mechanism of digoxin additionally in an animal model of acute prerenal failure. After a 33% reduction of renal arterial pressure glomerular filtrate dropped 68%. Under these circumstances the renal excretion mechanism of digoxin measured as the digoxin to inulin clearance ratio did not change. We evaluated the efficiency of hemodialysis, hemofiltration and hemoperfusion to eliminate digoxin. Although digoxin is eliminated by all three methods, even the most effective, hemoperfusion, can reduce total body content of digoxin less than 3%. Thus we conclude that all these methods have no indication in the treatment of digoxin intoxications.

Acetyldigoxins↗
PubMed2003

Digoxin remains useful in the management of chronic heart failure.

Despite the introduction of a variety of new classes of drugs for the management of heart failure, digoxin continues to have an important role in long-term outpatient management. A wide variety of placebo-controlled clinical trials have unequivocally shown that treatment with digoxin can improve symptoms, quality of life, and exercise tolerance in patients with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure. These benefits are evident regardless of the underlying rhythm (normal sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation), etiology of the heart failure, or concomitant therapy (eg. ACE inhibitors). Unlike other agents with positive inotropic properties, digoxin does not increase all-cause mortality and has a substantial benefit in reducing heart failure hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recently been published by the Heart Failure Society of America and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, and they contain the following recommendations for digoxin treatment: 1. Digoxin should be considered for the outpatient treatment of all patients who have persistent symptoms of heart failure (NYHA class II-IV) despite conventional pharmacologic therapy with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and a beta-blocker when the heart failure is caused by systolic dysfunction (the strength of evidence = A for NYHA class II and III; strength of evidence = C for NYHA class IV). 2. Digoxin is not indicated as primary treatment for the stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. (Strength of evidence = B). Digoxin may be initiated after emergent treatment of heart failure has been completed in an effort to establish a long-term treatment strategy. 3. Digoxin should not be administered to patients who have significant sinus or atrioventricular block, unless the block has been treated with a permanent pacemaker (strength of evidence = B). The drug should be used cautiously in patients who receive other agents known to depress sinus or atrioventricular nodal function (such as amiodarone or a beta-blocker) (strength of evidence = B). 4. The dosage of digoxin should be 0.125-0.25 mg daily in the majority of patients (strength of evidence = C). The lower dose should be used in patients over 70 years of age, those with impaired renal function, or those with a low lean body mass. Higher doses (eg, digoxin 0.375-0.50 mg daily) are rarely needed. Loading doses of digoxin are not necessary during initiation of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure. 5. Serial assessment of serum digoxin levels is unnecessary in most patients. The radioimmunoassay was developed to assist in the evaluation of toxicity, not the efficacy of the drug. There appears to be little relationship between serum digoxin concentration and the drug's therapeutic effects. 6. Digoxin toxicity is commonly associated with serum levels >2 ng/mL but may occur with lower digoxin levels if hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, or hypothyroidism coexist. Likewise, the concomitant use of agents such as quinidine, verapamil, spironolactone, flecainide, and amiodarone can increase serum digoxin levels and increase the likelihood of digoxin toxicity. 7. For patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response, the administration of high doses of digoxin (>0.25 mg daily) for the purpose of rate control is not recommended. When necessary, additional rate control should be achieved by the addition of beta-blocker therapy or amiodarone (strength of evidence = C). If amiodarone is added, the dose of digoxin should be reduced. Digitalis preparations are now entering their fourth century of clinical use for the treatment of chronic heart failure symptoms. Its clinical efficacy can no longer be doubted and its safety has been verified by the multicenter DIG trial. Future advances in pharmacogenetics should facilitate identification of those patients most likely to benefit from its pharmacologic effects.

Cardiotonic Agents↗