4.3 Review

Comparative risk of cardiac arrhythmias associated with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors used in treatment of dementias - A narrative review

期刊

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.622

关键词

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor; adverse drug event; Alzheimer's Disease; cardiac arrhythmia; pharmacoepidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine are the three acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs), out of a total of only four medications prescribed in the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and related dementias. These medications are known to be associated with bradycardia given their mechanism of action of increasing acetylcholine (ACh). However, in March 2015, donepezil was added to the CredibleMeds known-risk category, a list where medications have a documented risk for acquired long-QT syndrome (ALQTS) and torsades de pointes (TdP) - a malignant ventricular arrhythmia that is a different adverse event than bradycardia (and is not necessarily associated with ACh action). The purpose of this article is to review the three AChEIs, especially with regards to mechanistic differences that may explain why only donepezil poses this risk; several pharmacological mechanisms may explain why. However, from an empirical point-of-view, aside from some case-reports, only a limited number of studies have generated relevant information regarding AChEIs' and electrocardiogram findings; none have specifically compared donepezil against galantamine or rivastigmine for malignant arrhythmias such as TdP. Currently, the choice of one of the three AChEIs for treatment of AD symptoms is primarily dependent upon clinician and patient preference. However, clinicians should be aware of the potential increased risk associated with donepezil. There is a need to examine the comparative risk of malignant arrhythmias among AChEIs users in real-world practice; this may have important implications with regards to changes in AChEI prescribing patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据