Proarrhythmic major adverse cardiac events with donepezil: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are regularly used in Alzheimer's disease. Of the three ChEIs approved for dementia, donepezil is among the most prescribed drugs in the United States with nearly 6 million prescriptions in 2020; however, it is classified as a "known risk" QT interval-prolonging medication (QTPmed). Given this claim is derived from observational data including single case reports, we aimed to evaluate high-quality literature on the frequency and nature of proarrhythmic major adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated with donepezil. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central from 1996 onwards for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients age ≥18 years comparing donepezil to placebo. The MACE composite included mortality, sudden cardiac death, non-fatal cardiac arrest, Torsades de pointes, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, seizure or syncope. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with a treatment-arm continuity correction for single and double zero event studies. RESULTS: Sixty RCTs (n = 12,463) were included. Twenty-five of 60 trials (n = 5886) investigated participants with Alzheimer's disease and 33 trials monitored electrocardiogram data. The mean follow-up duration was 31 weeks (SD = 36). Mortality was the most commonly reported MACE (252/331, 75.8% events), the remainder were syncope or seizures, with no arrhythmia events. There was no increased risk of MACE with exposure to donepezil compared to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 1.08, 95% CI 0.88-1.33, I2 = 0%) and this was consistent in the subgroup analysis of trials including participants with cardiovascular morbidities (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.47). Subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward more events with donepezil with follow-up ≥52 weeks (RR: 1.32, 0.98-1.79). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis found donepezil may not be arrhythmogenic. Donepezil was not associated with mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, seizure or syncope, although longer durations of therapy need more study. Further research to clarify actual clinical outcomes related to QTPmed is important to inform prescribing practices.

Hydroxychloroquine-Chloroquine, QT-Prolongation, and Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Meta-analysis and Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the high-quality literature on the frequency and nature of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated with either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ). DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central from 1996 onward using search strategies created in collaboration with medical science librarians. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language from January 1996 to September 2022, involving adult patients at least 18 years of age, were selected. Outcomes of interest were death, arrhythmias, syncope, and seizures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with a Treatment Arm Continuity Correction for single and double zero event studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: By study drug, there were 31 HCQ RCTs (n = 6677), 9 CQ RCTs (n = 622), and 1 combined HCQ-CQ trial (n = 105). Mortality was the most commonly reported MACE at 220 of 255 events (86.3%), with no reports of torsades de pointes or sudden cardiac death. There was no increased risk of MACE with exposure to HCQ-CQ compared with control (risk ratio [RR] = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17, I2 = 0%). RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: These findings have important implications with respect to patient reassurance and updated guidance for prescribing practices of these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite listing as QT-prolonging meds, HCQ-CQ did not increase the risk of MACE.

Comparisons of Insulin Spending and Price Between Canada and the United States.

Insulin prices have been a hot topic in the United States, where there is a lack of price regulation on drugs, and there have been reports of Americans crossing the border to purchase insulin in Canada at much lower prices. We conducted a cross-sectional time-series analysis comparing insulin spending using IQVIA (Durham, North Carolina, USA) data on aggregate insulin prescription volumes dispensed in the United States and Canada from January 2016 to April 2019 to quantify insulin spending and pricing differences between the countries. We obtained data on diabetes rates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Statistics Canada. The primary outcome of this study was the difference in total annual insulin spending and spending per insulin user between the United States and Canada. We also examined spending on the top 5 most used insulins per year in the United States and the percentage change of spending on insulin products from January 2016 to April 2019. In 2018, the US spent $28 billion (USD) on insulin compared with $484 million in Canada. The average American insulin user spent $3490 on insulin in 2018 compared with $725 among Canadians. Over the study period, the average cost per unit of insulin in the United States increased by 10.3% compared with only 0.01% in Canada. These findings demonstrate that the United States spent considerably more on insulin than Canada, and prices continue to increase. Implementing national legislation for drug pricing regulations using reference pricing could stabilize and potentially decrease insulin prices in the United States.