RESUMEN
Trichomonas vaginalis is a protozoan that causes human trichomoniasis, the most common non-viral sexually transmitted infection (STI) affecting approximately 278 million people worldwide. The current treatment for trichomoniasis is based on 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-methyl-5-nitroimidazole, known as metronidazole (MTZ). Although effective in clearing the parasite infection, MTZ is related to provoking severe side effects, and it is not recommended during pregnancy. In addition, some strains present resistance to 5'-nitroimidazoles, making urgent the development of alternative drugs for trichomoniasis. Amiodarone, an antiarrhythmic drug, exerts a significant anti-parasite effect, mainly due to its interference with calcium homeostasis and the biosynthesis of sterols. Therefore, we decided to test the effect of amiodarone and two other related compounds (amioder and dronedarone) on T. vaginalis. Our observations show that amiodarone stimulated, rather than inhibited, parasite growth, induced cell aggregation, and glycogen accumulation. Furthermore, the other two compounds displayed anti-parasite activity with IC50 of 3.15 and 11 µM, respectively, and the apoptosis-like process killed the cells. In addition, cells exhibited morphological changes, including an effect on hydrogenosomes structure.
Asunto(s)
Amiodarona , Tricomoniasis , Vaginitis por Trichomonas , Trichomonas vaginalis , Amiodarona/farmacología , Amiodarona/uso terapéutico , Dronedarona/farmacología , Dronedarona/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Metronidazol/farmacología , Metronidazol/uso terapéutico , Tricomoniasis/parasitología , Vaginitis por Trichomonas/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Resumen Introducción y objetivos: Dronedarona y flecainida son antiarrítmicos de primera elección para reducir recurrencias de fibrilación auricular (FA), sin existir estudios que los comparen entre sí. Nuestro objetivo es comparar la eficacia en cuanto a prevención de recurrencias y seguridad de ambos fármacos. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo en el que se incluyeron 123 pacientes de forma consecutiva en tratamiento con flecainida o dronedarona desde octubre de 2010 hasta febrero de 2013 por FA paroxística (76.4%) y FA persistente (23.6%). Se realizó cardioversión eléctrica en un 7.3% de los pacientes y farmacológica en un 16.3%. La mediana (rango intercuartílico) de seguimiento fue de 301 días (92-474), con una media de 2.8 revisiones por paciente. Se realizó análisis de tiempo hasta el primer evento mediante Kaplan-Meier y regresión de Cox ajustada por un índice de propensión. Resultados: De entre los 123 sujetos incluidos con FA, 71 fueron tratados con flecainida y 52 con dronedarona. Durante el seguimiento se registraron 36 recurrencias y 20 efectos adversos. Se documentaron un 36.6% de recurrencias en los pacientes tratados con flecainida en comparación con un 21% en los tratados con dronedarona (p = 0.073). En el análisis multivariante, dronedarona se mostró al menos tan eficaz como flecainida para prevenir recurrencias de FA (HR: 0.53, IC 95%: 0.20-1.44, p = 0.221) y demostró un perfil de seguridad comparable al de flecainida (HR: 0.68, IC 95%: 0.18-2.53, p = 0.566). Conclusiones: Según nuestra experiencia, dronedarona resulta al menos tan eficaz como flecainida para el mantenimiento de ritmo sinusal, con un buen perfil de tolerabilidad, a pesar de pautarse en pacientes con un perfil clínico más desfavorable.
Abstract Introduction and objectives: Dronedarone and flecainide are the first pharmacological choice to reduce recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, there are no studies comparing them. A study was performed to compare the efficacy in terms of recurrence of AF and safety of both drugs. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted that included 123 consecutive patients treated with flecainide or dronedarone due to paroxysmal AF (76.4%) or persistent AF (23.6%), from October 2010 to February 2013. Electrical cardioversion was performed in 7.3% of patients and pharmacological cardioversion in 16.3%. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 301 days (92-474) with a mean of 2.8 reviews per patient. Time to first event analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression, adjusted for propensity score. Results: Of the 123 consecutive patients with AF included, 71 were on dronedarone and 52 on flecainide. During the follow-up, there were 36 AF recurrences and 20 safety events. There were recurrences in 36.6% of patients treated with flecainide, compared with 21% of those receiving dronedarone (P = .073). Dronedarone showed to be at least as effective as flecainide in preven- ting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.20-1.44, P = .221), and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile when compared with flecainide (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.18-2.53, P = .566). Conclusions: In our experience, dronedarone has been at least as effective and safe as flecainide, despite it was most frequently prescribed in patients with worse baseline risk profile.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Flecainida/uso terapéutico , Dronedarona/uso terapéutico , Antiarrítmicos/uso terapéutico , Recurrencia , Fibrilación Atrial/fisiopatología , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios de Seguimiento , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Antiarrítmicos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Dronedarone and flecainide are the first pharmacological choice to reduce recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, there are no studies comparing them. A study was performed to compare the efficacy in terms of recurrence of AF and safety of both drugs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted that included 123 consecutive patients treated with flecainide or dronedarone due to paroxysmal AF (76.4%) or persistent AF (23.6%), from October 2010 to February 2013. Electrical cardioversion was performed in 7.3% of patients and pharmacological cardioversion in 16.3%. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 301days (92-474) with a mean of 2.8 reviews per patient. Time to first event analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression, adjusted for propensity score. RESULTS: Of the 123 consecutive patients with AF included, 71 were on dronedarone and 52 on flecainide. During the follow-up, there were 36 AF recurrences and 20 safety events. There were recurrences in 36.6% of patients treated with flecainide, compared with 21% of those receiving dronedarone (P=.073). Dronedarone showed to be at least as effective as flecainide in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.20-1.44, P=.221), and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile when compared with flecainide (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.18-2.53, P=.566). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, dronedarone has been at least as effective and safe as flecainide, despite it was most frequently prescribed in patients with worse baseline risk profile.