Cited by 341Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes

Safety and efficacy of digoxin: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and controlled trial data

Open access
Ziff, Oliver J, Lane, Deirdre A, Samra, Monica, Griffith, Michael, Kirchhof, Paulus, Lip, Gregory Y H, Steeds, Richard P, Townend, Jonathan +1 more·2015·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and ongoing studies according to a prospectively registered design ( PROSPERO: CRD42014010783), including all studies published from 1960 to July 2014 that examined treatment with digoxin compared with control (placebo or no treatment). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Unadjusted and adjusted data pooled according to study design, analysis method, and risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome (all cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (including admission to hospital) were meta-analysed with random effects modelling. RESULTS: 52 studies were systematically reviewed, comprising 621,845 patients. Digoxin users were 2.4 years older than control (weighted difference 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.6), with lower ejection fraction (33% v 42%), more diabetes, and greater use of diuretics and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Meta-analysis included 75 study analyses, with a combined total of 4,006,210 patient years of follow-up. Compared with control, the pooled risk ratio for death with digoxin was 1.76 in unadjusted analyses (1.57 to 1.97), 1.61 in adjusted analyses (1.31 to 1.97), 1.18 in propensity matched studies (1.09 to 1.26), and 0.99 in randomised controlled trials (0.93 to 1.05). Meta-regression confirmed that baseline differences between treatment groups had a significant impact on mortality associated with digoxin, including markers of heart failure severity such as use of diuretics (P=0.004). Studies with better methods and lower risk of bias were more likely to report a neutral association of digoxin with mortality (P<0.001). Across all study types, digoxin led to a small but significant reduction in all cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.92, 0.89 to 0.95; P<0.001; n=29,525). CONCLUSIONS: Digoxin is associated with a neutral effect on mortality in randomised trials and a lower rate of admissions to hospital across all study types. Regardless of statistical analysis, prescription biases limit the value of observational data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.h4451

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a meta-analysis of observational studies, digoxin had a neutral effect on mortality in patients with AF and concomitant heart failure (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16; propensity-matched RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.26).

    “In a meta-analysis of observational studies, digoxin had a neutral effect on mortality in patients with AF and concomitant heart failure (adjusted observational studies HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16;propensity-matched observational studies RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.26).”
  • Lower doses of digoxin (≤ 250 μg once daily), corresponding to serum digoxin levels of 0.5-0.9 ng/mL, may be associated with better prognosis.

    “Lower doses of digoxin (≤ 250 µg once daily), corresponding to serum digoxin levels of 0.5-0.9ng/mL, may be associated with better prognosis.225”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ziff, O. J., Lane, D. A., Samra, M., Griffith, M., Kirchhof, P., Lip, G. Y. H., Steeds, R. P., Townend, J., & Kotecha, D.
Affiliations
  • Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Kotecha, Dipak
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-08-30
Volume
351
Pages
h4451
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160601239
Cited by
341
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 9
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2012-09-001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Keywords
digoxin, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, heart failure, diuretics, risk of bias, propensity score matching, observational studies, randomized controlled trials, baseline differences, heart failure severity, antiarrhythmic drugs, ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, treatment efficacy and safety, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Atrial Fibrillation, Cardiotonic Agents, Digoxin, Heart Failure, Hospitalization, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review