ReviewBiochemistry and biophysics reports2026
The protective effect of chemical and natural compounds against amiodarone induced toxicity: A systematic review.
Review in Biochemistry and biophysics reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Amiodarone remains an important antiarrhythmic drug, but cumulative exposure can cause pulmonary, hepatic, renal, thyroid, and reproductive toxicity. This systematic review critically compares interventions tested to prevent or attenuate amiodarone-induced injury, evaluates evidence strength and replication, and integrates the implicated molecular pathways. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2025 for English-language in vitro, animal, and human studies of protective interventions against amiodarone toxicity. Animal studies were evaluated using SYRCLE; in vitro studies using an adapted OHAT framework; and the human observational study using the applicable JBI checklist. Because of substantial heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively by organ, mechanism, replication, and translational readiness. Database-specific search strategies are reported in Supplementary Table S1. Disagreements were resolved by consensus; agreement was not quantified. Key findings: Thirty-five reports were included. The evidence was overwhelmingly preclinical; only one observational human report was identified and no randomized clinical trial was found. Pulmonary models predominated. Vitamin E had the broadest replication, while curcumin, silymarin, l-carnitine, and grape-seed preparations were evaluated in more than one report or complementary model. Protection converged on attenuation of lipid peroxidation and inflammatory signaling, preservation of endogenous antioxidants and mitochondrial function, and suppression of apoptosis or TGF-β/Smad-associated fibrosis. Most studies had unclear risk of selection or performance bias. Conclusion: Current evidence establishes biological plausibility but not clinical effectiveness. No protective adjunct can presently be recommended for routine use with amiodarone. Independent replication, clinically relevant exposure schedules, pharmacokinetic-interaction testing, and rigorously designed human studies are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.