Efficacy and Safety of Dronedarone in Patients Previously Treated With Other Antiarrhythmic Agents

BACKGROUND: Currently available antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) suffer from incomplete efficacy and poor tolerability. HYPOTHESIS: Dronedarone could represent an effective and safe option in patients previously treated with AADs, especially class Ic AADs and sotalol. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 2 double-blind, parallel-group trials (EURIDIS [European Trial in Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter Patients Receiving Dronedarone for the Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm] and ADONIS [American-Australian-African Trial With Dronedarone in Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter Patients for the Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm]) comparing the efficacy and safety of dronedarone with placebo over 12 months. The primary end point was AF/AFL recurrence in patients previously treated with another AAD that was discontinued for whatever reason prior to randomization. RESULTS: In patients previously treated with any AADs, dronedarone decreased the risk of AF recurrence by 30.4% vs placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.82; P < 0.001). In patients previously treated with a class Ic agent, dronedarone decreased the risk of recurrence by 31.4% (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; P = 0.004), whereas in patients previously treated with sotalol, dronedarone showed a trend toward a decrease of risk of recurrence (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.67-1.11; P = 0.244). Dronedarone was equally effective irrespective of whether class Ic or sotalol were stopped for lack of efficacy or adverse events (AEs). Discontinuation rates were similar in the 2 groups (55.9% vs 43.1%), as were incidence of AEs and serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone seems to be effective in preventing AF recurrences in patients without permanent AF previously treated with other AADs, even if those were discontinued for lack of efficacy. Dronedarone appears to be well tolerated even in patients who already had tolerability issues with AADs

Efficacy and Safety of Celivarone, With Amiodarone as Calibrator, in Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Prevention of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Interventions or Death The ALPHEE Study

Background— Celivarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent developed for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of celivarone in preventing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions or death. Methods and Results— Celivarone (50, 100, or 300 mg/d) was assessed compared with placebo in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Amiodarone (200 mg/d after loading dose of 600 mg/d for 10 days) was used as a calibrator. A total of 486 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and at least 1 ICD intervention for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in the previous month or ICD implantation in the previous month for documented ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation were randomized. Median treatment duration was 9 months. The primary efficacy end point was occurrence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation–triggered ICD interventions (shocks or antitachycardia pacing) or sudden death. The proportion of patients experiencing an appropriate ICD intervention or sudden death was 61.5% in the placebo group; 67.0%, 58.8%, and 54.9% in the celivarone 50-, 100-, and 300-mg groups, respectively; and 45.3% in the amiodarone group. Hazard ratios versus placebo for the primary end point ranged from 0.860 for celivarone 300 mg to 1.199 for celivarone 50 mg. None of the comparisons versus placebo were statistically significant. Celivarone had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions— Celivarone was not effective for the prevention of ICD interventions or sudden death. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00993382. </jats:sec

Celivarone for Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm and Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter

Celivarone in Atrial Fibrillation/Atrial Flutter. Introduction: Celivarone, a new noniodinated benzofuran derivative pharmacologically related to dronedarone and amiodarone, has been shown to have antiarrhythmic properties at a molecular level. The purpose of the 2 trials presented here (MAIA and CORYFEE) was to assess celivarone efficacy in the maintenance of sinus rhythm postcardioversion and for the conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL). Methods and Results: In the MAIA trial, 673 patients with AF/AFL recently converted to sinus rhythm were randomly assigned to receive 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg once-daily dosing of celivarone; 200 mg daily of amiodarone preceded by a loading dose of 600 mg for 10 days; or placebo. At 3 months follow up, no significant difference was observed in time to AF/AFL relapse among the various celivarone groups and placebo. However, fewer symptomatic AF/AFL recurrences were observed in the lower-dose celivarone groups (26.6% for celivarone 50 mg [P = 0.022] and 25.2% for celivarone 100 mg [P = 0.018] vs 40.5% for placebo at 90 days). Fewer adverse events were observed with the use of celivarone and placebo than amiodarone. In the CORYFEE study, 150 patients with AF/AFL were randomly assigned to once-daily celivarone dosing of 300 or 600 mg, or placebo, for a 2-day treatment period. There was no significant difference in the rate of spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm between the treatment and control groups. Conclusions: In these studies, celivarone does not appear to be efficacious in the maintenance of sinus rhythm in AF/AFL patients or for the conversion of AF/AFL patients. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 462-472, May 2012

Antithrombotic treatment in real-life atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation

Aims To describe guideline adherence and application of different stroke risk strati. cation schemes regarding antithrombotic therapy in real-life atrial. brillation (AF) patients and to assess which factors influence antithrombotic management decisions. Methods and results The Euro Heart Survey enrolled 5333 AF patients in 35 countries, in 2003 and 2004. Prescription of antithrombotic drugs, especially oral anticoagulation (OAC), was hardly tailored to the patient's stroke risk pro. le as indicated by the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology, ACCP guidelines, or CHADS(2) and Framingham risk scores. In multivariable analysis, only a limited number of the well-known stroke risk factors triggered OAC prescription. In contrast, less relevant factors, of which clinical type of AF and availability of an OAC monitoring outpatient clinic were the most marked, played a significant role in OAC prescription. Electrical cardioversions and catheter ablations clearly triggered OAC prescription, whereas pharmacological cardioversions even in the presence of stroke risk factors did not. Conclusion Antithrombotic therapy in AF is hardly tailored to the patient's stroke risk pro. le. Factors other than well-known stroke risk factors were significantly involved in antithrombotic management decisions. To facilitate this tailored treatment, guideline writers and physician educators should focus on providing one uniform and easy to use stroke risk strati. cation scheme