Class III antiarrhythmic drugs amiodarone and dronedarone impair KIR2.1 backward trafficking

Drug-induced ion channel trafficking disturbance can cause cardiac arrhythmias. The subcellular level at which drugs interfere in trafficking pathways is largely unknown. KIR2.1 inward rectifier channels, largely responsible for the cardiac inward rectifier current (IK1), are degraded in lysosomes. Amiodarone and dronedarone are class III antiarrhythmics. Chronic use of amiodarone, and to a lesser extent dronedarone, causes serious adverse effects to several organs and tissue types, including the heart. Both drugs have been described to interfere in the late-endosome/lysosome system. Here we defined the potential interference in KIR2.1 backward trafficking by amiodarone and dronedarone. Both drugs inhibited IK1 in isolated rabbit ventricular cardiomyocytes at supraclinical doses only. In HK-KWGF cells, both drugs dose- and time-dependently increased KIR2.1 expression (2.0 ± 0.2-fold with amiodarone: 10 μM, 24 hrs; 2.3 ± 0.3-fold with dronedarone: 5 μM, 24 hrs) and late-endosomal/lysosomal KIR2.1 accumulation. Increased KIR2.1 expression level was also observed in the presence of Nav1.5 co-expression. Augmented KIR2.1 protein levels and intracellular accumulation were also observed in COS-7, END-2, MES-1 and EPI-7 cells. Both drugs had no effect on Kv11.1 ion channel protein expression levels. Finally, amiodarone (73.3 ± 10.3% P < 0.05 at −120 mV, 5 μM) enhanced IKIR2.1 upon 24-hrs treatment, whereas dronedarone tended to increase IKIR2.1 and it did not reach significance (43.8 ± 5.5%, P = 0.26 at −120 mV; 2 μM). We conclude that chronic amiodarone, and potentially also dronedarone, treatment can result in enhanced IK1 by inhibiting KIR2.1 degradation

Albumin administration in septic shock-Protocol for post-hoc analyses of data from a multicentre RCT.

BACKGROUND Intravenous (IV) albumin is suggested for patients with septic shock who have received large amounts of IV crystalloids; a conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence. Clinical variation in the administration of IV albumin in septic shock may exist according to patient characteristics and location. METHODS This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post-hoc secondary study of the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) RCT of 1554 adult ICU patients with septic shock. We will assess if specific baseline characteristics or trial site are associated with the administration of IV albumin during ICU stay using Cox models with competing events. All models will be adjusted for the treatment allocation in CLASSIC (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and all analyses will consider competing events (death, ICU discharge and loss-to-follow-up). We will present results as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the associations of baseline characteristics or site with IV albumin administration. Between-group differences (interactions) will be assessed using p-values from likelihood ratio tests. All results will be considered exploratory only. DISCUSSION This secondary study of the CLASSIC RCT may yield important insight into potential practice variation in the administration of albumin in septic shock

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). METHODS We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation. RESULTS The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses. CONCLUSION We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy

Class III antiarrhythmic drugs amiodarone and dronedarone impair KIR2.1 backward trafficking

Drug-induced ion channel trafficking disturbance can cause cardiac arrhythmias. The subcellular level at which drugs interfere in trafficking pathways is largely unknown. KIR2.1 inward rectifier channels, largely responsible for the cardiac inward rectifier current (IK 1), are degraded in lysosomes. Amiodarone and dronedarone are class III antiarrhythmics. Chronic use of amiodarone, and to a lesser extent dronedarone, causes serious adverse effects to several organs and tissue types, including the heart. Both drugs have been described to interfere in the late-endosome/lysosome system. Here we defined the potential interference in KIR2.1 backward trafficking by amiodarone and dronedarone. Both drugs inhibited IK 1 in isolated rabbit ventricular cardiomyocytes at supraclinical doses only. In HK-KWGF cells, both drugs dose- and time-dependently increased KIR2.1 expression (2.0 ± 0.2-fold with amiodarone: 10 μM, 24 hrs; 2.3 ± 0.3-fold with dronedarone: 5 μM, 24 hrs) and late-endosomal/lysosomal KIR2.1 accumulation. Increased KIR2.1 expression level was also observed in the presence of Nav1.5 co-expression. Augmented KIR2.1 protein levels and intracellular accumulation were also observed in COS-7, END-2, MES-1 and EPI-7 cells. Both drugs had no effect on Kv11.1 ion channel protein expression levels. Finally, amiodarone (73.3 ± 10.3% P < 0.05 at −120 mV, 5 μM) enhanced IKIR 2.1 upon 24-hrs treatment, whereas dronedarone tended to increase IKIR 2.1 and it did not reach significance (43.8 ± 5.5%, P = 0.26 at −120 mV; 2 μM). We conclude that chronic amiodarone, and potentially also dronedarone, treatment can result in enhanced IK 1 by inhibiting KIR2.1 degradation

Long-term patient-important outcomes after septic shock : A protocol for 1-year follow-up of the CLASSIC trial

BackgroundIn patients with septic shock, mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive vs standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes. AimTo assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial. MethodsIn this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cognitive function 1 year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function. DiscussionWith this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock.Peer reviewe

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Discussion The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.Peer reviewe