The effect of antiarrhythmic medications on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: While current guidelines recommend amiodarone and dronedarone for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD), there was no comparative study of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on the cardiovascular outcomes in general practice. METHODS: This study included patients with AF and CAD who received their first prescription of amiodarone, class Ic AADs (flecainide, propafenone), dronedarone or sotalol between January 2016 and December 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and cardiovascular death. We used Cox proportional regression models, including with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), to estimate the relationship between AADs and cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Among the AF cohort consisting of 8752 patients, 1996 individuals had CAD, including 477 who took dronedarone and 1519 who took other AADs. After a median follow-up of 38 months, 46.3% of patients who took dronedarone and 54.4% of patients who took other AADs experienced cardiovascular events. Compared to dronedarone, the use of other AADs was associated with increased cardiovascular events after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio [HR] 1.531, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.112-2.141, p = 0.023) and IPTW (HR 1.491, 95% CI 1.174-1.992, p = 0.012). The secondary analysis showed that amiodarone and class Ic drugs were associated with an increased risk of HHF. The low number of subjects in the sotalol group limits data interpretation. CONCLUSION: For patients with AF and CAD, dronedarone was associated with better cardiovascular outcomes than other AADs. Amiodarone and class Ic AADs were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, particularly HHF.

Dronedarone for the Treatment of Atrial Arrhythmias in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common and difficult to treat in adults with congenital heart disease. Dronedarone has proven effective in patients without congenital heart disease, but data are limited about its use in adults with congenital heart disease of moderate to great complexity. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective chart review of 21 adults with congenital heart disease of moderate to great complexity who were treated with dronedarone for atrial tachyarrhythmias was performed. RESULTS: The median (IQR) age at dronedarone initiation was 35 (27.5-39) years. Eleven patients (52%) were male. Ten patients (48%) had New York Heart Association class I disease, 10 (48%) had class II disease, and 1 (5%) had class III disease. Ejection fraction at initiation was greater than 55% in 11 patients (52%), 35% to 55% in 9 patients (43%), and less than 35% in 1 patient (5%). Prior treatments included ß-blockers (71%), sotalol (38%), amiodarone (24%), digoxin (24%), and catheter ablation (38%). Rhythm control was complete in 5 patients (24%), partial in 6 (29%), and inadequate in 10 (48%). Two patients (10%) experienced adverse events, including nausea in 1 (5%) and cardiac arrest in 1 (5%), which occurred 48 months after initiation of treatment. There were no deaths during the follow-up period. The median (IQR) follow-up time for patients with complete or partial rhythm control was 20 (1-54) months. CONCLUSION: Dronedarone can be effective for adult patients with congenital heart disease and atrial arrhythmias for whom more established therapies have failed, and with close monitoring it can be safely tolerated.

Efficacy of Shensong Yangxin capsule combined with dronedarone in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether postoperative administration of Shensong Yangxin capsules (SSYX) and dronedarone for atrial fibrillation (AF) can reduce the recurrence of paroxysmal AF after radiofrequency ablation, thus providing a more optimal choice of antiarrhythmic medication during the blank period. METHODS: We included 120 patients with paroxysmal AF who underwent radiofrequency ablation at our hospital between July 2020 and July 2022. They underwent routine circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and, subsequently, left and right atrial pressure monitoring to assess sinoatrial node recovery time under burst 400/300 ms stimulation. Postoperatively, the patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (60 patients each). The control group was administered dronedarone orally for 3 months and the study group was treated with SSYX combined with dronedarone. This study aimed to compare differences in clinical efficacy of the treatment between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The left and right atrial pressures in both groups were higher than those in the preoperative period (P < .05), with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P > .05). Sinoatrial node recovery time under burst 400/300 ms stimulation showed no statistical difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). At 3 months and 1 year postoperatively, the AFEQT scale scores for both groups were lower than those before treatment (P < .05), with the study group scoring lower than the control group at 3 months (P < .05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups at 1 year postoperatively (P > .05). At 3 months postoperatively, the sinus rhythm maintenance rate and heart rate were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P < .05); however, these differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant at 1 year postoperatively (P > .05). CONCLUSION SUBSECTIONS: The combination of SSYX and dronedarone could effectively reduce the early recurrence of paroxysmal AF after radiofrequency ablation, increase heart rate, and improve the quality of life.

Chapter 2: Rate Versus Rhythm Control.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a potentially serious health risk, both because of its symptoms and because of its association with an increased risk for heart failure, hospitalization, thromboembolism, and death. Chapter 2 discusses selection of appropriate treatments and when to initiate these therapies. Older trials focused on comparing rate versus rhythm control treatment options for AF. It is now recognized that both rate and rhythm control are important and can be used together. This chapter reviews the historical, pivotal rate versus rhythm control trials that failed to show any overall survival benefit of rhythm over rate control, as well as the trials' now-recognized limitations with respect to modern therapy. In addition, an in-depth discussion of the more recent trials of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) and ablation techniques (which have become available since the original rate versus rhythm trials were performed) is included. These updated trials show that when applied to patient- and disease-specific situations, rhythm control can reduce the risk for mortality and hospitalization. The chapter also reviews the guidelines that have been developed to achieve these goals. Chapter 2 is summarized as follows: (1) Rate control is needed (at rest and during exertion) to reduce rate-related symptoms when rhythm control is ineffective or incomplete and to prevent a tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. (2) Previous trials with pharmacological therapy alone comparing rate versus rhythm control using the AADs available at that time failed to show any overall survival benefit of rhythm control over rate control. (3) These earlier trials had many methodological limitations and enrolled participants who did not have access to modern therapies. (4) Newer therapies, including those for stroke prevention, dronedarone (the latest approved AAD), and AF ablation, have improved the safety and efficacy of rhythm control strategies.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies.

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Efficacy and Safety of Sustained-Release Metoprolol With Dronedarone After Radiofrequency Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

The high early recurrence (ER) rate after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) seriously affects the prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and there are still controversies regarding the best preventive drugs for postoperative recurrence. A single-center retrospective study was conducted on patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) who received metoprolol sustained-release tablets combined with dronedarone (observation group) and dronedarone alone (control group) after the first RFCA. A matching cohort was established using a 1:1 propensity score matching method to compare the incidence of ER, cardiac function, inflammation level, quality of life (QoL), and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs)-related adverse reactions between groups. A total of 56 pairs of patients were successfully matched. The incidence of ER in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (32% vs 14%, p = 0.033); the left atrial diameter in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group on Day 90 after RFCA (38 ±4 vs 40 ± 5, p = 0.021), and the QoL of the observation group was significantly improved on the thirtieth and ninetieth days after RFCA compared with the control group (72 ± 5 vs 69 ± 9, p = 0.031; 73 ± 4 vs 70 ± 9, p = 0.025). Multifactorial Cox analysis showed that diabetes mellitus, left atrial diameter >45 mm, ventricular rate >110 beats/min, and postoperative AADs were independent risk factors for ER in patients with PAF. The incidence of sinus bradycardia in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (18% vs 3.6%, p = 0.029), but there was no statistical difference in the overall incidence of AADs-related adverse reactions between groups. Compared with dronedarone alone, dronedarone combined with metoprolol sustained-release tablets can significantly reduce ER after RFCA in patients with PAF and improve cardiac function and QoL, without increasing the AADs-related adverse reactions.

Effects of amiodarone, amioder, and dronedarone on Trichomonas vaginalis.

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.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation with concomitant heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction: a post-hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial.

AIMS: Limited therapeutic options are available for the management of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) with concomitant heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Dronedarone reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with AF, but sparse data are available examining its role in patients with AF complicated by HFpEF and HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: ATHENA was an international, multicentre trial that randomized 4628 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and cardiovascular risk factors to dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo. We evaluated patients with (i) symptomatic HFpEF and HFmrEF (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] >40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and New York Heart Association class II/III or diuretic use), (ii) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%), and (iii) those without HF. We assessed effects of dronedarone versus placebo on death or cardiovascular hospitalization (primary endpoint), other key efficacy endpoints, and safety. Overall, 534 (12%) had HFpEF or HFmrEF, 422 (9%) had HFrEF or left ventricular dysfunction, and 3672 (79%) did not have HF. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF had a mean age of 73 ± 9 years, 37% were women, and had a mean LVEF of 57 ± 9%. Over a mean follow-up of 21 ± 5 months, dronedarone consistently reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.84) without heterogeneity based on HF status (pinteraction >0.10). This risk reduction in the primary endpoint was consistent across the range of LVEF (as a continuous function) in HF without heterogeneity (pinteraction  = 0.71). Rates of death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and HF hospitalization each directionally favoured dronedarone versus placebo in HFpEF and HFmrEF, but these treatment effects were not statistically significant in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone is associated with reduced cardiovascular events in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and HF across the spectrum of LVEF, including among those with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These data support a rationale for a future dedicated and powered clinical trial to affirm the net clinical benefit of dronedarone in this population.

Risk of Major Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Dronedarone in Combination With a Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant (From a U.S. Claims Database).

Dronedarone may increase exposure and the risk of major bleeding when prescribed with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). This retrospective cohort study examined the risk of the first occurrence of major bleeding (hospitalization or emergency room visit for gastrointestinal [GI] bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage [ICH], or bleeding at other sites) among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban in patients with AF ≥18 years (January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2017) from the United States Truven Health MarketScan claims, comparing concomitant users of dronedarone to DOAC alone users in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). No increased risk of major bleeding was associated with use of dronedarone and apixaban (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.69 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40, 1.17], p = 0.16), a modestly increased risk of GI bleeding but not overall bleeding was associated with use of dronedarone and dabigatran (aHR bleeding: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.89, 1.56], p = 0.26; aHR GI bleeding: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.93]; p = 0.04) and an increased risk of overall bleeding, driven by GI bleeding, was associated with use of dronedarone and rivaroxaban (aHR bleeding: 1.31 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.69]; p = 0.04; aHR GI bleeding: 1.39 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.95]; p = 0.06), compared to each DOAC respectively. There was no increased risk of ICH associated with combined use of dronedarone and any DOAC. Prospective analyses, preferably randomized controlled studies, are needed to further explore the risk of major bleeding with concomitant use of DOACs and CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors such as dronedarone.

Treatment of Postoperative New Onset Atrial Fibrillation with Repolarization Delaying Agents after Heart Surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the multichannel-blocker dronedarone for postoperative new onset atrial fibrillation (POAF) as compared to amiodarone. METHODS: Out of 990 patients who underwent cardiothoracic surgery between March 2011 and March 2012, 166 patients who developed POAF and treated with amiodarone or dronedarone were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were treated with amiodarone and 77 patients were treated with dronedarone at discharge. Seventy-five percent of patients with dronedarone were treated initially with intravenous amiodarone but quickly converted to oral dronedarone as soon as the mechanical ventilation was weaned off. The rate of conversion in sinus rhythm was not influenced by the resulting amiodarone-to-dronedarone crossover as compared to oral dronedarone only (p <0.247 at the ICU and p <0.640 at the normal care unit). At hospital discharge sinus rhythm was documented in 44% of the amiodarone patients and 99% of the dronedarone patients (p <0.001). The maintenance of sinus rhythm was demonstrated in 82% of the amiodarone patients versus 81% of the dronedarone patients at 6-month follow-up (p <0.804). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated the higher conversion rate to sinus rhythm in the early phase in the dronedarone group despite a comparable conversion rate in the mid-term phase compared to amiodarone.

Atrial resting membrane potential confers sodium current sensitivity to propafenone, flecainide and dronedarone.

BACKGROUND: Although atrial fibrillation ablation is increasingly used for rhythm control therapy, antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are commonly used, either alone or in combination with ablation. The effectiveness of AADs is highly variable. Previous work from our group suggests that alterations in atrial resting membrane potential (RMP) induced by low Pitx2 expression could explain the variable effect of flecainide. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether alterations in atrial/cardiac RMP modify the effectiveness of multiple clinically used AADs. METHODS: The sodium channel blocking effects of propafenone (300 nM, 1 µM), flecainide (1 µM), and dronedarone (5 µM, 10 µM) were measured in human stem cell-derived cardiac myocytes, HEK293 expressing human NaV1.5, primary murine atrial cardiac myocytes, and murine hearts with reduced Pitx2c. RESULTS: A more positive atrial RMP delayed INa recovery, slowed channel inactivation, and decreased peak action potential (AP) upstroke velocity. All 3 AADs displayed enhanced sodium channel block at more positive atrial RMPs. Dronedarone was the most sensitive to changes in atrial RMP. Dronedarone caused greater reductions in AP amplitude and peak AP upstroke velocity at more positive RMPs. Dronedarone evoked greater prolongation of the atrial effective refractory period and postrepolarization refractoriness in murine Langendorff-perfused Pitx2c+/- hearts, which have a more positive RMP compared to wild type. CONCLUSION: Atrial RMP modifies the effectiveness of several clinically used AADs. Dronedarone is more sensitive to changes in atrial RMP than flecainide or propafenone. Identifying and modifying atrial RMP may offer a novel approach to enhancing the effectiveness of AADs or personalizing AAD selection.

Safety and Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in Combination with Various Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients with Non-Permanent Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Rivaroxaban reduces the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who often also receive antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm. Current guidelines contraindicate concomitant use of rivaroxaban with the popular AAD dronedarone, despite little data demonstrating interactions with AADs. This study investigates the outcomes of concomitant rivaroxaban and AAD drug use in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1777 non-permanent AF patients taking rivaroxaban for ≥ 1 month between 2011 and 2016 from a multicenter cohort in Taiwan, and compared concomitant AAD use against clinical outcome endpoints for safety, effectiveness, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between concomitant AAD use and outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were divided into rivaroxaban alone (n = 1205) and with concomitant amiodarone (n = 177), dronedarone (n = 231), or propafenone (n = 164) groups. The proportion of patients using rivaroxaban 10 mg was highest in the concomitant dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 53.6%; with amiodarone, 57.6%; with dronedarone, 77.1%; and with propafenone, 46.3% (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.892), effectiveness (p = 0.336), and MACE (p = 0.674) were similar between the four groups; however, there were significantly fewer new systemic thromboembolisms in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 2.5%; with amiodarone, 0.6%; with dronedarone, 0%; and with propafenone, 1.2% (p = 0.029). The all-cause death rate was also lowest in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 9.0%; with amiodarone, 9.6%; with dronedarone, 3.0%; and with propafenone: 6.1% (p = 0.013). After covariate adjustment, there were no differences in the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between patients receiving or not receiving AADs. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well tolerated, warranting further investigation into the apparent benefits of a reduced dose of rivaroxaban combined with dronedarone.

Efficacy and safety of dronedarone by atrial fibrillation history duration: Insights from the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) burden increases with increasing duration of AF/AFL history. HYPOTHESIS: Outcomes with dronedarone may also be impacted by duration of AF/AFL history. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of ATHENA, efficacy and safety of dronedarone vs placebo were assessed in groups categorized by time from first known AF/AFL episode to randomization (ie, duration of AF/AFL history): <3 months (short), 3 to <24 months (intermediate), and ≥ 24 months (long). RESULTS: Of 2859 patients with data on duration of AF/AFL history, 45.3%, 29.6%, and 25.1% had short, intermediate, and long histories, respectively. Patients in the long history group had the highest prevalence of structural heart disease and were more likely to be in AF/AFL at baseline. Placebo-treated patients in the long history group also had the highest incidence of AF/AFL recurrence and cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization during the study. The risk of first CV hospitalization/death from any cause was lower with dronedarone vs placebo in patients with short (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.96]) and intermediate (0.72 [0.56-0.92]) histories; a trend favoring dronedarone was also observed in patients with long history (0.84 [0.66-1.07]). A similar pattern was observed for first AF/AFL recurrence. No new drug-related safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with long AF/AFL history had the highest burden of AF/AFL at baseline and during the study. Dronedarone significantly improved efficacy vs placebo in patients with short and intermediate AF/AFL histories. While exploratory, these results support the potential value in initiating rhythm control treatment early in patients with AF/AFL.

Comparative clinical outcomes of dronedarone and sotalol in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone versus sotalol in real-world practice in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Using the Korean nationwide claims database from August 2013 to December 2016, we identified patients with AF recently prescribed dronedarone or sotalol and analyzed the hospitalization risk and all-cause death until December 2017. Overall, 3119 and 1575 patients treated with dronedarone and sotalol, respectively, were included. After propensity score weighting, no significant differences were observed between the treatment groups. Dronedarone use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization than sotalol use (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.88). The dronedarone group demonstrated a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization than the sotalol group (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72); however, no significant difference was observed in non-CV hospitalization. No difference in the risk of all-cause death was observed between groups. The dronedarone group was significantly less likely to receive nonpharmacological treatment for AF than the sotalol group (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.77). In a large-scale population of Asian patients with AF, dronedarone was associated with a lower risk of CV hospitalization and a lower need for nonpharmacological treatment for AF than sotalol.

Outcomes Associated with Dronedarone Use in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

The antiarrhythmic drug dronedarone was designed to reduce the extra-cardiac adverse effects associated with amiodarone use in treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation / atrial flutter (AF/AFL). This epidemiological study used a retrospective cohort design to compare risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and death in AF/AFL patients treated with dronedarone versus other antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). AF/AFL patients with incident dronedarone fills were matched by propensity score (PS) to incident users of other AADs. The primary study outcome was hospitalization for cardiovascular (CV) causes within 24 months after the first study drug fill. A secondary composite outcome comprised hospitalization for CV causes or all-cause mortality during follow-up. In the AF/AFL patient cohort meeting eligibility criteria, 6,964 incident users of dronedarone and 25 607 incident users of other AADs were identified. The PS-matched cohort comprised 6,349 Dronedarone users (91.2% of all eligible) and 12,698 other AAD users. Dronedarone patients had a significantly lower risk of hospitalization for a CV event compared to Other AAD users (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.96). This was consistent with results for the composite outcome (hazard ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval = 0.78 to 0.95). In conclusion, AF/AFL patients initiated on dronedarone versus other AADs had significantly lower risk of CV hospitalizations as well as the composite CV hospitalization / death from any cause.

Patient and provider-level factors associated with changes in utilization of treatments in response to evidence on ineffectiveness or harm.

High-quality health care not only includes timely access to effective new therapies but timely abandonment of therapies when they are found to be ineffective or unsafe. Little is known about changes in use of medications after they are shown to be ineffective or unsafe. In this study, we examine changes in use of two medications: fenofibrate, which was found to be ineffective when used with statins among patients with Type 2 diabetes (ACCORD lipid trial); and dronedarone, which was found to be unsafe in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (PALLAS trial). We examine the patient and provider characteristics associated with a decline in use of these medications. Using Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2008 to 2013, we identified two cohorts: patients with Type 2 diabetes using statins (7 million patient-quarters), and patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (83 thousand patient-quarters). We used interrupted time-series regression models to identify the patient- and provider-level characteristics associated with changes in medication use after new evidence emerged for each case. After new evidence of ineffectiveness emerged, fenofibrate use declined by 0.01 percentage points per quarter (95% CI - 0.02 to - 0.01) from a baseline of 6.9 percent of all diabetes patients receiving fenofibrate; dronedarone use declined by 0.13 percentage points per quarter (95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.10) from a baseline of 3.8 percent of permanent atrial fibrillation patients receiving dronedarone. For dronedarone, use declined more quickly among patients dually-enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid compared to Medicare-only patients (P < 0.001), among patients seen by male providers compared to female providers (P = 0.01), and among patients seen by cardiologists compared to primary care providers (P < 0.001).

Dramatic reduction of ventricular tachycardia burden after dronedarone plus mexiletine treatment in a patient refractory to hybrid ablation.

Antiarrhythmic drugs are often the last resort for recurrent ventricular tachycardia refractory to catheter ablation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers. Amiodarone, alone or combined with mexiletine, is usually but not always highly effective, and its use is usually limited by systemic adverse effects. We present the case of a 62 years old man with recurrent ICD shocks due to a VT refractory to an endo-epicardial hybrid ablation. Starting of dronedarone plus mexiletine combination showed an excellent result.

[Increased Ventricular Pacing Threshold Caused by Intake of Dronedaron]. / Erhöhung der ventrikulären Reizschwelle durch Dronedaron-Einnahme.

HISTORY: The 75 year old patient was hospitalized because of vertigo, exertional dyspnea and clamminess. Based on ischemic heart disease with sick sinus syndrome a pacemaker was implanted 5.5 years ago. In consequence of non-permanent atrial fibrillation Dronedaron was added to medication 8 months ago. FINDINGS AND DIAGNOSIS: The patient presented unstable. The ECG showed a second-degree atrioventricular block with wenckebach periodic and a frequency of 29 bpm. The pacemaker survey showed primary a proper atrial function but ineffective ventricular stimulation. THERAPY AND COURSE: After initial external pacing the pacemaker was reprogrammed and in this way the ventricle stimulated effectively. Dronedaron was ceased after checking trigger factors and the patient left hospital after 3 days free of complaints. The pacemaker survey 18 days later showed a proper function with stabilized pacing threshold close to the old level. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with dysfunction of a permanent pacemaker an increased pacing threshold should be excluded and if any the current medication needs to be controlled. Caution should be exercised to Dronedaron here.

Dronedarone treatment following cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter: A post hoc analysis of the EURIDIS and ADONIS trials.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 EURIDIS and ADONIS studies evaluated dronedarone for atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence in patients with nonpermanent AF. Here we assessed whether patient characteristics and/or treatment outcomes in these studies differed based on the need for cardioversion before randomization. METHODS: Time to adjudicated first AF/AFL recurrence, symptomatic recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization/death, and AF hospitalization, and safety were assessed by cardioversion status. RESULTS: Of 1237 patients randomized (2:1 dronedarone:placebo), 364 required baseline cardioversion (dronedarone 243, placebo 121). Patients requiring cardioversion had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and shorter times to first AF/AFL recurrence compared with those not requiring cardioversion. Dronedarone was associated with longer median time to first AF/AFL recurrence vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status (cardioversion: 50 vs 15 days, hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.97; P = .02; non-cardioversion: 150 vs 77 days, HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P < .01). Dronedarone was similarly associated with prolonged median time to symptomatic recurrence vs placebo in the cardioversion (347 vs 87 days, HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87) and non-cardioversion (288 vs 120 days, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) populations. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization/death and first AF hospitalization was lower with dronedarone vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status, but differences were not statistically significant. The safety of dronedarone was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring baseline cardioversion represent a distinct population, having more underlying cardiovascular disease and experiencing a shorter time to AF/AFL recurrences. Dronedarone was associated with improved efficacy vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status.