Bleeding Associated With Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Using Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Nationwide Population Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated drug-drug interactions in patients with atrial fibrillation taking both a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and an antiarrhythmic drug. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the National Health Insurance database (2012-2018), we identified 78 805 patients with atrial fibrillation on DOACs, with 24 142 taking amiodarone, 8631 taking propafenone, 2784 taking dronedarone, 297 taking flecainide, 177 taking sotalol, and 42 772 on DOACs alone. Patients with bradycardia, heart block, heart failure, mitral stenosis, prosthetic valves, or incomplete data were excluded. Propensity score matching compared those taking both DOACs and antiarrhythmic drugs with those on DOACs alone. There was an increased risk of major bleeding in patients concomitantly taking DOACs with amiodarone when compared with matched patients taking DOACs alone (hazard ratio [HR],1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]; P=0.0044), particularly in patients taking dabigatran (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.03-1.38]; P=0.0175). No significant difference in bleeding risk was found for propafenone, dronedarone, flecainide, or sotalol. The small sample sizes in the flecainide and sotalol groups limit interpretation. Notably, intracranial bleeding risk was higher in patients on DOACs and amiodarone, regardless of age. Additionally, patients <80 years old taking dabigatran with amiodarone or propafenone had a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of DOACs with amiodarone, but not dronedarone or propafenone, increases the risk of major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding. This study provides new evidence to guide clinicians to tailor concomitant anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dronedarone hydrochloride (DH) induces pancreatic cancer cell death by triggering mtDNA-mediated pyroptosis.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-associated mortality, with a poor treatment approach. Previous study has shown that inducing pyroptosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) slows the growth of PDACs, implying that pyroptosis inducers are potentially effective for PDAC therapy. Here, we found that Dronedarone hydrochloride (DH), an antiarrhythmic drug, induces pyroptosis in pancreatic cancer cells and inhibits PDAC development in mice. In PANC-1 cells, DH caused cell death in a dosage- and time-dependent manner, with only pyroptosis inhibitors and GSDMD silencing rescuing the cell death, indicating that DH triggered GSDMD-dependent pyroptosis. Further work revealed that DH increased mitochondrial stresses and caused mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) leakage, activating the cytosolic STING-cGAS and pyroptosis pathways. Finally, we assessed the anti-cancer effects of DH in a pancreatic cancer mouse model and found that DH treatment suppressed pancreatic tumor development in vivo. Collectively, our investigation demonstrates that DH triggers pyroptosis in PDAC and proposes its potential effects on anti-PDAC growth.

Exploring the interplay between extracellular pH and Dronedarone's pharmacological effects on cardiac function.

Dronedarone (DRN) is a clinically used drug to mitigate arrhythmias with multichannel block properties, including the sodium channel Nav1.5. Extracellular acidification is known to change the pharmacological properties of several antiarrhythmic drugs. Here, we explore how modification in extracellular pH (pHe) shapes the pharmacological profile of DRN upon Nav1.5 sodium current (INa) and in the ex vivo heart preparation. Embryonic human kidney cells (HEK293T/17) were used to transiently express the human isoform of Nav1.5 α-subunit. Patch-Clamp technique was employed to study INa. Neurotoxin-II (ATX-II) was used to induce the late sodium current (INaLate). Additionally, ex vivo Wistar male rat preparations in the Langendorff system were utilized to study electrocardiogram (ECG) waves. DRN preferentially binds to the closed state inactivation mode of Nav1.5 at pHe 7.0. The recovery from INa inactivation was delayed in the presence of DRN in both pHe 7.0 and 7.4, and the use-dependent properties were distinct at pHe 7.0 and 7.4. However, the potency of DRN upon the peak INa, the voltage dependence for activation, and the steady-state inactivation curves were not altered in both pHe tested. Also, the pHe did not change the ability of DRN to block INaLate. Lastly, DRN in a concentration and pH dependent manner modulated the QRS complex, QT and RR interval in clinically relevant concentration. Thus, the pharmacological properties of DRN upon Nav1.5 and ex vivo heart preparation partially depend on the pHe. The pHe changed the biological effect of DRN in the heart electrical function in relevant clinical concentration.

Dronedarone inhibits the proliferation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through the CDK4/CDK6-RB1 axis in vitro and in vivo.

Treatment options for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) often result in poor prognosis and declining health-related quality of life. Screening FDA-approved drugs for cancer chemoprevention is a promising and cost-efficient strategy. Here, we found that dronedarone, an antiarrhythmic drug, could inhibit the proliferation of ESCC cells. Moreover, we conducted phosphorylomics analysis to investigate the mechanism of dronedarone-treated ESCC cells. Through computational docking models and pull-down assays, we demonstrated that dronedarone could directly bind to CDK4 and CDK6 kinases. We also proved that dronedarone effectively inhibited ESCC proliferation by targeting CDK4/CDK6 and blocking the G0/G1 phase through RB1 phosphorylation inhibition by in vitro kinase assays and cell cycle assays. Subsequently, we found that knocking out CDK4 and CDK6 decreased the susceptibility of ESCC cells to dronedarone. Furthermore, dronedarone suppressed the growth of ESCC in patient-derived tumor xenograft models in vivo. Thus, our study demonstrated that dronedarone could be repurposed as a CDK4/6 inhibitor for ESCC chemoprevention.

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.

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.

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.

Dronedarone Enhances the Antibacterial Activity of Polymyxin B and Inhibits the Quorum Sensing System by Interacting with LuxS.

Quorum sensing (QS) is considered an appealing target for interference with bacterial infections. ß-Adrenergic blockers are promising anti-QS agents but do not have antibacterial activity. We assessed the potential ability of adrenergic receptor inhibitors to enhance the antibacterial activity of polymyxin B (PB) against Klebsiella pneumoniae and determined that dronedarone has the most potent activity both in vitro and in vivo. We found that dronedarone increases the thermal stability of LuxS, decreases the production of AI-2, and affects the biofilm formation of K. pneumoniae. We also identified the direct binding of dronedarone to LuxS. However, the mechanism by which dronedarone enhances the antibacterial activity of PB has not been elucidated and is worthy of further exploration. Our study provides a basis for the future development of drug combination regimens.

Amiodarone and Dronedarone Causes Liver Injury with Distinctly Different Clinical Presentations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe hepatotoxicity due to amiodarone and dronedarone from the DILIN and the US FDA's surveillance database. METHODS: Hepatotoxicity due to amiodarone and dronedarone enrolled in the U.S. Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) from 2004 to 2020 are described. Dronedarone hepatotoxicity cases associated with liver biopsy results were obtained from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2009 to 2020. RESULTS: Among DILIN's 10 amiodarone and 3 dronedarone DILIN cases, the latency for amiodarone was longer than with dronedarone (388 vs 119 days, p = 0.50) and the median ALT at DILI onset was significantly lower with amiodarone (118 vs 1191 U/L, p = 0.05). Liver biopsies in five amiodarone cases showed fibrosis, steatosis, and numerous Mallory-Denk bodies. Five patients died although only one from liver failure. One patient with dronedarone induced liver injury died of a non-liver related cause. Nine additional cases of DILI due to dronedarone requiring hospitalization were identified in the FAERS database. Three patients developed liver injury within a month of starting the medication. Two developed acute liver failure and underwent urgent liver transplant, one was evaluated for liver transplant but then recovered spontaneously, while one patient with cirrhosis died of liver related causes. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone hepatotoxicity resembles that seen in alcohol related liver injury, with fatty infiltration and inflammation. Dronedarone is less predictable, typically without fat and with a shorter latency of use before presentation. These differences may be explained, in part, by the differing pharmacokinetics of the two drugs leading to different mechanisms of hepatotoxicity.

Chapter 3: Evidence for the Use of Early Rhythm Control to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation Progression.

This chapter reviews atrial fibrillation (AF) progression and its associated mechanisms, including comorbidities and AF as contributors to atrial myopathy, and atrial myopathy as a contributing factor to AF progression. In addition, the chapter discusses the concept of comorbidities and atrial myopathy as synergistic contributors to adverse outcomes, the notion of "AF begets AF," and the consequences of AF burden if left untreated. Clinical trials evaluating outcomes with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with placebo have demonstrated efficacy, but also reveal a possible proarrhythmic and mortality risk if AAD selection is not appropriate and patients are not correctly identified based on risk factors and comorbidities. Data from ATHENA, the first and only trial to demonstrate that an AAD (dronedarone) can reduce cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations in people with AF, are reviewed, along with studies reporting on the use of catheter ablation versus AADs for AF rhythm control. Finally, recent data showing a reduction in major adverse outcomes if rhythm control is initiated early are summarized, including results from the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, as well as confirmatory results from several large "real-world" trials. Chapter 3 is summarized as follows.

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.

Dronedarone Versus Sotalol in Antiarrhythmic Drug-Naive Veterans With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug-naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA2DS2-VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16]). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.87]). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

Dronedarone versus sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Of 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.

FDA approved drugs with antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2: From structure-based repurposing to host-specific mechanisms.

The continuing heavy toll of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates development of therapeutic options. We adopted structure-based drug repurposing to screen FDA-approved drugs for inhibitory effects against main protease enzyme (Mpro) substrate-binding pocket of SARS-CoV-2 for non-covalent and covalent binding. Top candidates were screened against infectious SARS-CoV-2 in a cell-based viral replication assay. Promising candidates included atovaquone, mebendazole, ouabain, dronedarone, and entacapone, although atovaquone and mebendazole were the only two candidates with IC50s that fall within their therapeutic plasma concentration. Additionally, we performed Mpro assays on the top hits, which demonstrated inhibition of Mpro by dronedarone (IC50 18 µM), mebendazole (IC50 19 µM) and entacapone (IC50 9 µM). Atovaquone showed only modest Mpro inhibition, and thus we explored other potential mechanisms. Although atovaquone is Dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) inhibitor, we did not observe inhibition of DHODH at the respective SARS-CoV-2 IC50. Metabolomic profiling of atovaquone treated cells showed dysregulation of purine metabolism pathway metabolite, where ecto-5'-nucleotidase (NT5E) was downregulated by atovaquone at concentrations equivalent to its antiviral IC50. Atovaquone and mebendazole are promising candidates with SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity. While mebendazole does appear to target Mpro, atovaquone may inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication by targeting host purine metabolism.

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation concomitantly treated with antiarrhythmic drugs and non-vitamin k antagonist oral anticoagulants.

AIMS: Limited data compared antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) with concomitant non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients, hence the aim of the study. METHODS AND RESULTS: National health insurance database were retrieved during 2012-17 for study. We excluded patients not taking AADs, bradycardia, heart block, heart failure admission, mitral stenosis, prosthetic valve, incomplete demographic data, and follow-up <3 months. Outcomes were compared in Protocol 1, dronedarone vs. non-dronedarone; Protocol 2, dronedarone vs. amiodarone; and Protocol 3, dronedarone vs. propafenone. Outcomes were acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (including AMI, ischaemic stroke, and cardiovascular death). In Protocol 1, 2298 dronedarone users and 6984 non-dronedarone users (amiodarone = 4844; propafenone = 1914; flecainide = 75; sotalol = 61) were analysed. Dronedarone was associated with lower ICH (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.99, P = 0.0436), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.16-0.37, P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27-0.42, P < 0.0001), and MACE (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.45-0.70, P < 0.0001). In Protocol 2, 2231 dronedarone users and 6693 amiodarone users were analysed. Dronedarone was associated with significantly lower ICH (HR = 0.53, 95%=CI 0.33-0.84, P = 0.0078), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.13-0.31, P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22-0.34, P < 0.0001), and MACE (HR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.43-0.66, P < 0.0001), compared with amiodarone. In Protocol 3, 812 dronedarone users and 2436 propafenone users were analysed. There were no differences between two drugs for primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of dronedarone with NOACs was associated with cardiovascular benefits in an Asian population, compared with non-dronedarone AADs and amiodarone.

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.

Effect of dronedarone vs. placebo on atrial fibrillation progression: a post hoc analysis from ATHENA trial.

AIMS: This post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial (NCT00174785) assessed the effect of dronedarone on the estimated burden of atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) progression to presumed permanent AF/AFL, and regression to sinus rhythm (SR), compared with placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: The burden of AF/AFL was estimated by a modified Rosendaal method using available electrocardiograms (ECG). Cumulative incidence of permanent AF/AFL (defined as ≥6 months of AF/AFL until end of study) or permanent SR (defined as ≥6 months of SR until end of study) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A log-rank test was used to assess statistical significance. Hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox model, adjusted for treatment group. Of the 4439 patients included in this analysis, 2208 received dronedarone, and 2231 placebo. Baseline and clinical characteristics were well balanced between groups. Overall, 304 (13.8%) dronedarone-treated patients progressed to permanent AF/AFL compared with 455 (20.4%) treated with placebo (P < 0.0001). Compared with those receiving placebo, patients receiving dronedarone had a lower cumulative incidence of permanent AF/AFL (log-rank P < 0.001; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.56-0.75), a higher cumulative incidence of permanent SR (log-rank P < 0.001; HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09-1.29), and a lower estimated AF/AFL burden over time (P < 0.01 from Day 14 to Month 21). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that dronedarone could be a useful antiarrhythmic drug for early rhythm control due to less AF/AFL progression and more regression to SR vs. placebo, potentially reflecting reverse remodeling. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00174785.

Development and verification of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of dronedarone and its active metabolite N-desbutyldronedarone: Application to prospective simulation of complex drug-drug interaction with rivaroxaban.

AIMS: Despite potential enzyme- and transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between dronedarone and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data remain limited to guide clinical practice. We aimed to develop, verify and validate a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of dronedarone and its major metabolite, N-desbutyldronedarone (NDBD), to prospectively interrogate this clinically relevant DDI in healthy and mild renal impairment populations. METHODS: The middle-out development of our PBPK model combined literature-derived or in-house in vitro data, predicted in silico data and in vivo clinical data. Model verification was performed for intravenous and oral (single and multiple) dosing regimens. Model validation for the accurate prediction of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4- and P-glycoprotein-mediated DDI utilized simvastatin and digoxin as respective victim drugs. Rivaroxaban-specific inhibitory parameters of dronedarone and/or NDBD against CYP3A4, CYP2J2, OAT3 and P-glycoprotein were incorporated into the PBPK-DDI model for prospective dronedarone-rivaroxaban DDI simulation. RESULTS: Dronedarone and NDBD PK following clinically relevant doses of 400 mg dronedarone across single and multiple oral dosing were accurately simulated by incorporating effect of auto-inactivation on dose nonlinearities. Following successful model validation, nondose-adjusted rivaroxaban-dronedarone DDI in healthy and mild renal impairment populations revealed simulated rivaroxaban area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 24 h fold change greater than dose exposure equivalence (0.70-1.43) at 1.65 and 1.84, respectively. Correspondingly, respective major bleeding risk was 4.24 and 4.70% compared with threshold of 4.5% representing contraindicated rivaroxaban-ketoconazole DDI. CONCLUSION: Our PBPK-DDI model predicted clinically significant dronedarone-rivaroxaban DDI in both healthy and mild renal impairment subjects. Greater benefit vs. risk could be achieved with rivaroxaban dose reductions to at least 15 mg in mild renal impairment subjects on concomitant dronedarone and rivaroxaban.