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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of Dronedarone in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in the Asian Population: Post Hoc Analysis of the ATHENA Trial.

PURPOSE: Limited data are available on the impact of dronedarone treatment in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of dronedarone compared with placebo in populations from Asian and non-Asian regions randomized in the ATHENA trial (A Placebo-Controlled, Double-blind, Parallel Arm Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Dronedarone 400 mg BID for the Prevention of CV Hospitalization or Death From Any Cause in Patients With AF/AFL). METHODS: Time to first hospitalization for cardiovascular events or death from any cause (primary outcome) and time to first AF/AFL event recurrence (secondary outcome) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. FINDINGS: The risk of experiencing the primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the dronedarone-treated patients in both the Asian (hazard ratio = 0.541; 95% CI, 0.320-0.914]) and non-Asian (hazard ratio = 0.768; 95% CI, 0.696-0.848) populations than in the placebo-treated patients. The median time to the first AF/AFL event recurrence was longer in the dronedarone-treated population than in the placebo-treated populations: 183 vs 92 days (P = 0.165) in the Asian population and 534 vs 196 days (P < 0.001) in the non-Asian population. Treatment-emergent adverse events in Asian (81.2% vs 78.4%) and non-Asian (71.4% vs 68.7%) populations and serious treatment-emergent adverse events in Asian (14.3% vs 15.7%) and non-Asian (20.3% vs 21.5%) patients were comparable in patients taking dronedarone compared with those taking placebo. IMPLICATION: Efficacy and tolerability of dronedarone were consistent in the Asian population compared with the non-Asian population in the ATHENA trial. These finding may aid Asian health care professionals to select the appropriate first-line treatment for Asian patients with AF/AFL.

Impact of dronedarone on patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes: A sub-analysis of the ATHENA and EURIDIS/ADONIS studies.

AIM: This post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of dronedarone in atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) patients with/without diabetes. METHODS: Patients were categorized according to baseline diabetes status. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard-ratios were assessed using Cox models. RESULTS: 945/4628 (dronedarone = 482; placebo = 463) patients in ATHENA and 215/1237 (dronedarone = 148; placebo = 67) patients in EURIDIS/ADONIS studies had diabetes. In ATHENA, there were higher rates of CV hospitalization/death in patients with diabetes (39.5%) than without diabetes (34.7%). Incidence of first CV hospitalization/death was lower in patients with diabetes treated with dronedarone (35.1%) than placebo (44.1%), and time to this event was longer in those treated with dronedarone than placebo (log-rank p = 0.005). Median AF/AFL recurrence time was longer in patients treated with dronedarone than placebo in patients with diabetes (ATHENA: 722 vs 527 days, log-rank p = 0.004; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 100 vs 23 days, log-rank p = 0.15) or without diabetes (ATHENA: 741 vs 492 days, log-rank p < 0.0001; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 120 vs 59 days, log-rank p = 0.0002). Occurrence of any treatment-related adverse events with dronedarone was similar for patients with/without diabetes and was comparable to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone reduced incidence of CV hospitalization/death, AF/AFL recurrence and increased time to these events in AF/AFL patients with/without diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable, as it was a post hoc analysis. This article is based on previously conducted studies (ATHENA: NCT00174785, EURIDIS: NCT00259428, and ADONIS: NCT00259376).

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Sotalol Versus Dronedarone After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common after atrial fibrillation ablation, so adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often used. Data on the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and sotalol after AF ablation are limited. Here, we compared health outcomes of ablated patients treated with dronedarone versus sotalol. Methods and Results A comparative analysis of propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts was performed using IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Patients treated with dronedarone after atrial fibrillation ablation were matched 1:1 to patients treated with sotalol between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular hospitalization, proarrhythmia, repeat ablation, and cardioversion. This study was exempt from institutional review board review. Among 30 696 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation, 2086 were treated with dronedarone and 3665 with sotalol after ablation. Propensity-score matching resulted in 1815 patients receiving dronedarone matched 1:1 to patients receiving sotalol. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97]), 6 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.93]), and 12 months after ablation (aHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.93]). Risk of repeat ablation and cardioversion generally did not differ between the 2 groups. A lower risk of proarrhythmia was associated with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.90]), 6 months (aHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.93]), and 12 months (aHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.94]) after ablation. Conclusions These data suggest that dronedarone may be a more effective and safer alternative after ablation than sotalol.

Dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a range of renal function: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial.

AIMS: Use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging owing to issues with renal clearance, drug accumulation, and increased proarrhythmic risks. Because CKD is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), it is important to establish the efficacy and safety of AAD treatment in patients with CKD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Dronedarone efficacy and safety in individuals with AF/AFL and varying renal functionality [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): ≥60, ≥45 and <60, and <45 mL/min] was investigated in a post hoc analysis of ATHENA (NCT00174785), a randomized, double-blind trial of dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL plus additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare the incidence of endpoints between treatments. Overall, 4588 participants were enrolled from the trial. There was no interaction between treatment group and baseline eGFR assessed as a continuous variable (P = 0.743) for the first CV hospitalization or death from any cause (primary outcome). This outcome was lower with dronedarone vs. placebo across a wide range of renal function. First CV hospitalization and first AF/AFL recurrence were both lower in the two least renally impaired subgroups with dronedarone vs. placebo. Treatment emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were more frequent with dronedarone vs. placebo and occurred more often in patients with severe renal impairment. CONCLUSION: Dronedarone is an effective AAD in patients with AF/AFL and CV risk factors across a wide range of renal function.

Efficacy and safety of dronedarone across age and sex subgroups: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study among patients with non-permanent atrial fibrillation/flutter.

AIMS: Age and sex may impact the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs on cardiovascular outcomes and arrhythmia recurrences in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We report on a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study (NCT00174785), which examined cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-permanent AF treated with dronedarone vs. placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: Efficacy and safety of dronedarone were assessed in patients according to age and sex. Baseline characteristics were comparable across subgroups, except for cardiovascular comorbidities, which were more frequent with increasing age. Dronedarone significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization or death due to any cause among patients 65-74 [n = 1830; hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.83; P < 0.0001] and ≥75 (n = 1925; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.88; P = 0.0002) years old and among males (n = 2459; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.84; P < 0.00001) and females (n = 2169; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.89; P = 0.0002); outcomes were similar for time to AF/AFL recurrence. Among patients aged <65 years (n = 873), cardiovascular hospitalization or death due to any cause with dronedarone vs. placebo was associated with an HR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.11; P = 0.3). The incidence of all treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation was comparable among males and females, and increased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of dronedarone for the improvement of clinical outcomes among patients aged ≥65 years and regardless of sex.

International cohort study on the effectiveness of dronedarone and other antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation in real-world practice (EFFECT-AF).

AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone compared with other commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences. METHODS AND RESULTS: An international observational cohort study in Germany, Spain, Italy, and the USA enrolling patients with AF receiving AAD therapy. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV heart failure were excluded. Participants were followed for up to 18 months, regardless of discontinuation or subsequent AAD switches. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was captured by hospitalization, emergency room visit, or electrocardiogram-based documentation of AF. Confounding bias was controlled for in the analysis of AF recurrence using multivariate models of 19 variables for adjustment. A total of 1009 participants [mean age 67.2 (10.8) years, male to female ratio 1.3] were recruited from 170 centres, 693 (69%) of which were from across Europe and the remaining 316 (31%) from the USA. At the time of enrolment, participants were taking dronedarone (51%) or other AADs (49%) [flecainide or propafenone (42%), sotalol (11%), and amiodarone (47%)]. No significant differences in the risk of first confirmed AF recurrence with dronedarone vs. other AADs [crude hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.85-1.42); adjusted HR 1.16 (0.87-1.55)] were found, irrespective of whether univariate or multivariate models were used. Reported safety events were in accordance with the known safety profile of dronedarone. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients from either Europe or the USA receiving dronedarone or another AAD, the effectiveness of dronedarone was comparable to that observed for other AADs in preventing first AF recurrence.

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.

Amiodarone, Unlike Dronedarone, Activates Inflammasomes via Its Reactive Metabolites: Implications for Amiodarone Adverse Reactions.

Amiodarone is a benzofuran derivative used to treat arrhythmias, but its use is limited by adverse reactions. There is evidence that some of the severe adverse reactions such as liver injury and interstitial lung disease are immune-mediated; however, details of the mechanism have not been elucidated. We tested the ability of amiodarone to induce the release of danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that activate inflammasomes. Human hepatocarcinoma functional liver cell-4 (FLC-4) cells were used for drug bioactivation, and the detection of inflammasome activation was performed with the human macrophage cell line, THP-1 cells. Amiodarone is known to be oxidized to reactive quinone metabolites. The supernatant from the incubation of amiodarone with FLC-4 cells for 7 days increased caspase-1 activity and production of IL-1ß by THP-1 cells. In the supernatant of FLC-4 cells with amiodarone, the heat shock protein (HSP) 40 was significantly increased. Addition of a cytochrome P450 inhibitor to the FLC-4 cells prevented the release of HSP40 from the FLC-4 cells and activation of THP-1 inflammasomes by the FLC-4 supernatant. These results suggested that the reactive quinone metabolites of amiodarone can cause the release of DAMPs from hepatocytes which can activate inflammasomes. Dronedarone, a safer analog of amiodarone, did not activate inflammasomes. Inflammasome activation may be an important step in the activation of the immune system by amiodarone, which in some patients, can cause immune-related adverse events. In addition, our data suggest that drugs that block the effects or the formation of IL-1ß would provide better treatment of amiodarone-induced immune-related adverse reactions.

Comparison of dronedarone vs. flecainide in the maintenance of sinus rhythm, following electrocardioversion in adults with persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To compare flecainide and dronedarone for sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance following electrocardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients with minimal or no structural heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search of publications using EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (1989-2019), identified a total of 595 articles. No limitations were applied. Nine articles met the inclusion criteria [five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four cohort studies], encompassing 1349 persistent AF candidates. Two retrospective studies compared flecainide with dronedarone, indicating a 6% reduced risk of AF recurrence with flecainide; however, results were not statistically significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.24; P = 0.66]. One RCT compared dronedarone to placebo, demonstrating a 28% reduced risk of AF recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90; P = 0.004). Two RCTs compare flecainide to placebo, when a 16% decreased risk of AF recurrence at 6-12 months was indicated; however, these results were not statistically significant (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07; P = 0.16). Within a 6- to 12-month follow-up period, a combined recurrence rate of AF was examined, in which flecainide and dronedarone maintained SR in 50% and 42%, respectively. Four articles satisfied quality appraisal, one of which focused on flecainide data. CONCLUSION: Dronedarone and flecainide displayed similar efficacy in maintaining SR in patients following electrocardioversion for persistent AF. The SR maintenance was numerically but not statistically significant in the flecainide group. Side effects uncovered similar pro-arrhythmic activity. However, in light of the deficiency of volume and quality of available evidence, the writer acknowledges the requirement for future research.

Case Report: Presumed Optic Neuropathy after Amiodarone and then Dronedarone for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

SIGNIFICANCE: Amiodarone and dronedarone have recognized ophthalmological adverse effects including optic neuropathy. The recognition of optic neuropathy as a complication of amiodarone and dronedarone treatment may enable withdrawing the drug and accordingly preventing permanent vision loss. PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe a case of optic neuropathy after substitution of amiodarone with dronedarone for treatment of atrial fibrillation. CASE REPORT: An 81-year-old man treated with dronedarone for atrial fibrillation after amiodarone had caused tremor developed sequential permanent vision loss in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of timely recognition of optic neuropathy as a complication of amiodarone and dronedarone treatment may enable discontinuing the drug, thus preventing permanent vision loss.

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.

Evaluation of the Switch From Amiodarone to Dronedarone in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the ARTEMIS AF Studies.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antiarrhythmic drugs is timed to minimize arrhythmia recurrence and adverse reactions. Dronedarone and amiodarone have similar electrophysiological profiles; however, little is known about the optimal timing of switching, given the long half-life of amiodarone. METHODS: The ARTEMIS atrial fibrillation (AF) Loading and Long-term studies evaluated switching patients with paroxysmal/persistent AF from amiodarone to dronedarone. Patients were randomized based on the timing of the switch: immediate, after a 2-week, or after a 4-week washout of amiodarone. Patients who did not convert to sinus rhythm after amiodarone loading underwent electrical cardioversion. The primary objectives were, for the Loading study, to evaluate recurrence of AF ≤60 days; and for the Long-term study, to profile the pharmacokinetics of dronedarone and its metabolite according to different timings of dronedarone initiation. RESULTS: In ARTEMIS AF Loading, 176 were randomized (planned 768) after a 28 ± 2 days load of oral amiodarone. Atrial fibrillation recurrence trended less in the immediate switch versus 4-week washout group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65 [97.5% CI: 0.34-1.23]; P = .14) and in the 2-week washout versus the 4-week washout group (HR = 0.75 [97.5% CI: 0.41-1.37]; P = .32). In ARTEMIS AF Long-term, 108 patients were randomized (planned 105). Pharmacokinetic analyses (n = 97) showed no significant differences for dronedarone/SR35021 exposures in the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early due to poor recruitment and so our findings are limited by low numbers. However, immediate switching from amiodarone to dronedarone appeared to be well tolerated and safe.