10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of dronedarone on cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation.

          Dronedarone is a new antiarrhythmic drug that is being developed for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. We conducted a multicenter trial to evaluate the use of dronedarone in 4628 patients with atrial fibrillation who had additional risk factors for death. Patients were randomly assigned to receive dronedarone, 400 mg twice a day, or placebo. The primary outcome was the first hospitalization due to cardiovascular events or death. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause, death from cardiovascular causes, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular events. The mean follow-up period was 21+/-5 months, with the study drug discontinued prematurely in 696 of the 2301 patients (30.2%) receiving dronedarone and in 716 of the 2327 patients (30.8%) receiving placebo, mostly because of adverse events. The primary outcome occurred in 734 patients (31.9%) in the dronedarone group and in 917 patients (39.4%) in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio for dronedarone of 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.84; P<0.001). There were 116 deaths (5.0%) in the dronedarone group and 139 (6.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.08; P=0.18). There were 63 deaths from cardiovascular causes (2.7%) in the dronedarone group and 90 (3.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.03), largely due to a reduction in the rate of death from arrhythmia with dronedarone. The dronedarone group had higher rates of bradycardia, QT-interval prolongation, nausea, diarrhea, rash, and an increased serum creatinine level than the placebo group. Rates of thyroid- and pulmonary-related adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. Dronedarone reduced the incidence of hospitalization due to cardiovascular events or death in patients with atrial fibrillation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00174785.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dronedarone for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation or flutter.

            Amiodarone is effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation but is associated with potentially serious toxic effects. Dronedarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent pharmacologically related to amiodarone but developed to reduce the risk of side effects. In two identical multicenter, double-blind, randomized trials, one conducted in Europe (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00259428 [ClinicalTrials.gov] ) and one conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Argentina (termed the non-European trial, NCT00259376 [ClinicalTrials.gov] ), we evaluated the efficacy of dronedarone, with 828 patients receiving 400 mg of the drug twice daily and 409 patients receiving placebo. Rhythm was monitored transtelephonically on days 2, 3, and 5; at 3, 5, 7, and 10 months; during recurrence of arrhythmia; and at nine scheduled visits during a 12-month period. The primary end point was the time to the first recurrence of atrial fibrillation or flutter. In the European trial, the median times to the recurrence of arrhythmia were 41 days in the placebo group and 96 days in the dronedarone group (P=0.01). The corresponding durations in the non-European trial were 59 and 158 days (P=0.002). At the recurrence of arrhythmia in the European trial, the mean (+/-SD) ventricular rate was 117.5+/-29.1 beats per minute in the placebo group and 102.3+/-24.7 beats per minute in the dronedarone group (P<0.001); the corresponding rates in the non-European trial were 116.6+/-31.9 and 104.6+/-27.1 beats per minute (P<0.001). Rates of pulmonary toxic effects and of thyroid and liver dysfunction were not significantly increased in the dronedarone group. Dronedarone was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm and in reducing the ventricular rate during recurrence of arrhythmia. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prescribing amiodarone: an evidence-based review of clinical indications.

              Although amiodarone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for refractory ventricular arrhythmias, it is one of the most frequently prescribed antiarrhythmic medications in the United States. To evaluate and synthesize evidence regarding optimal use of amiodarone for various arrhythmias. Systematic search of MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other studies with clinical pertinence. The search was limited to human-participant, English-language reports published between 1970 and 2007. Amiodarone was searched using the terms adverse effects, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, congestive heart failure, electrical storm, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, surgery, ventricular arrhythmia, ventricular fibrillation, and Wolff-Parkinson-White. Bibliographies of identified articles and guidelines from official societies were reviewed for additional references. Ninety-two identified studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Amiodarone may have clinical value in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure as first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation, though other agents are available. Amiodarone is useful in acute management of sustained ventricular tachyarrythmias, regardless of hemodynamic stability. The only role for prophylactic amiodarone is in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. Amiodarone may be effective as an adjunct to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy to reduce number of shocks. However, amiodarone has a number of serious adverse effects, including corneal microdeposits (>90%), optic neuropathy/neuritis (< or =1%-2%), blue-gray skin discoloration (4%-9%), photosensitivity (25%-75%), hypothyroidism (6%), hyperthyroidism (0.9%-2%), pulmonary toxicity (1%-17%), peripheral neuropathy (0.3% annually), and hepatotoxicity (elevated enzyme levels, 15%-30%; hepatitis and cirrhosis, <3% [0.6% annually]). Amiodarone should be used with close follow-up in patients who are likely to derive the most benefit, namely those with atrial fibrillation and left ventricular dysfunction, those with acute sustained ventricular arrhythmias, those about to undergo cardiac surgery, and those with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and symptomatic shocks.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther
                J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. Ther
                CPT
                spcpt
                Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1074-2484
                1940-4034
                5 June 2020
                September 2020
                : 25
                : 5
                : 425-437
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA
                [2 ]Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [3 ]Cardiology Clinical Academic Group Molecular & Clinical Sciences Institute, St George’s University of London, London, UK
                [4 ]Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Université Paris V René Descartes, Paris, France
                [5 ]Cardiologia, Fondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
                [6 ]Department of Clinical Science and Health Community, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
                [7 ]Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Medicine, CIBERCV, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain
                [8 ]Sanofi, Montpellier, France
                [9 ]Sanofi, Paris, France
                Author notes
                [*]Gerald V. Naccarelli, Division of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University College of Medicine, Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA. Email: gnaccarelli@ 123456pennstatehealth.psu.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8196-4554
                Article
                10.1177_1074248420926874
                10.1177/1074248420926874
                7364767
                32500725
                8cf5179b-db12-4996-b68c-1339222735b4
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 21 April 2020
                : 25 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Sanofi, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100004339;
                Categories
                Clinical Studies
                Custom metadata
                ts3

                atrial fibrillation,antiarrhythmic drug therapy,amiodarone,dronedarone

                Comments

                Comment on this article