Systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation of 'pill-in-the-pocket' strategy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared to episodic in-hospital treatment or continuous antiarrhythmic drug therapy

Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Etripamil Nasal Spray for the Acute Reduction of Rapid Ventricular Rate in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation (ReVeRA-201)

BACKGROUND

Despite chronic therapies, atrial fibrillation (AF) leads to rapid ventricular rates (RVR) often requiring intravenous treatments. Etripamil is a fast-acting, calcium-channel blocker administered intranasally affecting the atrioventricular node within minutes.

METHODS

Reduction of Ventricular Rate in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation evaluated the efficacy and safety of etripamil for the reduction of ventricular rate (VR) in patients presenting urgently with AF-RVR (VR ≥110 beats per minute [bpm]), was randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and conducted in Canada and the Netherlands. Patients presenting urgently with AF-RVR were randomized (1:1, etripamil nasal spray 70 mg: placebo nasal spray). The primary objective was to demonstrate the effectiveness of etripamil in reducing VR in AF-RVR within 60 minutes of treatment. Secondary objectives assessed achievement of VR <100 bpm, reduction by ≥10% and ≥20%, relief of symptoms and treatment effectiveness; adverse events; and additional measures to 360 minutes.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were randomized, 56 dosed with etripamil (n=27) or placebo (n=29). The median age was 65 years; 39% were female patients; proportions of AF types were similar between groups. The difference of mean maximum reductions in VR over 60 minutes, etripamil versus placebo, adjusting for baseline VR, was -29.91 bpm (95% CI, -40.31 to -19.52; P<0.0001). VR reductions persisted up to 150 minutes. Significantly greater proportions of patients receiving etripamil achieved VR reductions <100 bpm (with longer median duration <100 bpm), or VR reduction by ≥10% or ≥20%, versus placebo. VR reduction ≥20% occurred in 66.7% of patients in the etripamil arm and no patients in placebo. Using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9, there was significant improvement in satisfaction on symptom relief and treatment effectiveness with etripamil versus placebo. Serious adverse events were rare; 1 patient in the etripamil arm experienced transient severe bradycardia and syncope, assessed as due to hypervagotonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal etripamil 70 mg reduced VR and improved symptom relief and treatment satisfaction. These data support further development of self-administered etripamil for the treatment of AF-RVR.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT04467905.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence. This is an update of a review previously published in 2006, 2012 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in people who had recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase in January 2019, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP in February 2019. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored, spontaneously or by any intervention. We excluded postoperative atrial fibrillation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We pooled studies, if appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up or the nearest time point.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study (100 participants) and excluded one previously included study because of double publication. Finally, we included 59 RCTs comprising 20,981 participants studying quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol. Overall, mean follow-up was 10.2 months.All-cause mortalityHigh-certainty evidence from five RCTs indicated that treatment with sotalol was associated with a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.81; participants = 1882). The number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for sotalol was 102 participants treated for one year to have one additional death. Low-certainty evidence from six RCTs suggested that risk of mortality may be higher in people taking quinidine (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.77; participants = 1646). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased RR for mortality but with very wide CIs for metoprolol (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.05, 2 RCTs, participants = 562) and amiodarone (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.99, 2 RCTs, participants = 444), compared with placebo.We found little or no difference in mortality with dofetilide (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence) or dronedarone (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/no treatment. There were few data on mortality for disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, making impossible a reliable estimation for those drugs.Withdrawals due to adverse eventsAll analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse effects compared to placebo or no treatment (quinidine: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.78; disopyramide: RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 14.24; propafenone: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.46; flecainide: RR 15.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 260.19; metoprolol: RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.15; amiodarone: RR 6.70, 95% CI 1.91 to 23.45; dofetilide: RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.18; dronedarone: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85; sotalol: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.11). Certainty of the evidence for this outcome was low for disopyramide, amiodarone, dofetilide and flecainide; moderate to high for the remaining drugs.ProarrhythmiaVirtually all studied antiarrhythmics showed increased proarrhythmic effects (counting both tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias attributable to treatment) (quinidine: RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 4.41; disopyramide: no data; flecainide: RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 17.77; metoprolol: RR 18.14, 95% CI 2.42 to 135.66; amiodarone: RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.96; dofetilide: RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 22.76; dronedarone: RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.98; sotalol: RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.83); with the exception of propafenone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.47) for which the certainty of evidence was very low and we were uncertain about the effect. Certainty of the evidence for this outcome for the other drugs was moderate to high.StrokeEleven studies reported stroke outcomes with quinidine, disopyramide, flecainide, amiodarone, dronedarone and sotalol. High-certainty evidence from two RCTs suggested that dronedarone may be associated with reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; participants = 5872). This result is attributed to one study dominating the meta-analysis and has yet to be reproduced in other studies. There was no apparent effect on stroke rates with the other antiarrhythmics.Recurrence of atrial fibrillationModerate- to high-certainty evidence, with the exception of disopyramide which was low-certainty evidence, showed that all analysed drugs, including metoprolol, reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (quinidine: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; disopyramide: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; propafenone: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74; flecainide: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; metoprolol: RR 0.83 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; amiodarone: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58; dofetilide: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; dronedarone: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; sotalol: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.87). Despite this reduction, atrial fibrillation still recurred in 43% to 67% of people treated with antiarrhythmics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence of increased mortality associated with sotalol treatment, and low-certainty evidence suggesting increased mortality with quinidine, when used for maintaining sinus rhythm in people with atrial fibrillation. We found few data on mortality in people taking disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, so it was not possible to make a reliable estimation of the mortality risk for these drugs. However, we did find moderate-certainty evidence of marked increases in proarrhythmia and adverse effects with flecainide.Overall, there is evidence showing that antiarrhythmic drugs increase adverse events, increase proarrhythmic events and some antiarrhythmics may increase mortality. Conversely, although they reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation, there is no evidence of any benefit on other clinical outcomes, compared with placebo or no treatment.

Vernakalant in Atrial Fibrillation: A Relatively New Weapon in the Armamentarium Against an Old Enemy

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, and its prevalence is increasing with age; also it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Rhythm control is advised in recent-onset atrial fibrillation, and in highly symptomatic patients, also in young and active individuals. Moreover, rhythm control is associated with lower incidence of progression to permanent atrial fibrillation. Vernakalant is a relatively new anti-arrhythmic drug that showed efficacy and safety in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. Vernakalant is indicated in atrial fibrillation (⩽7 days) in patients with no heart disease (class I, level A) or in patients with mild or moderate structural heart disease (class IIb, level B). Moreover, Vernakalant may be considered for recent-onset atrial fibrillation (⩽3 days) post cardiac surgery (class IIb, level B). Although it is mainly indicated in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation and with no structural heart disease, it can be given in moderate stable cardiac disease as alternative to Amiodarone. Similarly to electrical cardioversion, pharmacological cardioversion requires a minimal evaluation and cardioversion should be included in a comprehensive management strategy for better outcome.

2018 Korean Guideline of Atrial Fibrillation Management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in the general population. The Korean Heart Rhythm Society organized a Korean AF Management Guideline Committee and analyzed all available studies regarding the management of AF, including studies on Korean patients. This guideline is based on recent data of the Korean population and the recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society. Expert consensus or guidelines for the optimal management of Korean patients with AF were achieved after a systematic review with intensive discussion. This article provides general principles for appropriate risk stratification and selection of anticoagulation therapy in Korean patients with AF. This guideline deals with optimal stroke prevention, screening, rate and rhythm control, risk factor management, and integrated management of AF.

Evaluating the benefits of home-based management of atrial fibrillation: current perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, leading to an extensive public health and economic burden. The increasing incidence and prevalence of AF is due to the advancing age of the population, structural heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and thyroid disease. The majority of costs associated with AF have been attributed to the cost of hospitalization. In order to minimize costs and decrease hospitalizations, counseling on modifiable risk factors contributing to AF has been strongly emphasized. With the release of novel oral anticoagulants bypassing the need for anticoagulant bridging or laboratory monitoring, post-discharge nurse-led home intervention, and novel methods of heart rate monitoring, home-based AF management has reached a new level of ease and sophistication. In this review, we aimed to review modifiable risk factors for AF and various methods of home-based management of AF, along with their benefits.

A scoping review of rapid review methods

BACKGROUND

Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.

Health economic evaluation of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management Model (LIMM) in elderly patients admitted to hospital

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team including a pharmacist for systematic medication review and reconciliation from admission to discharge at hospital among elderly patients (the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM)) in order to reduce drug-related readmissions and outpatient visits.

METHOD

Published data from the LIMM project group were used to design a probabilistic decision tree model for evaluating tools for (1) a systematic medication reconciliation and review process at initial hospital admission and during stay (admission part) and (2) a medication report for patients discharged from hospital to primary care (discharge part). The comparator was standard care. Inpatient, outpatient and staff time costs (Euros, 2009) were calculated during a 3-month period. Dis-utilities for hospital readmissions and outpatient visits due to medication errors were taken from the literature.

RESULTS

The total cost for the LIMM model was €290 compared to €630 for standard care, in spite of a €39 intervention cost. The main cost offset arose from avoided drug-related readmissions in the Admission part (€262) whereas only €66 was offset in the Discharge part as a result of fewer outpatient visits and correction time. The reduced disutility was estimated to 0.005 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), indicating that LIMM was a dominant alternative. The probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at a zero willingness to pay for a gained QALY compared to standard care was estimated to 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIMM medication reconciliation (at admission and discharge) and medication review was both cost-saving and generated greater utility compared to standard care, foremost owing to avoided drug-related hospital readmissions. When implementing such a review process with a multidisciplinary team, it may be important to consider a learning curve in order to capture the full advantage.