Outcomes Associated with Dronedarone Use in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Amiodarone vs Dronedarone for Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common arrhythmias, but the optimal drug choice for a rhythm-control strategy remains uncertain.

Methods

This article reports on a retrospective cohort claims database study conducted using the Truven Health Market Scan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, and a discharge date between 2011 and 2015, were included. The exposure variables of interest were a discharge prescription for amiodarone or dronedarone. The average treatment effect for the composite of total mortality or a repeat cardiovascular (CV)-related hospitalization was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses with other treatment effect metrics were performed. Baseline covariate imbalances between the groups were adjusted using propensity-score methods with inverse probability weighting.

Results

A total of 1735 patients were discharged on amiodarone, and 338 were discharged on dronedarone, with a median follow-up time of 357 days. A total of 43 (12.7%) CV-related hospitalizations occurred in the dronedarone group, and 146 (8.4%) occurred in the amiodarone group (risk difference 4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-8.3%, P = 0.02). A total of 4 (1.2%) deaths occurred in the dronedarone group, and 31 (1.8%) deaths occurred with amiodarone (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -2.1%-0.9%, P = 0.6). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the dronedarone hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was 1.47 (95% CI 1.01-2.12). This result was generally robust to sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this incident cohort of patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, compared to those discharged on amiodarone, patients who received a dronedarone discharge prescription had an increase in the composite endpoint of recurrent CV-related hospitalization and death, over a median 1-year follow-up period.

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.

The Increasing Role of Rhythm Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The considerable mortality and morbidity associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) pose a substantial burden on patients and health care services. Although the management of AF historically focused on decreasing AF recurrence, it evolved over time in favor of rate control. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes using rhythm control, generally by using safe and effective rhythm-control therapies (typically antiarrhythmic drugs and/or AF ablation). Evidence increasingly supports early rhythm control in patients with AF that has not become long-standing, but current clinical practice and guidelines do not yet fully reflect this change. Early rhythm control may effectively reduce irreversible atrial remodeling and prevent AF-related deaths, heart failure, and strokes in high-risk patients. It has the potential to halt progression and potentially save patients from years of symptomatic AF; therefore, it should be offered more widely.

Atrial Fibrillation Management: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Pharmacotherapy, Rate, and Rhythm Control Strategies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice that leads to a substantial increase in utilization of healthcare services and a decrease in the quality of life of patients. The prevalence of AF will continue to increase as the population ages and develops cardiac comorbidities; thus, prompt and effective treatment is important to help mitigate systemic resource utilization. Treatment of AF involves two tenets: prevention of stroke and systemic embolism and symptom control with either a rate or a rhythm control strategy. Historically, due to the safe nature of medications like beta-blockers and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, used in rate control, it has been the initial strategy used for symptom control in AF. Newer data suggest that a rhythm control strategy with antiarrhythmic medications with or without catheter ablation may lead to a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, particularly in patients newly diagnosed with AF. Modulation of factors that promote AF or its complications is another important aspect of the overall holistic management of AF. This review provides a comprehensive focus on the management of patients with AF and an in-depth review of pharmacotherapy of AF in the rate and rhythm control strategies.

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.

Effect of DrOnedarone on atrial fibrosis progression and atrial fibrillation recurrence postablation: Design of the EDORA randomized clinical trial

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after catheter ablation is associated with worse outcomes and quality of life. Left atrial (LA) structural remodeling provides the essential substrate for AF perpetuation. Baseline extent and the progression of LA fibrosis after ablation are strong predictors of postprocedural AF recurrence. Dronedarone is an antiarrhythmic drug proven to efficiently maintain sinus rhythm.

Objective

We sought to investigate the effect of the antiarrhythmic drug Dronedarone in decreasing LA fibrosis progression and AF recurrence after ablation of AF patients.

Methods

EDORA (NCT04704050) is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients with persistent or paroxysmal AF undergoing AF ablation will be randomized into Dronedarone versus placebo/standard of care. The co‐primary outcomes are the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (AA) within 13 months of follow‐up after ablation and the progression of left atrial fibrosis postablation. All patients will receive a late‐gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging at baseline, 3‐ and 12‐month follow‐up for the quantification of LA fibrosis and ablation‐related scarring. AA recurrence and burden will be assessed using a 30‐day ECG patch every 3 months with daily ECG recordings in between. Quality of life improvement is assessed using the AFEQT and AFSS questionnaires.

Conclusion

EDORA will be the first trial to assess the progression of LA structural remodeling after ablation and its association with Dronedarone treatment and ablation success in a randomized controlled fashion. The trial will provide insight into the pathophysiology of AF recurrence after ablation and may provide potential therapeutic targets to optimize procedural outcomes.