The effect of bidisomide (SC-40230), a new class Ia/Ib antiarrhythmic agent, on defibrillation energy requirements in dogs with healed myocardial infarctions

Treatment of atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia with bidisomide. The Atrial Fibrillation Investigation with Bidisomide (AFIB) Investigators

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia are common disorders of the heart rhythm for which antiarrhythmic drug therapy is commonly prescribed. The Atrial Fibrillation Investigation with Bidisomide (AFIB) study was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to accomplish three goals in a single protocol: (1) to determine the efficacy of the antiarrhythmic drug bidisomide in the treatment of these two arrhythmias; (2) to establish the appropriate dose range for bidisomide; and (3) to detect an adverse mortality effect of bidisomide if one were present in patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this clinical trial, 1227 patients with atrial fibrillation and 187 with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia were randomly assigned to bidisomide (200, 400, or 600 mg BID) or placebo; patient groups with each arrhythmia were analyzed separately. Symptomatic recurrences of atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia were documented with the use of transtelephonic ECG monitoring. The time to the first symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence was measured in each patient and compared among treatment groups. Among the atrial fibrillation patients, there was no significant difference in the time to first symptomatic recurrence between the placebo group and any of the three bidisomide treatment groups; the hazard ratios (placebo:treatment) were 1.19, 1.03, and 1.14 for bidisomide 200, 400, and 600 mg BID, respectively. Among paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia patients, there was a similar lack of a significant treatment effect; the hazard ratios were 1.30, 1.93, and 1.59 for bidisomide 200, 400, and 600 mg BID, respectively. In the primary safety analysis of mortality, 3 of 493 patients taking placebo died, compared with 9 of 488 patients taking one of the two higher doses of bidisomide (P>.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Bidisomide in the doses tested did not have a clinically important antiarrhythmic effect. The AFIB study provided a novel clinical trial design to test antiarrhythmic drugs for both safety and efficacy.

ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions

Antiarrhythmic drugs and separate bradycardia pacing systems are prescribed commonly in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on ICD function and adverse interactions between ICDs and pacemakers have been documented. The effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients has not been well assessed. Most studies have been performed in animal models in which cardiac function was normal and drug doses were supraphysiologic. In addition, most studies have utilized monophasic defibrillation shock waveforms and epicardial lead systems. Despite the lack of clinical data applicable to current defibrillation systems, it appears that chronic amiodarone administration causes a significant DFT increase. In addition, antiarrhythmic drugs can influence antitachycardia pacing and tachycardia sensing. Defibrillation shocks can cause transient failure of pacemaker sensing and pacing, and cause spurious pacemaker reprogramming. Pacemaker function can result in ICD oversensing, leading to inappropriate therapy, or cause ICD undersensing, potentially resulting in failure to deliver therapy during ventricular fibrillation. The susceptibility of an ICD to undersensing appears related to the amplitude of the pacing stimulus artifact recorded by the ICD rate-sensing circuit and to the characteristics of the fibrillation electrogram. Preliminary data suggest that undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by current ICDs is an unlikely event.