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

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.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation frequently recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a review previously published in 2008 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12 of 12), MEDLINE (to January 2014) and EMBASE (to January 2014). The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent authors selected randomised controlled trials 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. Post-operative atrial fibrillation was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update three new studies, with 534 patients, were included making a total of 59 included studies comprising 21,305 patients. All included studies were randomised controlled trials. Allocation concealment was adequate in 17 trials, it was unclear in the remaining 42 trials. Risk of bias was assessed in all domains only in the trials included in this update.Compared with controls, class IA drugs quinidine and disopyramide (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.03 to 5.59, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 109, 95% CI 34 to 4985) and sotalol (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.50, NNTH 169, 95% CI 60 to 2068) were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other antiarrhythmics did not seem to modify mortality, but our data could be underpowered to detect mild increases in mortality for several of the drugs studied.Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.19 to 0.70, number needed to treat to beneft (NNTB) 3 to 16). Beta-blockers (metoprolol) also significantly reduced atrial fibrillation recurrences (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, NNTB 9).All analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse affects and all but amiodarone, dronedarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia. Only 11 trials reported data on stroke. None of them found any significant difference with the exception of a single trial than found less strokes in the group treated with dronedarone compared to placebo. This finding was not confirmed in others studies on dronedarone.We could not analyse heart failure and use of anticoagulation because few original studies reported on these measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs, as well as class II drugs (beta-blockers), are moderately effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. However, they increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and some of them (disopyramide, quinidine and sotalol) may increase mortality. Possible benefits on clinically relevant outcomes (stroke, embolism, heart failure) remain to be established.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. AF recurs frequently after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in patients who recovered sinus rhythm after AF, the effect of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke and embolism, adverse effects, pro-arrhythmia, and recurrence of AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL on The Cochrane Libary (Issue 1 of 4, 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2010) and EMBASE (1966 to February 2010). The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic with a control (no treatment, placebo or drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic, in adults who had AF and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative AF was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, 11 new studies met inclusion criteria, making a total of 56 included studies, comprising 20,771 patients. Compared with controls, class IA drugs quinidine and disopyramide (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.03 to 5.59, number needed to harm (NNH) 109, 95%CI 34 to 4985) and sotalol (OR 2.47, 95%CI 1.2 to 5.05, NNH 166, 95%CI 61 to 1159) were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other antiarrhythmics did not seem to modify mortality.Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of AF (OR 0.19 to 0.70, number needed to treat (NNT) 3 to 16). Beta-blockers (metoprolol) also reduced significantly AF recurrence (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, NNT 9).All analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse affects and all but amiodarone, dronedarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia. We could not analyse other outcomes because few original studies reported them.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs, as well as class II (beta-blockers), are moderately effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. However, they increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and some of them (disopyramide, quinidine and sotalol) may increase mortality. Possible benefits on clinically relevant outcomes (stroke, embolisms, heart failure) remain to be established.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. After restoration of normal sinus rhythm, the recurrence rate of AF is high. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in patients who recovered sinus rhythm after AF, the effect of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke and embolism, adverse effects, pro-arrhythmia and recurrence of AF. If several antiarrhythmics were effective our secondary aim was to compare them.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Libary (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2005) and EMBASE (1966 to May 2005) were searched. The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic with a control (no treatment, placebo or drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic, in adults who had AF and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative AF was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data, on an intention-to-treat basis. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

45 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 12,559 patients. All results were calculated at 1 year of follow-up. Class IA drugs (disopyramide, quinidine) were associated with increased mortality compared with controls (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 5.59, P = 0.04, number needed to harm (NNH) 109, 95% CI 34 to 4985). Other antiarrhythmics did not modify mortality. Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of AF (OR 0.19 to 0.60, number needed to treat 2 to 9), but all increased withdrawals due to adverse affects (NNH 17 to 36) and all but amiodarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia (NNH 17 to 119).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs are effective in maintaining sinus rhythm but increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and disopyramide and quinidine are associated with increased mortality. Any benefit on clinically relevant outcomes (embolisms, heart failure, mortality) remains to be established.

Use of beta-blockers in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia in the general population and is frequently associated with organic heart disease. beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (b-blockers) are very effective in preventing atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery. It has been shown recently that the beta-blocker metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) is also effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. There is concern that class I antiarrhythmic drugs, such as quinidine, disopyramide, and flecainide in particular, may increase mortality. The risk of proarrhythmia associated with beta-blocker treatment is very low. Therefore b-blockers, such as metoprolol CR/XL, may be the first line of treatment to maintain sinus rhythm, especially after myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic heart failure and in those with arterial hypertension. In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, AV-nodal conduction-slowing drugs, such as calcium channel antagonists and beta-blockers are used to control the ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation. Several studies clearly show that beta-blockers alone, or in combination with digoxin are very effective in controlling the ventricular rate at rest and during exercise. beta-blockers are effective in maintaining sinus rhythm and controlling the ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation. Given these effects and their favorable effects on mortality, beta-blockers should be considered as first-line agents in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Efficacy and safety of sustained-release propafenone (propafenone SR) for patients with atrial fibrillation

The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to test the efficacy and safety of a new sustained-release preparation of the antiarrhythmic drug propafenone (propafenone SR) in reducing the frequency of symptomatic arrhythmia recurrences in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with a history of symptomatic AF who were in sinus rhythm were randomly assigned to receive placebo or propafenone SR 425, 325, or 225 mg, all twice daily. Recurrent symptomatic arrhythmias were documented using transtelephone electrocardiographic monitoring. Electrocardiograms were reviewed by an event committee that was blinded to treatment assignment. In the primary efficacy analysis, propafenone SR significantly lengthened the time to first symptomatic atrial arrhythmia recurrence at all 3 doses compared with placebo as assessed by log-rank test: propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily versus placebo twice daily, p <0.001; 325 mg twice daily versus placebo twice daily, p <0.001; and 225 mg twice daily versus placebo twice daily, p = 0.014. The median time to recurrence was 41 days in the placebo twice daily group, >300 days in the propafenone SR 425-mg group, 291 days in the 325-mg group, and 112 days in the 225-mg group. Adverse effects leading to withdrawal were higher in the propafenone SR 425-mg twice daily group than in any other group. Thus, propafenone SR has important and statistically significant antiarrhythmic effects in patients with AF.

Electrophysiologic effects of an antiarrhythmic agent, bidisomide, on sodium current in isolated rat ventricular myocytes: comparison with mexiletine and disopyramide

The effects of bidisomide, an antiarrhythmic agent, on sodium current (I(Na)) in isolated rat ventricular myocytes were investigated using a whole cell voltage clamp method. Bidisomide blocked I(Na) with a Ki of 214 microM at a holding potential of -140 mV. The blockade of I(Na) was enhanced at a less negative holding potential of -100 mV with a Ki of 21 microM. Bidisomide shifted the steady state inactivation curve to a negative potential direction by 20 mV without a significant change in the slope factor. Bidisomide slowed the time course of recovery of I(Na) at a holding potential of -140 mV with a slow recovery phase. The time constant of recovery phase for bidisomide, disopyramide and mexiletine were 2703, 1858 and 757 ms, respectively. The development of the block of I(Na) consisted of two phases in the presence of bidisomide. The fast and slow time constants were 11 and 648 ms. Bidisomide produced a use-dependent block of I(Na) when the depolarizing pulse was repeated at 1-3 Hz. Our results indicate that bidisomide binds to rat cardiac sodium channels and that the dissociation kinetics of bidisomide from the inactivated sodium channel is slower than that of disopyramide.

Use of metoprolol CR/XL to maintain sinus rhythm after conversion from persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the present study was to assess the efficacy of metoprolol CR/XL to reduce the risk of relapse after cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND

Indirect data from studies with d,l sotalol provide evidence that the beta-blocking effects of the compound are important in maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

After successful conversion to sinus rhythm, 394 patients with a history of persistent atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to treatment with metoprolol CR/XL or placebo. The two treatment groups were similar with respect to all pretreatment characteristics. Patients were seen on an outpatient basis for recording of resting electrocardiogram (ECG) after one week, one, three and six months of follow-up or whenever they felt that they had a relapse into atrial fibrillation or experienced an adverse event.

RESULTS

In the metoprolol CR/XL group, 96 patients (48.7%) had a relapse into atrial fibrillation compared with 118 patients (59.9%) in the placebo group (p = 0.005). Heart rate in patients after a relapse into atrial fibrillation was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (98 +/- 23 beats/min) than in the placebo group (107 +/- 27 beats/min). The rate of adverse events reported was similar in both groups when the difference in follow-up time was taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients after cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation showed that metoprolol CR/XL was effective in preventing relapse into atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Effect of dofetilide on survival in patients with supraventricular arrhythmias

OBJECTIVES

This study compared survival between patients taking dofetilide and patients taking placebo in a pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of antiarrhythmic drugs used to treat supraventricular arrhythmias rarely include enough patients to assess whether the drug being tested has an effect on survival. Pooling data from many trials provides useful information on safety.

METHODS

Data from randomized clinical trials of antiarrhythmic drug therapy of supraventricular arrhythmias were pooled to assess the effect on survival of dofetilide (n = 1346) compared with placebo (n = 677) in this patient population.

RESULTS

The unadjusted hazard ratio for risk of death (dofetilide/placebo) was 1.4 with 95% confidence interval 0.4-5.1. After adjusting for effects of arrhythmia diagnosis, age, sex, and structural heart disease, the hazard ratio was 1.1 (confidence interval 0.3-4.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled survival analysis provided reassurance regarding the safety of dofetilide in patients with supraventricular arrhythmias.

Evolution and revolution in drug labeling: regulation of antiarrhythmic drugs by the Food and Drug Administration 1962-1996

Between 1962, when the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments were passed, and 1996, 20 pharmaceutical compounds were approved and labeled by the FDA as effective antiarrhythmic drugs for some specified cardiac arrhythmia. Drug research and development in the 1970s and 1980s were focused on treatment of premature ventricular beats as a marker for sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachycardia. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial in 1989 irrevocably altered this approach. Recent drug development programs have targeted atrial fibrillation (AF) as epidemiologic data have predicted an increase in the incidence of AF as the United States population ages, and as treating premature ventricular beats has fallen from favor. The FDA, the scientific community, and the pharmaceutical industry have all participated in and been affected by this evolution in drug development.