Bioequivalence of 2 intravenous amiodarone formulations in healthy participants

Hemodynamic profile effects of PM101 amiodarone formulation in patients with post-operative tachyarrhythmias

Amiodarone may be considered for patients with junctional ectopic tachycardia refractory to treatment with sedation, analgesia, cooling, and electrolyte replacements. There are currently no published pediatric data regarding the hemodynamic effects of the newer amiodarone formulation, PM101, devoid of hypotensive agents used in the original amiodarone formulation. We performed a single-center, retrospective, descriptive study from January 2012 to December 2020 in a pediatric ICU. Thirty-three patients were included (22 male and 11 female) between the ages of 1.1 and 1,460 days who developed post-operative junctional ectopic tachycardia or other tachyarrhythmias requiring PM101. Data analysis was performed on hemodynamic parameters (mean arterial pressures and heart rate) and total PM101 (mg/kg) from hour 0 of amiodarone administration to hour 72. Adverse outcomes were defined as Vasoactive-Inotropic Score >20, patients requiring ECMO or CPR, or patient death. There was no statistically significant decrease in mean arterial pressures within the 6 hours of PM101 administration (p > 0.05), but there was a statistically significant therapeutic decrease in heart rate for resolution of tachyarrhythmia (p < 0.05). Patients received up to 25 mg/kg in an 8-hour time for rate control. Average rate control was achieved within 11.91 hours and average rhythm control within 62 hours. There were four adverse events around the time of PM101 administration, with three determined to not be associated with the medication. PM101 is safe and effective in the pediatric cardiac surgical population. Our study demonstrated that PM101 can be used in a more aggressive dosing regimen than previously reported in pediatric literature with the prior formulation.

Survival After Intravenous Versus Intraosseous Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Shock-Refractory Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND

Antiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known.

METHODS

In this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration.

RESULTS

Of 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study (ROC-ALPS): Rationale and methodology behind an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest antiarrhythmic drug trial

BACKGROUND

Despite their wide use, whether antiarrhythmic drugs improve survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is not known. The ROC-ALPS is evaluating the effectiveness of these drugs for OHCA due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT).

METHODS

ALPS will randomize 3,000 adults across North America with nontraumatic OHCA, persistent or recurring VF/VT after ≥1 shock, and established vascular access to receive up to 450 mg amiodarone, 180 mg lidocaine, or placebo in the field using a double-blind protocol, along with standard resuscitation measures. The designated target population is all eligible randomized recipients of any dose of ALPS drug whose initial OHCA rhythm was VF/VT. A safety analysis includes all randomized patients regardless of their eligibility, initial arrhythmia, or actual receipt of ALPS drug. The primary outcome of ALPS is survival to hospital discharge; a secondary outcome is functional survival at discharge assessed as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤3.

RESULTS

The principal aim of ALPS is to determine if survival is improved by amiodarone compared with placebo; secondary aim is to determine if survival is improved by lidocaine vs placebo and/or by amiodarone vs lidocaine. Prioritizing comparisons in this manner acknowledges where differences in outcome are most expected based on existing knowledge. Each aim also represents a clinically relevant comparison between treatments that is worth investigating.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from ALPS will provide important information about the choice and value of antiarrhythmic therapies for VF/VT arrest with direct implications for resuscitation guidelines and clinical practice.

Amiodarone (Nexterone) injection for the treatment and prophylaxis of frequently recurring ventricular fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous (IV) amiodarone is the most used and effective drug to manage life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, its administration is associated with important adverse effects, the most frequent of which is hypotension. Nexterone® is a novel IV amiodarone formulation, proved to be devoid of hypotensive effects in clinical studies and may represent an improved and safer instrument in this setting.

AREAS COVERED

The Medline Database was searched for articles on the efficacy and safety of IV amiodarone in ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest. This article summarizes the key findings of the most relevant studies conducted so far, with a special attention to the limitations of the currently available IV amiodarone and the potential advantages of the recently approved Nexterone. The role given to IV amiodarone in the guidelines on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support is also reported and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Available studies demonstrated a convincing efficacy of IV amiodarone in ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest. The new formulation seems to resolve concerns about tolerability. However, despite proven antiarrhythmic efficacy of the drug, no improved survival was showed in different settings. The search for an antiarrhythmic drug able to impact on hard endpoint as survival to hospital discharge is therefore far from being concluded.

Amiodarone for the treatment and prevention of ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia

Amiodarone has emerged as the leading antiarrhythmic therapy for termination and prevention of ventricular arrhythmia in different clinical settings because of its proven efficacy and safety. In patients with shock refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and hemodynamically destabilizing ventricular arrhythmia, amiodarone is the most effective drug available to assist in resuscitation. Although the superiority of the transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) over amiodarone has been well established in the preventive treatment of patients at high risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, amiodarone (if used with a beta-blocker) is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug to prevent ICD shocks and treat electrical storm. Both the pharmacokinetics and the electrophysiologic profile of amiodarone are complex, and its optimal and safe use requires careful patient surveillance with respect to potential adverse effects.

Evaluation of the effects of PM101, a cyclodextrin-based formulation of intravenous amiodarone, on blood pressure in healthy humans

Intravenous amiodarone (AIV) is used to treat cardiac arrhythmias. Hypotension is the dose-limiting adverse event of AIV and is considered to be due to the cosolvents (polysorbate 80 and benzyl alcohol) in the formulation. To minimize hypotension, the initial loading dose of AIV (150 mg) is diluted to 1.5 mg/ml and slowly infused over 10 minutes. PM101 is a cosolvent-free intravenous formulation of amiodarone. The present study was designed to assess any potential hypotensive effect of PM101 (50 mg/ml) on the administration of the loading dose (150 mg) as an undiluted bolus push. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study in healthy human subjects receiving placebo (5% dextrose in water, n = 112) or PM101 (bolus push, n = 112). The primary end point was the noninferiority assessment of placebo versus PM101 for change in systolic blood pressure. For comparison, the standard loading dose of AIV (150 mg) was infused at 1.5 mg/ml over 10 minutes, and a rapid loading dose of AIV (150 mg) was infused undiluted (50 mg/ml) over 15 seconds. PM101 was noninferior to placebo, with changes from baseline systolic blood pressure for placebo and PM101 of -4.25 +/- 4.2 and -4.83 +/- 5.0 mm Hg, respectively. Neither regimen of AIV altered systolic blood pressure compared to placebo. Transient and significant increases in heart rate were observed in both AIV groups and with PM101 but not placebo. In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that PM101 is devoid of hypotension in healthy human subjects. The absence of a hypotensive effect of AIV in this population suggests that further evaluation is needed in a patient population with cardiac disease.