The use of dronedarone for recurrent ventricular tachycardia: a case report and review of the literature

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Effects of dronedarone on all-cause mortality and on cardiovascular events in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of RCTs

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety profiles of the dronedarone were rather praised when the molecule was placed on the market (2009). However, there are today some safety concerns (in particular, risk of liver toxicity) that have led to limit the use of this drug to paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation, and to exclude it from therapy protocols for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The aim of the present study was to explore some efficacy and safety endpoints concerning dronedarone, by analyzing the evidence derived from quantitative evaluation (meta-analysis) of literature data.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We comprised in the meta-analysis exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported relevant clinical outcomes with dronedarone. In addition, eligible RCTs had to have randomized 100 patients at least in order to have adequate statistical power, and they had to have clearly reported the outcomes of interest. Primary efficacy outcomes were a) all-cause mortality,b) major acute cardiovascular events and c) worsening heart failure. Secondary outcomes of interest were ventricular tachyarrhythmias, stroke and systemic embolism. We performed a number of sensitivity analyses to better ascertain the sources of heterogeneity. We also performed a number of subgroup analyses.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

At the end of the selection process, the studies regarded suitable for meta-analysis were seven. Dronedarone use was not associated with any significant advantage as regards all-cause mortality(pooled odds ratio =1.31; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.18; P= 0.31) and major cardiovascular events (pooled odds ratio=1.45; 95% CI: 0.7 to 3.01; P=0.28), as well as regarding the endpoint" worsening heart failure" (pooled odds ratio =1.32; 95% CI: 0.87 to 2.01; P= 0.20). Moreover, using subgroup analyses, in patients with permanent AF, dronedarone use was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared to placebo(P=0.03),as well as with higher risk of major acute cardiovascular events (P=0.04) and episodes of worsening heart failure(P=0.02). In addition, when data from ATHENA study were excluded, dronedarone use was associated with increased all-cause mortality (post exclusion pooled odds ratio=1.77; 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.72; P=0.0089), increased risk of major cardiovascular events (post exclusion pooled odds ratio=2.16; 95% CI: 1.34 to 3.47; P= 0.0014) and increased risk of worsening heart failure(post exclusion pooled odds ratio= 1.618; 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.3; P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis, dronedarone did not provide any significant benefit with regard to all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events, as well as regarding the risk of worsening heart failure. Sensitivity analyses then showed that the exclusion of a study, namely ATHENA study, caused a shift in the overall odds ratio, so as to convert the dronedarone use to the ominous role of predictor of higher mortality, worse cardiovascular morbidity and increased risk of worsening heart failure. Thus, dronedarone should be used with caution as second-line medication and exclusively for the secondary prevention of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation, in patients without signs or symptoms of cardiac decompensation, preferably for limited periods of time and under assiduous clinical and laboratory surveillance.

The role of hepatic cytochrome P450s in the cytotoxicity of dronedarone

Dronedarone is used to treat patients with cardiac arrhythmias and has been reported to be associated with liver injury. Our previous mechanistic work demonstrated that DNA damage-induced apoptosis contributes to the cytotoxicity of dronedarone. In this study, we examined further the underlying mechanisms and found that after a 24-h treatment of HepG2 cells, dronedarone caused cytotoxicity, G1-phase cell cycle arrest, suppression of topoisomerase II, and DNA damage in a concentration-dependent manner. We also investigated the role of cytochrome P450s (CYPs)-mediated metabolism in the dronedarone-induced toxicity using our previously established HepG2 cell lines expressing individually 14 human CYPs (1A1, 1A2, 1B1, 2A6, 2B6, 2C8, 2C9, 2C18, 2C19, 2D6, 2E1, 3A4, 3A5, and 3A7). We demonstrated that CYP3A4, 3A5, and 2D6 were the major enzymes that metabolize dronedarone, and that CYP3A7, 2E1, 2C19, 2C18, 1A1, and 2B6 also metabolize dronedarone, but to a lesser extent. Our data showed that the cytotoxicity of dronedarone was decreased in CYP3A4-, 3A5-, or 2D6-overexpressing cells compared to the control HepG2 cells, indicating that the parent dronedarone has higher potency than the metabolites to induce cytotoxicity in these cells. In contrast, cytotoxicity was increased in CYP1A1-overexpressing cells, demonstrating that CYP1A1 exerts an opposite effect in dronedarone's toxicity, comparing to CYP3A4, 3A5, or 2D6. We also studied the involvement of topoisomerase II in dronedarone-induced toxicity, and demonstrated that the overexpression of topoisomerase II caused an increase in cell viability and a decrease in γ-H2A.X induction, suggesting that suppression of topoisomerase II may be one of the mechanisms involved in dronedarone-induced liver toxicity.

Gastrointestinal Side Effects of Antiarrhythmic Medications: A Review of Current Literature

Antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly prescribed cardiac drugs. Due to their receptor mimicry with several of the gastrointestinal tract receptors, they can frequently lead to gastrointestinal side effects. These side effects are the most common reasons for discontinuation of these drugs by the patients. Knowledge of these side effects is important for clinicians that manage antiarrhythmic drugs. This review focuses on the gastrointestinal side effects of these drugs and provides a detailed up-to-date literature review of the side effects of these drugs. The review provides case reports reported in the literature as well as possible mechanisms that lead to gastrointestinal side effects.