| 1. |
- Camm, A. John, et al.
(författare)
-
AIM-AF : A Physician Survey in the United States and Europe
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2047-9980. ; 11:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Guideline recommendations are the accepted reference for selection of therapies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to understand physicians' treatment practices and adherence to guidelines.Methods and Results: The AIM-AF (Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation) study was an online survey of clinical cardiologists and electrophysiologists that was conducted in the United States and Europe (N=629). Respondents actively treated >= 30 patients with AF who received drug therapy, and had received or were referred for ablation every 3 months. The survey comprised 96 questions on physician demographics, AF types, and treatment practices. Overall, 54% of respondents considered guidelines to be the most important nonpatient factor influencing treatment choice. Across most queried comorbidities, amiodarone was selected by 60% to 80% of respondents. Other nonadherent usage included sotalol by 21% in patients with renal impairment; dofetilide initiation (16%, United States only) outside of hospital; class Ic agents by 6% in coronary artery disease; and dronedarone by 8% in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Additionally, rhythm control strategies were frequently chosen in asymptomatic AF (antiarrhythmic drugs [AADs], 35%; ablation, 8%) and subclinical AF (AADs, 38%; ablation, 13%). Despite guideline algorithms emphasizing safety first, efficacy (48%) was selected as the most important consideration for AAD choice, followed by safety (34%).Conclusions: Despite surveyed clinicians recognizing the importance of guidelines, nonadherence was frequently observed. While deviation may be reasonable in selected patients, in general, nonadherence has the potential to compromise patient safety. These findings highlight an underappreciation of the safe use of AADs, emphasizing the need for interventions to support optimal AAD selection.
|
|
| 2. |
- Handelsman, Yehuda, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of dronedarone on patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes : A sub-analysis of the ATHENA and EURIDIS/ADONIS studies
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. - : Elsevier BV. - 1056-8727. ; 36:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: This post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of dronedarone in atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) patients with/without diabetes. Methods: Patients were categorized according to baseline diabetes status. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard-ratios were assessed using Cox models. Results: 945/4628 (dronedarone = 482; placebo = 463) patients in ATHENA and 215/1237 (dronedarone = 148; placebo = 67) patients in EURIDIS/ADONIS studies had diabetes. In ATHENA, there were higher rates of CV hospitalization/death in patients with diabetes (39.5%) than without diabetes (34.7%). Incidence of first CV hospitalization/death was lower in patients with diabetes treated with dronedarone (35.1%) than placebo (44.1%), and time to this event was longer in those treated with dronedarone than placebo (log-rank p = 0.005). Median AF/AFL recurrence time was longer in patients treated with dronedarone than placebo in patients with diabetes (ATHENA: 722 vs 527 days, log-rank p = 0.004; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 100 vs 23 days, log-rank p = 0.15) or without diabetes (ATHENA: 741 vs 492 days, log-rank p < 0.0001; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 120 vs 59 days, log-rank p = 0.0002). Occurrence of any treatment-related adverse events with dronedarone was similar for patients with/without diabetes and was comparable to placebo. Conclusions: Dronedarone reduced incidence of CV hospitalization/death, AF/AFL recurrence and increased time to these events in AF/AFL patients with/without diabetes. Trial registration: Not applicable, as it was a post hoc analysis. This article is based on previously conducted studies (ATHENA: NCT00174785, EURIDIS: NCT00259428, and ADONIS: NCT00259376).
|
|
| 3. |
- Reiffel, James A., et al.
(författare)
-
Real-world utilization of the pill-in-the-pocket method for terminating episodes of atrial fibrillation : data from the multinational Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Europace. - : Oxford University Press. - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 25:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Episodes may stop spontaneously (paroxysmal AF); may terminate only via intervention (persistent AF); or may persist indefinitely (permanent AF) (see European and American guidelines, referenced below, for more precise definitions). Recently, there has been renewed interest in an approach to terminate AF acutely referred to as 'pill-in-the-pocket' (PITP). The PITP is recognized in both the US and European guidelines as an effective option using an oral antiarrhythmic drug for acute conversion of acute/recent-onset AF. However, how PITP is currently used has not been systematically evaluated.Methods and results: The recently published Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey included questions regarding current PITP usage, stratified by US vs. European countries surveyed, by representative countries within Europe, and by cardiologists vs. electrophysiologists. This manuscript presents the data from this planned sub-study. Our survey revealed that clinicians in both the USA and Europe consider PITP in about a quarter of their patients, mostly for recent-onset AF with minimal or no structural heart disease (guideline appropriate). However, significant deviations exist. See the Graphical abstract for a summary of the data.Conclusion: Our findings highlight the frequent use of PITP and the need for further physician education about appropriate and optimal use of this strategy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Singh, Jagmeet P., et al.
(författare)
-
Dronedarone versus sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation : A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cardiology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 46:6, s. 589-597
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThere are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). HypothesisWe hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF. MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE (R), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ResultsOf 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses. ConclusionThe NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.
|
|
| 5. |
- Singh, Jagmeet P., et al.
(författare)
-
Phased target trial design and meta-analysis in a head-to-head treatment comparison
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1053-8569 .- 1099-1557. ; 32:Suppl. 1, s. 444-444
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: For conditions with rare clinical outcomes, real-world treatment comparisons are challenging to design and prone to confounding.Objectives: To present a robust methodologic approach for rigorous and transparent assessment of rare outcomes using real-world data.Methods: We emulated a target trial using an active comparator, new-user design to compare dronedarone to sotalol for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) as both are recommended for similar patient phenotypes. Using one protocol, a pre-specified stepwise approach was implemented across 4 datasets (Optum CDM; IBM MarketScan; Veterans Affairs Electronic Health Records; Swedish National Patient Register). Meta-analysis was used to ensure sufficient capture of specific, rare primary outcomes (cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and ventricular proarrhythmia) and to evaluate consistency of findings across patient populations. Steps 1–3 focused on cohort selection, propensity score matching (PSM), baseline equipoise and residual confounding assessment via negative control outcome analyses. In steps 4–6, outcomes in the individual cohorts were analyzed using an as-treated approach and Cox proportional hazards models. Step 7 included a heterogeneity assessment, meta-analysis using fixed effects models, and hypothesis testing using a hierarchical approach. In step 8, sensitivity analyses, including E-values and Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting, were conducted to verify the robustness of findings.Results: In step 1, 35,467 sotalol and 27,955 dronedarone patients with AF who were antiarrhythmic drug-naive were identified across databases. In steps 2–3, 23,275 dronedarone patients were PS-matched to 23,275 sotalol patients. Baseline covariates were well-balanced and little-to-no residual confounding was observed via the negative control analyses. Individual HRs were estimated in steps 4–6, and, when no significant heterogeneity between databases was observed, hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled across datasets in step 7. For example, for CV hospitalization, dronedarone was superior to sotalol with no heterogeneity (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.97; Cochran Q p-value: 0.32). Eleven sensitivity analyses were conducted in step 8 and confirmed that findings were generally robust.Conclusions: An active comparator, new-user design using the target trial approach coupled with meta-analysis generated consistent findings across databases and countries using one protocol. Similar methods, including a pre-specified stepwise approach, negative control outcome, and tests for robustness should be considered for real-world studies where specific, rare outcomes need to be examined in a rigorous and transparent way.
|
|
| 6. |
- Thind, Munveer, et al.
(författare)
-
Dronedarone treatment following cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter : A post hoc analysis of the EURIDIS and ADONIS trials
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. - : Wiley. - 1045-3873 .- 1540-8167. ; 31:5, s. 1022-1030
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The phase 3 EURIDIS and ADONIS studies evaluated dronedarone for atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence in patients with nonpermanent AF. Here we assessed whether patient characteristics and/or treatment outcomes in these studies differed based on the need for cardioversion before randomization. Methods: Time to adjudicated first AF/AFL recurrence, symptomatic recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization/death, and AF hospitalization, and safety were assessed by cardioversion status. Results: Of 1237 patients randomized (2:1 dronedarone:placebo), 364 required baseline cardioversion (dronedarone 243, placebo 121). Patients requiring cardioversion had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and shorter times to first AF/AFL recurrence compared with those not requiring cardioversion. Dronedarone was associated with longer median time to first AF/AFL recurrence vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status (cardioversion: 50 vs 15 days, hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.97; P =.02; non-cardioversion: 150 vs 77 days, HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P <.01). Dronedarone was similarly associated with prolonged median time to symptomatic recurrence vs placebo in the cardioversion (347 vs 87 days, HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87) and non-cardioversion (288 vs 120 days, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) populations. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization/death and first AF hospitalization was lower with dronedarone vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status, but differences were not statistically significant. The safety of dronedarone was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Patients requiring baseline cardioversion represent a distinct population, having more underlying cardiovascular disease and experiencing a shorter time to AF/AFL recurrences. Dronedarone was associated with improved efficacy vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status.
|
|
| 7. |
- Vamos, Mate, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients with a prior ablation for atrial fibrillation/flutter : Insights from the ATHENA study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cardiology. - : Wiley. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 43:3, s. 291-297
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The role of antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) after catheter ablation is not well established. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that changing the myocardial substrate by ablation may alter the responsiveness to dronedarone. Methods: We assessed the efficacy and safety of dronedarone in the treatment of paroxysmal/persistent atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) post-ablation, based on a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study. A total of 196 patients (dronedarone 90, placebo 106) had an ablation for AF/AFL before study entry. In these patients, the effect of treatment on the first hospitalization because of cardiovascular (CV) events/all-cause death was assessed, as was AF/AFL recurrence in individuals with sinus rhythm at baseline. The safety of dronedarone vs placebo was also determined. Results: In patients with prior ablation, dronedarone reduced the risk of AF/AFL recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 1.00]; P <.05) as well as the median time to first AF/AFL recurrence (561 vs 180 days) compared with placebo. The HR for first CV hospitalization/all-cause death with dronedarone vs placebo was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.53; P =.91). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 83.1% vs 75.5% and rates of serious TEAEs were 27.0% vs 18.9% in the dronedarone and placebo groups, respectively. One death occurred with dronedarone (not treatment-emergent) and five occurred with placebo. Conclusion: In patients with prior ablation for AF/AFL, dronedarone reduced the risk of AF/AFL recurrence compared with placebo, but not the risk of first CV hospitalization/all-cause death. Safety outcomes were consistent with those of the overall ATHENA study.
|
|
