Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with AF. Introduction: We compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and dronedarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Five hundred and four amiodarone-naïve patients were randomized to receive dronedarone 400 mg bid (n = 249) or amiodarone 600 mg qd for 28 days then 200 mg qd (n = 255) for at least 6 months. Primary composite endpoint was recurrence of AF (including unsuccessful electrical cardioversion, no spontaneous conversion and no electrical cardioversion) or premature study discontinuation. Main safety endpoint (MSE) was occurrence of thyroid-, hepatic-, pulmonary-, neurologic-, skin-, eye-, or gastrointestinal-specific events, or premature study drug discontinuation following an adverse event. Results: Median treatment duration was 7 months. The primary composite endpoint was 75.1 and 58.8% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-1.98; P < 0.0001), mainly driven by AF recurrence with dronedarone compared with amiodarone (63.5 vs 42.0%). AF recurrence after successful cardioversion was 36.5 and 24.3% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. Premature drug discontinuation tended to be less frequent with dronedarone (10.4 vs 13.3%). MSE was 39.3 and 44.5% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.60-1.07; P = 0.129), and mainly driven by fewer thyroid, neurologic, skin, and ocular events in the dronedarone group. Conclusion: In this short-term study, dronedarone was less effective than amiodarone in decreasing AF recurrence, but had a better safety profile, specifically with regard to thyroid and neurologic events and a lack of interaction with oral anticoagulants.

A short-term, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: the DIONYSOS study

DE FERRARI, GAETANO;
2010-01-01

Abstract

Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with AF. Introduction: We compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and dronedarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Five hundred and four amiodarone-naïve patients were randomized to receive dronedarone 400 mg bid (n = 249) or amiodarone 600 mg qd for 28 days then 200 mg qd (n = 255) for at least 6 months. Primary composite endpoint was recurrence of AF (including unsuccessful electrical cardioversion, no spontaneous conversion and no electrical cardioversion) or premature study discontinuation. Main safety endpoint (MSE) was occurrence of thyroid-, hepatic-, pulmonary-, neurologic-, skin-, eye-, or gastrointestinal-specific events, or premature study drug discontinuation following an adverse event. Results: Median treatment duration was 7 months. The primary composite endpoint was 75.1 and 58.8% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-1.98; P < 0.0001), mainly driven by AF recurrence with dronedarone compared with amiodarone (63.5 vs 42.0%). AF recurrence after successful cardioversion was 36.5 and 24.3% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. Premature drug discontinuation tended to be less frequent with dronedarone (10.4 vs 13.3%). MSE was 39.3 and 44.5% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.60-1.07; P = 0.129), and mainly driven by fewer thyroid, neurologic, skin, and ocular events in the dronedarone group. Conclusion: In this short-term study, dronedarone was less effective than amiodarone in decreasing AF recurrence, but had a better safety profile, specifically with regard to thyroid and neurologic events and a lack of interaction with oral anticoagulants.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1106852
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 54
  • Scopus 346
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 260
social impact