Dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a range of renal function: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial.

Mate Vamos, Jonas Oldgren, Gi-Byoung Nam, Gregory Y H Lip, Hugh Calkins, Jun Zhu, Kwo-Chang Ueng, Ulf Ludwigs, Mattias Wieloch, John Stewart, Stefan H Hohnloser
{"title":"Dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a range of renal function: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial.","authors":"Mate Vamos,&nbsp;Jonas Oldgren,&nbsp;Gi-Byoung Nam,&nbsp;Gregory Y H Lip,&nbsp;Hugh Calkins,&nbsp;Jun Zhu,&nbsp;Kwo-Chang Ueng,&nbsp;Ulf Ludwigs,&nbsp;Mattias Wieloch,&nbsp;John Stewart,&nbsp;Stefan H Hohnloser","doi":"10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging owing to issues with renal clearance, drug accumulation, and increased proarrhythmic risks. Because CKD is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), it is important to establish the efficacy and safety of AAD treatment in patients with CKD.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Dronedarone efficacy and safety in individuals with AF/AFL and varying renal functionality [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): ≥60, ≥45 and <60, and <45 mL/min] was investigated in a post hoc analysis of ATHENA (NCT00174785), a randomized, double-blind trial of dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL plus additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare the incidence of endpoints between treatments. Overall, 4588 participants were enrolled from the trial. There was no interaction between treatment group and baseline eGFR assessed as a continuous variable (P = 0.743) for the first CV hospitalization or death from any cause (primary outcome). This outcome was lower with dronedarone vs. placebo across a wide range of renal function. First CV hospitalization and first AF/AFL recurrence were both lower in the two least renally impaired subgroups with dronedarone vs. placebo. Treatment emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were more frequent with dronedarone vs. placebo and occurred more often in patients with severe renal impairment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dronedarone is an effective AAD in patients with AF/AFL and CV risk factors across a wide range of renal function.</p>","PeriodicalId":11995,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal — Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"363-371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f9/54/pvab090.PMC9175188.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal — Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging owing to issues with renal clearance, drug accumulation, and increased proarrhythmic risks. Because CKD is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), it is important to establish the efficacy and safety of AAD treatment in patients with CKD.

Methods and results: Dronedarone efficacy and safety in individuals with AF/AFL and varying renal functionality [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): ≥60, ≥45 and <60, and <45 mL/min] was investigated in a post hoc analysis of ATHENA (NCT00174785), a randomized, double-blind trial of dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL plus additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare the incidence of endpoints between treatments. Overall, 4588 participants were enrolled from the trial. There was no interaction between treatment group and baseline eGFR assessed as a continuous variable (P = 0.743) for the first CV hospitalization or death from any cause (primary outcome). This outcome was lower with dronedarone vs. placebo across a wide range of renal function. First CV hospitalization and first AF/AFL recurrence were both lower in the two least renally impaired subgroups with dronedarone vs. placebo. Treatment emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were more frequent with dronedarone vs. placebo and occurred more often in patients with severe renal impairment.

Conclusion: Dronedarone is an effective AAD in patients with AF/AFL and CV risk factors across a wide range of renal function.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Dronedarone与安慰剂在一系列肾功能心房颤动或心房扑动患者中的比较:ATHENA试验的事后分析
目的:在慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)患者中使用抗心律失常药物(AADs)具有挑战性,因为存在肾脏清除率、药物积累和心律失常风险增加的问题。由于CKD是心房颤动/心房扑动(AF/AFL)患者的常见合共病,因此确定AAD治疗CKD患者的有效性和安全性非常重要。方法和结果:Dronedarone在房颤/AFL和不同肾功能患者中的疗效和安全性[估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR):≥60,≥45]结论:Dronedarone是一种有效的AAD,适用于房颤/AFL和CV危险因素患者的广泛肾功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信