Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Cardiome -- CRME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dr.praveen who wrote (94)	10/31/2006 7:21:59 PM
From: dr.praveen	Respond to of 285

Azimilide vs. placebo and sotalol for persistent atrial fibrillation: the A-COMET-II (Azimilide-CardiOversion MaintEnance Trial-II) trial Federico Lombardi1,, Martin Borggrefe2, Witold Ruzyllo3, Berndt Lüderitz4 for the A-COMET-II Investigators tinyurl.com 1 Cardiologia, Department of Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria, Osp. San Paolo, University of Milan, Via A. di Rudinì 8, 20142 Milan, Italy 2 I. Medizinische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum, Fakultät für klinische Medizin, Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg, Germany 3 Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland 4 Department of Medicine—Cardiology, University of Bonn, Germany Received 24 May 2006; revised 4 August 2006; accepted 10 August 2006; online publish-ahead-of-print 25 August 2006. Corresponding author. Tel: +39 0250323145; fax: +39 0250323145. E-mail address: federico.lombardi@unimi.it Aims Treatment of atrial fibrillation remains a major clinical challenge owing to the limited efficacy and safety of anti-arrhythmic drugs, particularly in patients with structural heart disease. Methods and results To evaluate the efficacy of azimilide, a new class III anti-arrhythmic drug, we studied 658 patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation, adequate anticoagulant therapy, and planned electrical cardioversion. Patients were randomized to placebo, azimilide (125 mg o.d.), or sotalol (160 mg b.i.d.). Primary efficacy analysis was based on event recurrence, which was defined as atrial fibrillation lasting>24 h, or requiring DC cardioversion. Median time to recurrence was 14 days for azimilide, 12 days for placebo, and 28 days for sotalol (P=0.0320 when comparing azimilide with placebo; P=0.0002 when comparing azimilide with sotalol). The placebo-to-azimilide hazard ratio was 1.291 (95% CI: 1.022–1.629) and the sotalol-to-azimilide hazard ratio was 0.652 (95% CI: 0.523–0.814). Adverse events causing patient withdrawal were more frequent (P<0.01) in patients on azimilide (12.3%) and on sotalol (13.9%) than on placebo (5.4%). Eight patients in the sotalol (3.5%) and 16 in the azimilide (7.6%) group interrupted the study because of QTc prolongation. Torsade de pointes was reported in five patients of the azimilide group. The percentage of patients who completed the 26 week study period without events were 19% for azimilide, 15% for placebo, and 33% for sotalol (P<0.01). Unsuccessful day 4 cardioversion, arrhythmia recurrence, and adverse events were the main causes of withdrawal from the study. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the anti-arrhythmic efficacy of azimilide is slightly superior to placebo but significantly inferior to sotalol in patients with persistent AF. The modest anti-arrhythmic efficacy and high rate of torsade de pointes and marked QTc prolongation limit azimilide utilization for the treatment of AF. Key Words: Anti-arrhythmic drugs • Atrial fibrillation • Torsade de pointes • Long QT