Efficacy and safety of antiarrhythmic therapy in dogs with naturally acquired tachyarrhythmias treated with amiodarone or sotalol: a retrospective analysis of 64 cases.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Studies on the use of amiodarone or sotalol are limited in dogs. Therefore, this study aimed to provide data on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in dogs with ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) and/or supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SvT). ANIMALS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Dogs with VT and/or SvT treated with amiodarone or sotalol as a first-line therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Signalment, clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and outcome data were retrieved. For VT, efficacy was demonstrated through a decrease of the Lown-Wolf grade to less than five or a reduction of at least 85% in the number of ventricular premature complexes observed on Holter monitoring. For SvT, efficacy was represented by cardioversion or a reduction in the mean heart rate on Holter monitoring ≤140 beats/min. Treatment-related side effects (TRSEs) were classified as clinically relevant and irrelevant. Statistical analysis was performed to compare data before and after antiarrhythmic prescription. RESULTS: Sixty-four dogs were included. Amiodarone and sotalol were efficacious in treating both VT (85.7% and 90.0% of cases, respectively) and SvT (75% and 71.4% of cases, respectively). No significant differences were found when comparing their efficacy rates in dogs with VT and SvT (P=0.531 and 0.483, respectively). Clinically relevant TRSEs were rare with both amiodarone and sotalol (8.3% and 5% of cases, respectively), while clinically irrelevant TRSEs occurred more frequently with amiodarone (29.2%) than with sotalol (10%). DISCUSSION: In dogs with tachyarrhythmias, amiodarone and sotalol are generally efficacious and safe, as clinically relevant TRSEs seem rare. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel data on the effects of amiodarone and sotalol in dogs with tachyarrhythmias.

A randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for suppression of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: The VANISH2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with prior myocardial infarction is associated with adverse quality of life and clinical outcomes, despite the presence of implanted defibrillators (ICDs). Suppression of recurrent VT can be accomplished with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or catheter ablation. The Ventricular Tachycardia Antiarrhythmics or Ablation In Structural Heart Disease 2 (VANISH2) trial is designed to determine whether ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line therapy for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. METHODS: The VANISH2 trial enrolls patients with prior myocardial infarction and VT (with one of: ≥1 ICD shock; ≥3 episodes treated with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and symptoms; ≥5 episodes treated with ATP regardless of symptoms; ≥3 episodes within 24 hours; or sustained VT treated with electrical cardioversion or pharmacologic conversion). Enrolled patients are classified as either sotalol-eligible, or amiodarone-eligible, and then are randomized to either catheter ablation or to that antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with randomization stratified by drug-eligibility group. Drug therapy, catheter ablation procedures and ICD programming are standardized. All patients will be followed until two years after randomization. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality at any time, appropriate ICD shock after 14 days, VT storm after 14 days, and treated sustained VT below detection of the ICD after 14 days. The outcomes will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle using survival analysis techniques RESULTS: The results of the VANISH2 trial are intended to provide data to support clinical decisions on how to suppress VT for patients with prior myocardial infarction. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02830360.

Expedited loading with intravenous sotalol is safe and feasible-primary results of the Prospective Evaluation Analysis and Kinetics of IV Sotalol (PEAKS) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loading of oral sotalol for atrial fibrillation requires 3 days, frequently in the hospital, to achieve steady state. The Food and Drug Administration approved loading with intravenous (IV) sotalol through model-informed development, without patient data. OBJECTIVE: We present results of the first multicenter evaluation of this recent labeling for IV sotalol. METHODS: The Prospective Evaluation Analysis and Kinetics of IV Sotalol (PEAKS) Registry was a multicenter observational registry of patients undergoing elective IV sotalol load for atrial arrhythmias. Outcomes, measured from hospital admission until first outpatient follow-up, included adverse arrhythmia events, efficacy, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 167 consecutively enrolled patients, 23% were female; the median age was 68 (interquartile range, 61-74) years, and the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). Overall, 99% were admitted for sotalol initiation (1% for dose escalation), with a target oral sotalol dose of either 80 mg twice daily (85 [51%]) or 120 mg twice daily (78 [47%]); 62 patients (37%) had an estimated creatinine clearance ≤90 mL/min. On presentation, 40% of patients were in sinus rhythm, whereas 26% underwent cardioversion before sotalol infusion. In 2 patients, sotalol infusion was stopped for bradycardia or hypotension. In 6 patients, sotalol was discontinued before discharge because of QTc prolongation (3), bradycardia (1), or recurrent atrial arrhythmia (2). The mean length of stay was 1.1 days, and 95% (n = 159) were discharged within 1 night. CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading is safe and feasible for atrial arrhythmias, with low rates of adverse events, and yields shorter hospitalizations. More data are needed on the minimal duration required for monitoring in the hospital.

Whole-Cell Configuration of the Patch-Clamp Technique in the hERG Channel Assay.

In vitro electrophysiological safety studies have become an integral part of the drug development process because, in many instances, compound-induced QT prolongation has been associated with a direct block of human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) potassium channels or their native current, the rapidly activating delayed rectifier potassium current (IKr ). Therefore, according to the ICH S7B guideline, the in vitro hERG channel patch-clamp assay is commonly used as an early screen to predict the ability of a compound to prolong the QT interval prior to first-in-human testing. The protocols described in this article are designed to assess the effects of acute or long-term exposure to new chemical entities on the amplitude of IKr in HEK293 cells stably transfected with the hERG channel (whole-cell configuration of the patch-clamp technique). Examples of results obtained with moxifloxacin, terfenadine, arsenic, pentamidine, erythromycin, and sotalol are provided for illustrative purposes. © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Measurement of the acute effects of test items in the hERG channel test Alternate Protocol: Measurement of the long-term effects of test items in the hERG channel test.

HPLC and LC-MS/MS-Based Quantitative Characterization of Related Substances Associated with Sotalol Hydrochloride.

In total, three related substances (RS) associated with sotalol hydrochloride (STHCl) were herein identified with a novel gradient high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) protocol. Further characterization of these substances was then performed via liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) approaches. For these analyses, commercial STHCl samples were used for quantitative HPLC studies and the degradation of STHCl under acidic (1M HCl), alkaline (1M NaOH), oxidative (30% H2O2), photolytic (4500 Lx), and thermal stress conditions (100 °C) was assessed. This approach revealed this drug to be resistant to acidic, alkaline, and high-temperature conditions, whereas it was susceptible to light and oxidation as confirmed through long-term experiments. The putative mechanisms governing RS formation were also explored, revealing that RS3 was derived from the manufacturing process, whereas RS2 was generated via oxidation and RS1 was generated in response to light exposure. The cytotoxicity of these RS compounds was then assessed using MTT assays and acute toxicity test. Overall, this study provides details regarding the characterization, isolation, quantification, and toxicological evaluation of STHCl and associated RS compounds together with details regarding the precise, specific, and reliable novel HPLC technique, thus providing the requisite information necessary to ensure STHCl purity and safety.

Successful high-resolution three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping and radiofrequency catheter ablation of a posteroseptal accessory pathway in a dog using CARTO 3.

A one-year-and-seven-month-old, 28 kg, male castrated crossbreed dog was presented for supraventricular tachycardia causing recurrent episodes of anorexia and lethargy. Sotalol (2.2 mg/kg q12 h) reduced the frequency of symptomatic episodes but did not provide full relief. Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping was performed at the Ghent University Small Animal Teaching hospital using the CARTO 3. Right atrial activation mapping identified the earliest atrial activation right posteroseptal, near the tricuspid annulus. Fast retrograde ventriculoatrial conduction during tachycardia and extrastimulus testing confirmed the presence of a concealed right posteroseptal accessory pathway. Six radiofrequency catheter ablation applications were delivered, and tachycardia remained uninducible. The dog recovered well from the procedure. Sotalol was stopped three weeks later, and no more clinical signs were noted by the owner. Repeated 24-hour electrocardiography monitoring on day one and at one, three, and 12 months after the procedure showed no recurrence of tachycardia.

Assessment of Dofetilide or Sotalol Tolerability in the Elderly.

Background: Dofetilide and sotalol are potassium channel antagonists that require inpatient QTc monitoring during initiation, due to increased risk of fatal arrhythmias. Elderly patients are especially subject to an increased risk of fatal arrhythmias due to polypharmacy, comorbidities, and physiologic cardiac changes with aging. This study will describe the tolerability and risk factors associated with the initiation of sotalol or dofetilide in patients ≥80 years of age. Methodology: This is a multicenter, retrospective, descriptive study of patients ≥80 years old who were initiated on either dofetilide or sotalol between May 8, 2018 and July 31, 2021 at institutions within the Mayo Clinic Health System. The percentage of patients who received nonpackage insert recommended doses was identified. Incidence of and reasons for dose reductions or discontinuations due to safety-related events or clinical concerns during the initial loading period were collected. Results: The final analysis included 104 patients. The majority of patients (75%) received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol based on baseline estimated creatinine clearance or QTc. Overall, 39% (N = 41) of patients experienced a dose reduction or discontinuation due to a safety-related event or concern. Patients who received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol had 4.7 times greater odds of experiencing a safety-related event requiring dose reduction or discontinuation. Conclusion: Following package insert dosing in elderly patients increases safety and tolerability relative to more aggressive dosing of dofetilide or sotalol.

Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death.

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias remain a major cause of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) that leads to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Primary prevention strategies to prevent SCD include promoting a healthy lifestyle, following United States Preventive Service Task Force recommendations related to cardiovascular disease, and controlling comorbid conditions. For a patient experiencing SCA, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation should be performed. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are more effective at secondary prevention compared with drug therapy but medications such as amiodarone, beta-blockers, and sotalol may be helpful adjuncts to reduce the risk of SCD or improve a patient's symptoms (eg, palpitations and inappropriate defibrillator shocks).

Current management of atrial fibrillation in routine practice according to the last ESC guidelines: an EHRA physician survey-how are we dealing with controversial approaches?

AIMS: Although guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are regularly published, many controversial issues remain, limiting their implementation. We aim to describe current clinical practice among European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) community according to last guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 30 multiple-choice questionnaire covering the most controversial topics related to AF management was distributed through the EHRA Research Network, National Societies, and social media between January and February 2023. One hundred and eighty-one physicians responded the survey, 61% from university hospitals. Atrial fibrillation screening in high-risk patients is regularly performed by 57%. Only 42% has access to at least one programme aiming at diagnosing/managing comorbidities and lifestyle modifications, with marked heterogeneity between countries. Direct oral anticoagulants are the preferred antithrombotic (97%). Rhythm control is the preferred strategy in most AF phenotypes: symptomatic vs. asymptomatic paroxysmal AF (97% vs. 77%), low vs. high risk for recurrence persistent AF (90% vs. 72%), and permanent AF (20%). I-C drugs and amiodarone are preferred while dronedarone and sotalol barely used. Ablation is the first-line therapy for symptomatic paroxysmal AF (69%) and persistent AF with markers of atrial disease (57%) and is performed independently of symptoms by 15%. In persistent AF, 68% performs only pulmonary vein isolation and 32% also additional lesions. CONCLUSION: There is marked heterogeneity in AF management and limited accordance to last guidelines in the EHRA community. Most of the discrepancies are related to the main controversial issues, such as those related to AF screening, management of comorbidities, pharmacological treatment, and ablation strategy.

Management of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a disease characterised by fibrofatty replacement of the ventricular myocardium due to specific mutations, leading to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Treating this condition can be challenging due to progressive fibrosis, phenotypic variations and small patient cohorts limiting the feasibility of conducting meaningful clinical trials. Although widely used, the evidence base for anti-arrhythmic drugs is limited. Beta-blockers are theoretically sound, yet their efficacy in reducing arrhythmic risk is not robust. Additionally, the impact of sotalol and amiodarone is inconsistent with studies reporting contradictory results. Emerging evidence suggests that combining flecainide and bisoprolol may be efficacious.Radiofrequency ablation has shown some potential in disrupting ventricular tachycardia circuits, with combined endo and epicardial ablation yielding better results which could be considered at the index procedure. In addition, stereotactic radiotherapy may be a future option that can decrease arrhythmias beyond simple scar formation by altering levels of Nav1.5 channels, Connexin 43 and Wnt signalling, potentially modifying myocardial fibrosis.Future therapies, such as adenoviruses and GSk3b modulation, are still in early-stage research. While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is a key intervention for reducing arrhythmic death, the risks of inappropriate shocks and device complications must be carefully considered.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of sotalol hydrochloride in healthy cats.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and urinary elimination of sotalol in healthy cats. ANIMALS: Six adult purpose-bred cats MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cats were administered 2 mg sotalol/kg body weight as a single intravenous bolus and as a single oral dose in a randomized crossover study with a two-week washout period. The same cats then received 3 mg sotalol/kg orally every 12 h for two weeks. Blood samples were collected at predetermined time points for 48 h postdose for quantification of sotalol using ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. Non-compartmental analysis was used to obtain pharmacokinetic parameters. Data are presented as median (min-max). RESULTS: Following intravenous administration, plasma clearance and volume of distribution were 9.22 mL/min/kg (5.69-10.89 mL/min/kg) and 2175.56 mL/kg (1961-2341.57 mL/kg), respectively. Bioavailability was 88.41% (62.75-130.29) following a single oral dose. Peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to Cmax were 0.94 µg/mL (0.45-1.17 µg/mL) and 1.5 h (0.5-4 h) after a single oral dose (2 mg/kg), and 2.29 µg/mL (1.91-2.48 µg/mL) and 1.0 h (0.5-1.5 h) with chronic oral dosing (3 mg/kg), respectively. Elimination half-life was 2.75 h (2.52-4.10 h) and 4.29 h (3.33-5.53 h) for single and chronic oral dosing, respectively. Accumulation index was 1.17 (1.09-1.29) after chronic dosing. Urinary sotalol recovery was 81-108% of the intravenous dose. CONCLUSIONS: Oral sotalol administration resulted in plasma concentrations reportedly efficacious in other species, with good to excellent oral bioavailability. Urinary excretion appears to be a major route of elimination. Following repeated oral dosing, minimal drug accumulation was estimated. Additional studies in cats are recommended due to the possibility of nonlinear kinetics.

Chapter 5: Guideline Recommendations: Which AAD and for Whom?

This chapter discusses the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/ Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for atrial fibrillation (AF) management with particular focus on antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) selection and the identification of individuals for whom AAD treatment is appropriate. Discussion includes AAD indications, when to start an AAD, choosing among AADs, how to minimize proarrhythmic risk, how to determine efficacy, and the use of adjuvant interventions. The indications for all AADs are based on safety; the current AHA/ACC/HRS and ESC guidelines state that the choice of AAD is based on the presence or absence of structural heart disease (SHD), coronary artery disease, or heart failure (HF), with further recommendations in the ESC guidelines based on HF type (e.g., HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] versus HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]). The chapter closes with a discussion of the lack of consistent use of guideline-directed care, with a review of supportive data from the recently reported AIM-AF survey-a multinational survey on AF management that involved both cardiologists and electrophysiologists. In AIM-AF, inappropriate drug selection in terms of suitable candidate selection and drug choice occurred with all types of drugs and in most patient groups. Most notable was the overuse of amiodarone in patients without SHD, and the widespread use of sotalol, including its use in patients with HFrEF. Chapter 5 is summarized as follows.

Idiopathic premature ventricular complexes treatment: Comparison of flecainide, propafenone, and sotalol.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers (BB) or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are still the first choices in the treatment of idiopathic premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), with low-modest efficacy. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) of Ic class are moderate to highly efficient but the evidence on their benefits is still limited. AIM: To compare effectiveness and safety of flecainide, propafenone, and sotalol in the treatment of symptomatic idiopathic PVCs. METHODS: Our single-center retrospective study analyzed 104 consecutive patients with 130 medication episodes of frequent idiopathic PVCs treated with AADs flecainide, propafenone (Ic class) or sotalol (III class). The primary outcome was complete/near complete reduction of PVCs after medication episode (PVCs burden reduction >99%), and the secondary outcome was significant PVC burden reduction (≥80%). RESULTS: The complete/near complete PVCs burden reduction occurred in 31% and was significant in 43% of treated patients. A reduction of PVC burden for >99% was achieved in 56% of patients on flecainide, in 11% of patients on propafenone (p = .002), and in 21% of patients receiving sotalol (p = .031). There was no difference between propafenone and sotalol (p = .174). A reduction of PVC burden for ≥80% was achieved in 64% of patients on flecainide, in 30% of patients on propafenone (p = .009), and 33% of patients on sotalol (p = .020). There was no difference between propafenone and sotalol (p = .661). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of AADs class Ic and III in the treatment of idiopathic PVCs was modest. Flecainide was the most effective AAD in the achievement of complete/near complete or significant PVC burden reduction, compared to propafenone and sotalol.

Mortality and ventricular arrhythmias in patients on d,l-sotalol for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of d,l-sotalol for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has raised safety concerns. Previous randomized studies are few and not designed for mortality outcome. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidences of mortality and ventricular arrhythmias in AF patients treated with d,l-sotalol for rhythm control vs matched control patients treated with cardioselective beta-blockers. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included AF patients from the Swedish National Patient Registry (2006-2017) who underwent rhythm control after a second cardioversion. Incidence rates (IRs) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for mortality and a composite endpoint of cardiac arrest/death and ventricular arrhythmias were calculated for the overall cohort and a 1:1 propensity score matched cohort of d,l-sotalol vs beta-blocker treatment. RESULTS: Among patient treated with d,l-sotalol (n = 4987) and beta-blocker (n = 27,078) (mean follow-up 458 days), all-cause mortality was lower in patients treated with d,l-sotalol: IR 1.21; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.52 vs 2.42 (2.26-2.60) deaths per 100 patient-years; aHR 0.66 (0.52-0.83). The difference in mortality persisted in the propensity score matched comparison (n = 4953 in each group): aHR 0.63 (0.48-0.86). No differences were observed in the composite outcome: IR in propensity cohorts 2.13 (1.78-2.52) vs 2.07 (1.73-2.53) events per 100 years; aHR 1.01 (0.78-1.29). CONCLUSION: There was no excess mortality with d,l-sotalol compared with cardioselective beta-blockers in patients undergoing rhythm control treatment for AF after a second cardioversion. Our results indicate that the risk associated with d,l-sotalol treatment for AF can be mitigated by careful patient selection and strict adherence to follow-up protocols.

Dronedarone Versus Sotalol in Antiarrhythmic Drug-Naive Veterans With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug-naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA2DS2-VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16]). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.87]). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.

Association of sotalol versus atenolol therapy with survival in dogs with severe subaortic stenosis.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Dogs with severe subaortic stenosis (SAS) are at risk of dying suddenly from fatal arrhythmias. Survival is not improved when treated with pure beta-adrenergic receptor (ß)-blockers; however, the effect of other antiarrhythmic drugs on survival is unknown. Sotalol is both a ß-blocker and a class III antiarrhythmic drug; the combination of these differing mechanisms may provide benefit to dogs with severe SAS. The primary objective of this study was to compare survival in dogs with severe SAS that were treated with either sotalol or atenolol. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of pressure gradient (PG), age, breed, and aortic regurgitation on survival. ANIMALS: Forty-three client-owned dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Medical records of dogs diagnosed with severe SAS (PG ≥ 80 mmHg) between 2003 and 2020 were reviewed. RESULTS: No statistical difference was identified in survival time between dogs treated with sotalol (n=14) and those treated with atenolol (n=29) when evaluating all-cause mortality (p=0.172) or cardiac-related mortality (p=0.157). Of the dogs that died suddenly, survival time was significantly shorter in dogs treated with sotalol compared to those treated with atenolol (p=0.046). Multivariable analysis showed that PG (p=0.002) and treatment with sotalol (p=0.050) negatively influenced survival in the dogs that died suddenly. CONCLUSIONS: Sotalol did not have a significant effect on survival overall but may increase the risk of sudden death in dogs with severe SAS compared to atenolol.

Informing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Infant Drug Exposure From Human Milk: Application of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Lactation Model for Sotalol.

Characterization of infant drug exposure through human milk is important and underexplored. Because infant plasma concentrations are not frequently collected in clinical lactation studies, modeling and simulation approaches can integrate physiology, available milk concentrations, and pediatric data to inform exposure in breastfeeding infants. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model was built for sotalol, a renally eliminated drug, to simulate infant drug exposure from human milk. Intravenous and oral adult models were built, optimized, and scaled to an oral pediatric model for a breastfeeding-relevant age group (<2 years). Model simulations captured the data that were put aside for verification. The resulting pediatric model was applied to predict the impacts of sex, infant body size, breastfeeding frequency, age, and maternal dose (240 and 433 mg) on drug exposure during breastfeeding. Simulations suggest a minimal effect of sex or frequency on total sotalol exposure. Infants in the 90th percentile in height and weight have predicted exposures ≈20% higher than infants of the same age in the 10th percentile due to increased milk intake. The simulated infant exposures increase throughout the first 2 weeks of life and are maintained at the highest concentrations in weeks 2-4, with a consistent decrease observed as infants age. Simulations suggest that breastfeeding infants will have plasma concentrations in the lower range observed in infants administered sotalol. With further validation on additional drugs, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling approaches could use lactation data to a greater extent and provide comprehensive information to support decisions regarding medication use during breastfeeding.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

The Arrhythmogenicity of Sotalol and its Role in Heart Failure: A Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: According to the American Heart Association, approximately 6 million adults have been afflicted with heart failure in the United States in 2020 and are more likely to have sudden cardiac death accounting for approximately 50% of the cause of mortality. Sotalol is a nonselective ß-adrenergic receptor antagonist with class III antiarrhythmic properties that has been mostly used for atrial fibrillation treatment and suppressing recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The use of sotalol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction is not recommended by the American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association because studies are inconclusive with conflicting results regarding safety. This article aims to review the mechanism of action of sotalol, the ß-blocking effects on heart failure, and provide an overview of clinical trials on sotalol use and its effects in patients with heart failure. Small- and large-scale clinical trials have been controversial and inconclusive about the use of sotalol in heart failure. Sotalol has been shown to reduce defibrillation energy requirements and reduce shocks from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Torsades de Pointes is the most life-threatening arrhythmia that has been documented with sotalol use and occurs more commonly in women and heart failure patients. Thus far, mortality benefits have not been demonstrated with sotalol use and larger multicenter studies are required going forward.