Back to Search Start Over

An open-label randomized noninferior study of generic name and brand name of propafenone for rhythm control in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Authors :
Chye-Gen Chin
Yu-Cheng Hsieh
Wei-Shiang Lin
Yenn-Jiang Lin
Chuen-Wang Chiou
Tsung-Hsien Lin
Chien-Lung Huang
Yuan Hung
Yung-Kuo Lin
Shih-Lin Chang
Tong-Chen Yeh
Hsiang-Chun Lee
Wen-Ter Lai
Ming-Hsiung Hsieh
Source :
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association; May2023, Vol. 86 Issue 5, p472-478, 7p
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Background: Propafenone is a class IC antiarrhythmic agent that is commonly used as the first-line therapy for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) in Taiwan. This study compared the efficacy and safety of generic (Rhynorm) and brand name (Rytmonorm) propafenone for rhythm control of paroxysmal AF in Taiwan. Methods: This was an open-label randomized multicenter noninferior study conducted in Taiwan. We enrolled 76 patients with AF. To investigate the efficacy of propafenone, we used a wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) event recorder to evaluate the daily burden of AF episodes in patients for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the frequency of AF with clinical significance, which was indicated by AF duration =30 seconds. The safety endpoints included proarrhythmic or hemodynamic adverse events. Result: To analyze the efficacy and safety of these agents, 71 patients (five patients with screen failure) were randomized to two groups, specifically a Rhynorm group (n = 37) and a Rytmonorm group (n = 34), for 24 weeks of the treatment period. The baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. However, the Rhynorm group was older (65.4 ± 8.40 vs 59.8 ± 10.8 years; p = 0.02). The primary efficacy endpoint at week 24 decreased by 4.76% ± 18.5% (from 24.3% ± 33.9% to 19.0% ± 28.7%; p = 0.13) in the Rhynorm group and by 3.27% ± 15.2% (from 16.9% ± 26.4% to 13.6% ± 19.2%; p = 0.22) in the Rytmonorm group, with an intergroup difference of 1.5% ± 17.0%; p = 0.71. This finding indicates that Rhynorm is not inferior to Rytmonorm (p = 0.023 for noninferiority). The safety profile of the agents was comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: Our results verified that Rhynorm was noninferior to Rytmonorm in terms of efficacy and safety for treating paroxysmal AF in Taiwan (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674658). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
17264901
Volume :
86
Issue :
5
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
163544648
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000903