Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia in adults, is associated with significant morbidity, health care utilization, and cost burden.1 As such, strategies that safely, effectively, and efficiently treat patients with AF presenting to a hospital are of great appeal.
In hemodynamically stable patients presenting within 48 hours of AF onset, early cardioversion (electric or pharmacologic) is a recommended approach, following consideration of thromboembolic risk. In this setting, commonly administered antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) include flecainide, propafenone, amiodarone, ibutilide, and vernakalant. Due to the varying efficacy, safety, rapidity of onset, clinical availability, cost, and contraindication profile of these AADs,2 the quest continues to discover novel drugs—or repurpose old ones—with more favorable profiles. This issue of Polish Archives of Internal Medicine presents pertinent new data in this arena, which we consider in this editorial.
Antazoline, a first-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, is most widely known for its use as an eye drop preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The antiarrhythmic properties of antazoline have been recognized for over half a century, although attracting little study.3,4 Over the last decade, intravenous antazoline has emerged as a repurposed AAD for cardioversion of recent-onset AF, with purported benefits in terms of improved efficacy and safety and lower expense.5 For example, the cost of antazoline is approximately 1.5 EUR per dose,6 as compared with over 300 EUR for vernakalant.7
Although several studies have examined the use of antazoline in the setting of AF, a majority of them are limited by their observational nature.5,8 The largest of these, a retrospective registry of over 1300 patients in Poland, reported favorable efficacy over amiodarone (78.3% vs 66.9% for conversion to sinus rhythm; P <0.001) and similar efficacy to propafenone (78.3% vs 72.7%; P = 0.14).9 These results persisted following propensity-score matching.9 While encouraging, such analyses are at an inherent risk of bias due to a failure to account for unmeasured confounders.10
To date, the only randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating antazoline as an AAD in AF is the AnPAF study,11 which assessed the efficacy and safety of antazoline vs placebo in 74 patients. In this study, successful cardioversion within a 2-hour observation period occurred in 72.2% of the patients treated with antazoline and in 10.5% of the patients treated with saline control (P <0.001), with a median time-to-conversion of 16 minutes. One patient (out of 36) receiving antazoline experienced a serious adverse event (congestion responsive to diuretic therapy), while 7 patients (19.4%) experienced temporary hot flushing. Clearly, prior to its incorporation into international AF guidelines, further well-designed and adequately powered RCTs comparing antazoline to guideline-recommended AADs are necessary.
In this issue of the journal, Karwowski et al6 present the findings of a single-center, double-blind RCT comparing intravenous antazoline to propafenone for pharmacologic cardioversion (PCV) of recent-onset paroxysmal AF. Important exclusion criteria comprised the presence of ischemic heart disease and heart failure. Following 1:1 randomization, the groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics.
The primary efficacy end point of cardioversion within a 3-hour observation period occurred in 63% of the patients treated with antazoline and in 52.1% of those treated with propafenone (P = 0.39). Notably, time-to-conversion was shorter in the antazoline group (median, 10 vs 30 min; P = 0.03). From a safety perspective, the rate of serious adverse events was similar—although relatively high—in both groups (10.9% vs 10.4%, respectively, for antazoline and propafenone): in the antazoline group, 3 patients experienced pauses and bradycardia not requiring intervention, 1 developed hypotonia and confusion responding to intravenous fluids, and 1 converted to atrial flutter with 1:1 conduction with a ventricular rate of 240 bpm; in the propafenone group, 3 patients experienced pauses and bradycardia not requiring intervention, 1 developed a third-degree heart block requiring pacemaker implantation, and 1 developed congestion requiring hospital admission. The frequency of minor adverse events was similar between the groups, except for transient hot flushes, which occurred more often in the patients receiving antazoline (34.8% vs 6.2%; P = 0.001).
The AnProAF investigators6 should be congratulated for their efforts in undertaking the first RCT comparing antazoline to a guideline-recommended AAD, thereby providing much needed comparative data in this evidence-free zone. In particular, we commend the authors for ensuring that both participants and health care professionals administering the study drugs were blinded to the treatment allocation, reducing the risk of bias. Importantly, as compared with propafenone, antazoline lead to significantly faster cardioversion to sinus rhythm, which the authors cite as a potential advantage for health care systems. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge several limitations of the study.
First, although reported as a superiority trial, the study is underpowered for such a design, with only 94 participants enrolled. Indeed, using a conventional superiority design, a sample size of 638 participants would have been required for an α of 5%, affording 80% power to detect a difference between successful PCV rates of 63% and 52.1% with antazoline and propafenone, respectively. In reality, if efficacy of antazoline is perceived to be similar to that of propafenone, as suggested by the authors, a noninferiority design with a predefined noninferiority margin may have been preferred, and should be considered by future investigators comparing antazoline to the established AADs.
Second, cardioversion rates were only reported up to 3 hours following the drug administration in AnProAF.6 Although 3 hours is a clinically useful duration for predicting reversion within an emergency department, it is acknowledged that many patients with paroxysmal AF spontaneously cardiovert within 1 to 2 days, with otherwise similar clinical outcomes to those of individuals receiving PCV. Indeed, in the RACE 7 ACWAS study,12 69% of patients randomized to a watch-and-wait approach cardioverted within 48 hours. Failure to extend the monitoring period beyond 3 hours in AnProAF, and a lack of information on subsequent treatment in those failing to cardiovert within this time period, make extrapolation of the findings beyond the initial treatment in an emergency department challenging. This is important given the increasing use of early rhythm control as a strategy to improve clinical outcomes.13
Third, the single-center design and a lack of comparison to other commonly administered AADs (such as flecainide, ibutilide, and amiodarone) limit the external validity and interpretation of the study. Further multicenter—and ideally multiarmed—RCTs comparing antazoline to the established treatment options should be undertaken to determine the comparative effectiveness of each.
Fourth, we must not ignore the increasing evidence showing the importance of the holistic or integrated care approach to AF management, which has been associated with improved clinical outcomes14 and recommended in guidelines.15
But more generally, and as is often the case in medicine, we should be reminded of the old adage, If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. In order to gain traction among the wider medical community, antazoline must position itself as not only equal to established therapies, but ideally as advantageous in 1 or more ways. While the reported time-to-cardioversion with antazoline in AnProAF is statistically faster, this modest difference of 20 minutes may not be of clinical significance, as patients frequently require further observation or investigation following cardioversion, negating this advantage. Furthermore, considering the similar safety and efficacy profiles of antazoline an propafenone reported in AnProAF, future RCTs should seek to carefully document other important metrics, which may demonstrate advantages of one drug over another; in particular, cost-effectiveness and health care–associated efficiency modelling, as well as patient-reported outcomes. Only if such an advantage is identified, is antazoline likely to find widespread use.
Gregory Y. H. Lip, MD, FRCP, Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Thomas Drive, Liverpool L14 3PE, United Kingdom, phone: +44 151 600 1616, email: lipgy@liverpool.ac.uk
February 23, 2024.
February 26, 2024.
April 26, 2024.
The opinions expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily those of the journal editors, Polish Society of Internal Medicine, or publisher.
GYHL is a consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Anthos. No fees are received personally. GYHL is a NIHR Senior Investigator and coprincipal investigator of the AFFIRMO project on multimorbidity in AF, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 899871. MTM declares no conflict of interest.
Lip GYH, Mills MT. Antazoline for pharmacologic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: teaching an old drug new tricks. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2024; 134: 16741. doi:10.20452/pamw.16741
- 1.
- Deshmukh A, Iglesias M, Khanna R, Beaulieu T. Healthcare utilization and costs associated with a diagnosis of incident atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm O2. 2022; 3: 577-586.Crossref
- 2.
- Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42: 373-498.Crossref
- 3.
- Dews PB, Graham JD. The antihistamine substance 2786 R.P. Br J Pharmacol Chemother. 1946; 1: 278-286.Crossref
- 4.
- Reynolds EW, Baird WM, Clifford ME. A clinical trial of antazoline in the treatment of arrhythmias. Am J Cardiol. 1964; 14: 513-521.Crossref
- 5.
- Aldulaymi R, Al Meslamani AZ. Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of antazoline in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. J Pharm Pharmacogn Res. 2022; 10: 147-157.Crossref
- 6.
- Karwowski J, Wrzosek K, Mączyńska-Mazuruk R, et al. Efficacy and safety of antazoline vs propafenone for conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm: a randomized, double-blind study (AnProAF). Pol Arch Intern Med. 2024; 134: 16657.Crossref
- 7.
- Vogiatzis I, Papavasiliou E, Dapcevitch I, et al. Vernakalant versus ibutilide for immediate conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation. Hippokratia. 2017; 21: 67-73.
- 8.
- Calvert P, Gupta D, Lip GYH. Antazoline: the Lazarus of antiarrhythmic drugs? Pol Arch Intern Med. 2022; 132: 16264.Crossref
- 9.
- Wybraniec MT, Maciąg A, Miśkowiec D, et al. Efficacy and safety of antazoline for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: propensity score matching analysis of multicenter registry (CANT II Study). Pol Arch Intern Med. 2022; 132: 16234.Crossref
- 10.
- Shiba K, Kawahara T. Using propensity scores for causal inference: pitfalls and tips. J Epidemiol. 2021; 31: 457-463.Crossref
- 11.
- Maciag A, Farkowski MM, Chwyczko T, et al. Efficacy and safety of antazoline in the rapid cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (the AnPAF Study). Europace. 2017; 19: 1637-1642.Crossref
- 12.
- Pluymaekers NAHA, Dudink EAMP, Luermans JGLM, et al; RACE 7 ACWAS Investigators. Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1499-1508.Crossref
- 13.
- Chao T-F, Chan Y-H, Chiang C-E, et al. Early rhythm control and the risks of ischemic stroke, heart failure, mortality, and adverse events when performed early (<3 months): a nationwide cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost. 2022; 11: 1899-1910.Crossref
- 14.
- Romiti GF, Guo Y, Corica B, et al; mAF-App II Trial Investigators. Mobile health-technology-integrated care for atrial fibrillation: a win ratio analysis from the mAFA-II randomized clinical trial. Thromb Haemost. 2023; 123: 1042-1048.Crossref
- 15.
- Romiti GF, Pastori D, Rivera-Caravaca JM, et al. Adherence to the ‘Atrial Fibrillation Better Care’ pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation: impact on clinical outcomes – a systematic review and meta-analysis of 285,000 patients. Thromb Haemost. 2022; 122: 406-414.Crossref