PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate whether dronedarone authorization impacts antiarrhythmic drug prescribing in Sweden and Emilia Romagna (Italy). METHODS: Prescriptions of classes I and III antiarrhythmics, expressed as defined daily doses per thousand inhabitants per day (DDD/TID) were monthly using information collected from pharmacy-reimbursed databases. Interrupted time series analysis was applied to compare prescription data over the 2009-2011 period. RESULTS: In Emilia Romagna, the overall consumption of antiarrhythmics was six times as high as in Sweden (7.6 vs. 1.2 DDD/TID). In the first year on the market, dronedarone represented 1.0 % in Italy and 10.7 % in Sweden of the overall antiarrhythmic prescriptions. In Sweden, dronedarone authorization generated an increase in the prescription trend of antiarrhythmics (trend change +0.02; p < 0.001) without variation in amiodarone use In Emilia Romagna, dronedarone marketing did not influence the prescription pattern of either overall antiarrhythmics or amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: Emilia Romagna and Sweden substantially differ in terms of overall antiarrhythmic use. Although clinical guidelines place dronedarone among first-choice treatments for atrial fibrillation, amiodarone prescribing was not affected in either country by the entry of dronedarone, probably due to a cautious approach by clinicians in line with regulatory recommendations and safety warnings.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate whether dronedarone authorization impacts antiarrhythmic drug prescribing in Sweden and Emilia Romagna (Italy). METHODS: Prescriptions of classes I and III antiarrhythmics, expressed as defined daily doses per thousand inhabitants per day (DDD/TID) were monthly using information collected from pharmacy-reimbursed databases. Interrupted time series analysis was applied to compare prescription data over the 2009-2011 period. RESULTS: In Emilia Romagna, the overall consumption of antiarrhythmics was six times as high as in Sweden (7.6 vs. 1.2 DDD/TID). In the first year on the market, dronedarone represented 1.0 % in Italy and 10.7 % in Sweden of the overall antiarrhythmic prescriptions. In Sweden, dronedarone authorization generated an increase in the prescription trend of antiarrhythmics (trend change +0.02; p < 0.001) without variation in amiodarone use In Emilia Romagna, dronedarone marketing did not influence the prescription pattern of either overall antiarrhythmics or amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: Emilia Romagna and Sweden substantially differ in terms of overall antiarrhythmic use. Although clinical guidelines place dronedarone among first-choice treatments for atrial fibrillation, amiodarone prescribing was not affected in either country by the entry of dronedarone, probably due to a cautious approach by clinicians in line with regulatory recommendations and safety warnings.
Authors: Jason G Andrade; Stuart J Connolly; Paul Dorian; Martin Green; Karin H Humphries; George J Klein; Robert Sheldon; Mario Talajic; Charles R Kerr Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Stefan H Hohnloser; Harry J G M Crijns; Martin van Eickels; Christophe Gaudin; Richard L Page; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Stuart J Connolly Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Morten Lock Hansen; Niels Gadsbøll; Gunnar H Gislason; Steen Z Abildstrom; Tina K Schramm; Fredrik Folke; Jens Friberg; Rikke Sørensen; Søren Rasmussen; Henrik E Poulsen; Lars Køber; Mette Madsen; Christian Torp-Pedersen Journal: Europace Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Nancy M Allen LaPointe; Dadi Dai; Laine Thomas; Jonathan P Piccini; Eric D Peterson; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.778