Key result
Generic propafenone (Rhynorm) was noninferior to brand name propafenone (Rytmonorm) for rhythm control of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (intergroup difference 1.5%; P=0.023 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
Propafenone is commonly used as first-line therapy for paroxysmal AF in Taiwan, but the efficacy and safety of generic versus brand name propafenone needed comparison.
Does generic propafenone provide noninferior rhythm control compared to brand name propafenone in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=71)
Open-label
randomized
Yes
Does generic propafenone provide noninferior rhythm control compared to brand name propafenone in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Mean Difference: 1.5
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 13.6%
p-value: p=0.023 for noninferiority
Generic propafenone is noninferior to brand name propafenone in terms of efficacy and safety for treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Generic propafenone noninferior for paroxysmal AF rhythm control in Taiwan; supports cost-effective substitution and local bioequivalence data.
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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chin et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=71). Generic propafenone (Rhynorm) vs. Brand name propafenone (Rytmonorm) was evaluated on frequency of AF with clinical significance (AF duration ≥30 seconds) (intergroup difference 1.5%, p=0.023 for noninferiority). Generic propafenone (Rhynorm) was noninferior to brand name propafenone (Rytmonorm) for rhythm control of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (intergroup difference 1.5%; P=0.023 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: