he first 2 meetings of the Sicilian Gambit focused on a pathophysiologic approach to evaluate antiarrhythmic drugs in light of the electrophysiologic mechanisms for cardiac arrhythmias; 1,2 on the extent to which this approach was effective in identifying the most appropriate therapy for clinical arrhythmias; and on areas where further information was needed to provide rational directions for therapy. 3 The stimulus for the third Sicilian Gambit meeting (the subject of this report) was continued concern over the future of antiarrhythmic drug therapy, based on (1) the increased mortality reported with d-sotalol in the SWORD trial; 4 (2) the failure of amiodarone to reduce all-cause mortality in CAMIAT 5 , EMIAT 6 and CHF-STAT 7 ; and (3) the extent to which international differences in perceived needs and guidelines for drug development might reduce enthusiasm for drug discovery. Participating in the meeting were basic and clinical scientists, investigators involved in drug trials and representatives of regulatory and funding agencies.In the following pages we emphasize that (1) traditional modalities of antiarrhythmic drug development have reached a near-impasse; (2) new perspectives should, nonetheless, lead to novel antiarrhythmic approaches; (3) information derived from molecular technology should facilitate the identification of specific targets for pharmacologic intervention; (4) at least one condition, congenital long QT syndrome, may soon represent "proof of concept" of the linkage between molecular biology and novel treatment strategies; (5) common arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation may be amenable to a similar approach; and (6) new thinking on development of novel compounds must be complemented by innovative decisions in clinical trials. We stress, as well, that a major market for antiarrhythmic drug therapy still exists: the frequency of lethal ventricular tachyarrhythmias as well as of atrial fibrillation is such that therapies having widespread applicability at modest cost must be sought.
RationaleEarly approaches to antiarrhythmic drug development involved the serendipitous identification of antiarrhythmic actions of natural compounds such as cinchona 8 or compounds synthesized for other applications such as procaine. 9 This was followed by synthesis of derivative molecules (respectively, quinidine 10 and procainamide 11 ) and their testing in animal models and in human subjects. Identification of a perceived benefit in human subjects (eg, suppression of ventricular premature depolarizations) could lead to a search for related molecules the effects of which might be more sustained, less toxic and/or more potent, or with properties that might be modified advantageously. These molecules also were tested in animal models for their antiarrhythmic efficacy and toxicity and, if they passed muster, were tested in patients. Shortcomings of this approach are that molecules thus identified tend to incorporate not only the potential benefits of the so-called paren...