OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of amiodarone, sotalol and dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in Australia using mixed treatment comparisons (MTC). METHODS: There are limited data directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of dronedarone with the alternatively used antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in Australia. In the absence of direct comparisons, we have performed an MTC of networks of trials in order to provide best estimates of the relative effectiveness and safety of the alternative AADs.  This approach was previously used by Freemantle et al (2011) to compare dronedarone not only with amiodarone and sotalol, but also with flecainide and propafenone.  As flecainide and propafenone are not widely used in Australia, we chose to exclude them from the current analysis.  Literature in AF involving amiodarone, dronedarone, sotalol or placebo was searched systematically. The 10 selected trials were combined using MTC models to provide direct and indirect comparisons in a single analysis.  Randomised trials with at least one month of treatment and at least 3 months follow up were included.    RESULTS: Results are presented versus placebo. Trends towards increased mortality for sotalol (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.89 – 11.57) and amiodarone (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.17 - 7.31) were found.  Conversely, a trend towards decreased mortality for dronedarone was found (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69 – 1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Using an MTC approach of the AADs available in the Australian clinical setting, we have shown that dronedarone is associated with a decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality, and amiodarone and sotalol are associated with an increase in the risk of all-cause mortality.