User login
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020