Dataset Information

Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life: The RATE-AF Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.

Objective

To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker).

Design, setting, and participants

Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019.

Interventions

Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.

Results

Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group.

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.

SUBMITTER: Kotecha D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7756234 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Digoxin is widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation despite the lack of randomized controlled trials. Observational studies report conflicting results regarding its association with mortality, perhaps because of residual confounding by the presence of heart failure (HF). In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation with and without HF were examined by baseline digoxin use during a median follow-up of 2.8 years. HF was defined at baseline as prior or current clinical stage C or D HF. Of 21 105 patients enrolled, 6327 (30%) were treated with digoxin at baseline. Among patients without HF (n=8981), digoxin use (20%) was independently associated with sudden cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08), with no significant interaction by age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal function, or concomitant medications (P>0.05 for each). Consistent results were observed using propensity matching (adjusted hazard ratio for sudden cardiac death, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.36-2.65). Among patients with HF (n=12 124), digoxin use (37%) was associated with an increase in all-cause death, cardiovascular death, sudden cardiac death, and death caused by HF/cardiogenic shock (P<0.01 for each), but not with noncardiovascular death, stroke/systemic embolism, or myocardial infarction. In this observational analysis of patients with atrial fibrillation without investigator-reported HF, digoxin use was significantly associated with sudden cardiac death. While residual confounding cannot be excluded, the association between digoxin use and worse clinical outcomes highlights the need to examine digoxin use, particularly when prescribed to control heart rate in patients with atrial fibrillation in a randomized trial. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and causes impaired quality of life, an increased risk of stroke and death as well as frequent hospital admissions. The majority of patients with AF require control of heart rate. In this article , we summarise the limited evidence from clinical trials that guides prescription, and present the rationale and protocol for a new randomised trial. As rate control has not yet been shown to reduce mortality, there is a clear need to compare the impact of therapy on quality of life, cardiac function and exercise capacity. Such a trial should concentrate on the long-term effects of treatment in the largest proportion of patients with AF, those with symptomatic permanent AF, with the aim of improving patient well-being. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION:The RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) trial will enrol 160 participants with a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point design comparing initial rate control with digoxin or bisoprolol. This will be the first head-to-head randomised trial of digoxin and beta-blockers in AF. PARTICIPANTS:Recruited patients will be aged Ã¢Â‰Â¥60 years with permanent AF and symptoms of breathlessness (equivalent to New York Heart Association class II or above), with few exclusion criteria to maximise generalisability to routine clinical practice. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome is patient-reported quality of life, with secondary outcomes including echocardiographic ventricular function, exercise capacity and biomarkers of cellular and clinical response. Follow-up will occur at 6 and 12 months, with feasibility components to inform the design of a future trial powered to detect a difference in hospital admission. The RATE-AF trial will underpin an integrated approach to management including biomarkers, functions and symptoms that will guide future research into optimal, personalised rate control in patients with AF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0178); peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02391337; ISRCTN: 95259705. Pre-results.