Bucindolol for the Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in a Genotype-Defined HF Population: The GENETIC-AF Trial

Clinical Genetic Testing for Atrial Fibrillation: Are We There Yet?

Important progress has been made toward unravelling the complex genetics underlying atrial fibrillation (AF). Initial studies were aimed to identify monogenic causes; however, it has become increasingly clear that the most common predisposing genetic substrate for AF is polygenic. Despite intensive investigations, there is robust evidence for rare variants for only a limited number of genes and cases. Although the current yield for genetic testing in early onset AF might be modest, there is an increasing appreciation that genetic culprits for potentially life-threatening ventricular cardiomyopathies and channelopathies might initially present with AF. The potential clinical significance of this recognition is highlighted by evidence that suggests that identification of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic rare variant in a patient with early onset AF is associated with an increased risk of death. These findings suggest that it might be warranted to screen patients with early onset AF for these potentially more sinister cardiac conditions. Beyond facilitating the early identification of genetic culprits associated with potentially malignant phenotypes, insight into underlying AF genetic substrates might improve the selection of patients for existing therapies and guide the development of novel ones. Herein, we review the evidence that links genetic factors to AF, then discuss an approach to using genetic testing for early onset AF patients in the present context, and finally consider the potential value of genetic testing in the foreseeable future. Although further work might be necessary before recommending uniform integration of genetic testing in cases of early onset AF, ongoing research increasingly highlights its potential contributions to clinical care.

Impact of Neuroeffector Adrenergic Receptor Polymorphisms on Incident Ventricular Fibrillation During Acute Myocardial Ischemia

Background Cardiac adrenergic receptor gene polymorphisms have the potential to influence risk of developing ventricular fibrillation (VF) during ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but no previous study has comprehensively investigated those most likely to alter norepinephrine release, signal transduction, or biased signaling. Methods and Results In a case-control study, we recruited 953 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction without previous cardiac history, 477 with primary VF, and 476 controls without VF, and genotyped them for ADRB1 Arg389Gly and Ser49Gly, ADRB2 Gln27Glu and Gly16Arg, and ADRA2C Ins322-325Del. Within each minor allele-containing genotype, haplotype, or 2-genotype combination, patients with incident VF were compared with non-VF controls by odds ratios (OR) of variant frequencies referenced against major allele homozygotes. Of 156 investigated genetic constructs, 19 (12.2%) exhibited significantly (P<0.05) reduced association with incident VF, and none was associated with increased VF risk except for ADRB1 Gly389 homozygotes in the subset of patients not receiving β-blockers. ADRB1 Gly49 carriers (prevalence 23.0%) had an OR (95% CI) of 0.70 (0.49-0.98), and the ADRA2C 322-325 deletion (Del) carriers (prevalence 13.5%) had an OR of 0.61 (0.39-0.94). When present in genotype combinations (8 each), both ADRB1 Gly49 carriers (OR, 0.67 [0.56-0.80]) and ADRA2C Del carriers (OR, 0.57 [0.45- 0.71]) were associated with reduced VF risk. Conclusions In ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the adrenergic receptor minor alleles ADRB1 Gly49, whose encoded receptor undergoes enhanced agonist-mediated internalization and β-arrestin interactions leading to cardioprotective biased signaling, and ADRA2C Del322-325, whose receptor causes disinhibition of norepinephrine release, are associated with a lower incidence of VF. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00859300.

Increasing time between first diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and catheter ablation adversely affects long-term outcomes in patients with and without structural heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia often comorbid with systolic or diastolic heart failure (HF). Catheter ablation is a more effective treatment for AF with concurrent left ventricular dysfunction, however, the optimal timing of use in these patients is unknown.

METHODS

All patients that received a catheter ablation for AF(n = 9979) with 1 year of follow-up within the Intermountain Healthcare system were included. Patients with were identified by the presence of structural disease by ejection fraction (EF): EF ≤ 35% (n = 1024) and EF > 35% (n = 8955). Recursive partitioning categories were used to separate patients into clinically meaningful strata based upon time from initial AF diagnosis until ablation: 30-180(n = 2689), 2:181-545(n = 1747), 3:546-1825(n = 2941), and 4:>1825(n = 2602) days.

RESULTS

The mean days from AF diagnosis to first ablation was 3.5 ± 3.8 years (EF > 35%: 3.5 ± 3.8 years, EF ≤ 35%: 3.4 ± 3.8 years, p = .66). In the EF > 35% group, delays in treatment (181-545 vs. 30-180, 546-1825 vs. 30-180, >1825 vs. 30-180 days) increased the risk of death with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.02(p < .0001), 2.62(p < .0001), and 4.39(p < .0001) respectively with significant risks for HF hospitalization (HR:1.44-3.69), stroke (HR:1.11-2.14), and AF recurrence (HR:1.42-1.81). In patients with an EF ≤ 35%, treatment delays also significantly increased risk of death (HR 2.07-3.77) with similar trends in HF hospitalization (HR:1.63-1.09) and AF recurrence (HR:0.79-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Delays in catheter ablation for AF resulted in increased all-cause mortality in all patients with differential impact observed on HF hospitalization, stroke, and AF recurrence risks by baseline EF. These data favor earlier use of ablation for AF in patients with and without structural heart disease.

Dose-limiting, adverse event–associated bradycardia with β-blocker treatment of atrial fibrillation in the GENETIC-AF trial

Background

Heart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have conduction system disorders, which may be worsened by β-blocker therapy.

Objective

In a post hoc analysis we examined the prevalence of bradycardia and its association with adverse events (AEs) and failure to achieve target dose in the GENETIC-AF trial.

Methods

Patients randomized to metoprolol (n = 125) or bucindolol (n = 131) entering 24-week efficacy follow-up and receiving study medication were evaluated. Bradycardia was defined as an electrocardiogram (ECG) heart rate (HR) <60 beats per minute (bpm) and severe bradycardia <50 bpm.

Results

Mean HR in sinus rhythm (SR) was 62.6 ± 12.5 bpm for metoprolol and 68.3 ± 11.1 bpm for bucindolol (P < .0001), but in AF HRs were not different (87.5 bpm vs 89.7 bpm, respectively). Episodes per patient for bucindolol vs metoprolol were 0.82 vs 2.08 (P < .001) for bradycardia and 0.24 vs 0.57 for severe bradycardia (P < .001), with 98.9% of the episodes occurring in SR. Patients experiencing bradycardia had a 4.15-fold higher prevalence of study medication dose reduction (P <.0001) compared to patients without bradycardia. Fewer patients receiving metoprolol were at target dose (61.7% vs 74.9% for bucindolol, P < .0001) at ECG recordings, and bradycardia AEs were more prevalent in the metoprolol group (13 vs 1 for bucindolol, P = .001). On multivariate analysis of 21 candidate bradycardia predictors including presence of a device with pacing capability, bucindolol treatment was associated with the greatest degree of prevention (Z_{odds ratio} -4.24, P < .0001).

Conclusion

In AF-prone HF patients bradycardia may limit the effectiveness of β blockers, and this property is agent-dependent.

A Population-Based Study of Unexplained/Lone Atrial Fibrillation: Temporal Trends, Management, and Outcomes

Background

Previous studies on lone/unexplained atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF) did not exclude patients with contemporary secondary AF triggers. We characterized unexplained AF using a strict definition, and compared it to secondary AF.

Methods

In this population-based study, unexplained AF was defined by the lack of any identifiable triggering medical/surgical diagnosis. Comparisons by AF type (unexplained vs secondary), age-of-onset (≤ / > 65 years), and sex were undertaken. Data were acquired by linking 6 population databases maintained by the Alberta Ministry of Health over a 9-year period (April 2006 to March 2015). The primary composite outcome of stroke, transient ischemic attack, thromboembolism, and/or death was assessed.

Results

There were 33,150 incident AF diagnoses identified, including 1145 patients (3.5%) with unexplained AF, 931 (81.2%) of whom were aged ≤ 65 years (2.8% of diagnoses, and 79% male). Patients with unexplained AF less often received rate/rhythm-control drugs (P < 0.0001), but they more often underwent electrical cardioversion (P < 0.0001) vs secondary AF patients. Men were younger at unexplained AF diagnosis (45 [interquartile range: 34-59] vs 58 [interquartile range: 40-69] years; P < 0.001). After adjusting for age at diagnosis, there were no sex-based differences in the primary outcome. Event-free survival in young unexplained AF (age ≤ 65 years) was 99.4% at 1 year and 98.3% at 3 years. At 3 years, hospitalization(s)/emergency visit(s) for noncardiovascular reasons and for AF occurred in 56.6% and 23.8% of these patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Using a strict contemporary definition of unexplained AF, this study shows that the condition is rare, predominantly male, and has excellent event-free survival. However, the high rate of acute hospital utilization after diagnosis is concerning.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: lessons from the past and opportunities for the future

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a highly prevalent and troublesome cardiac arrhythmia, associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm-control therapy) is an important element of AF management in symptomatic patients. Despite significant advances and increasing importance of catheter ablation, antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) remain a cornerstone of rhythm-control therapy. During the past 50 years, experimental and clinical research has greatly increased our understanding of AADs. As part of the special issue on paradigm shifts in AF, this review summarizes important milestones in AAD research that have shaped their current role in AF management, including (i) awareness of the proarrhythmic potential of AADs; (ii) increasing understanding of the pleiotropic effects of AADs; (iii) the development of dronedarone; and (iv) the search for AF-specific AADs. Finally, we discuss short- and long-term opportunities for better AF management through advances in AAD therapy, including personalization of AAD therapy based on individual AF mechanisms.

Bucindolol Decreases Atrial Fibrillation Burden in Patients With Heart Failure and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg Genotype

[Figure: see text].

Genetics of atrial fibrillation-practical applications for clinical management: if not now, when and how?

The prevalence and economic burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) are predicted to more than double over the next few decades. In addition to anticoagulation and treatment of concomitant cardiovascular conditions, early and standardized rhythm control therapy reduces cardiovascular outcomes as compared with a rate control approach, favouring the restoration, and maintenance of sinus rhythm safely. Current therapies for rhythm control of AF include antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation (CA). However, response in an individual patient is highly variable with some remaining free of AF for long periods on antiarrhythmic therapy, while others require repeat AF ablation within weeks. The limited success of rhythm control therapy for AF is in part related to incomplete understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms and our inability to predict responses in individual patients. Thus, a major knowledge gap is predicting which patients with AF are likely to respond to rhythm control approach. Over the last decade, tremendous progress has been made in defining the genetic architecture of AF with the identification of rare mutations in cardiac ion channels, signalling molecules, and myocardial structural proteins associated with familial (early-onset) AF. Conversely, genome-wide association studies have identified common variants at over 100 genetic loci and the development of polygenic risk scores has identified high-risk individuals. Although retrospective studies suggest that response to AADs and CA is modulated in part by common genetic variation, the development of a comprehensive clinical and genetic risk score may enable the translation of genetic data to the bedside care of AF patients. Given the economic impact of the AF epidemic, even small changes in therapeutic efficacy may lead to substantial improvements for patients and health care systems.

Atrial fibrillation burden and heart failure: Data from 39,710 individuals with cardiac implanted electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often accompany one another, and each is independently associated with poor outcomes. However, the association between AF burden and outcomes is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the association between device-based AF burden and HF clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We used a nationwide, remote monitoring database of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) linked to Medicare claims. We included patients with nonpermanent AF, undergoing new CIED implant, stratified by baseline HF. The outcomes were new-onset HF, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality at 1 and 3 years.

RESULTS

We identified 39,710 patients who met inclusion criteria (25,054 with HF; 14,656 without HF). Patients with HF were younger (mean age 76.3 vs 78.5 years; P <.001), more often male (65% vs 54%; P <.001), and had higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores (5.4 vs 4.1; P <.001). Among those without HF, increasing device-based AF burden was significantly associated with increased risk of new-onset HF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 per 10% AF burden; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.12; P <.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.05 per 10% AF burden; 95% CI 1.01-1.10; P = .012). Among patients with HF, increasing AF burden was significantly associated with increased risk of HF hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.05 per 10% AF burden; 95% CI 1.04-1.06; P <.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.06 per 10% AF burden; 95% CI 1.05-1.08; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Among older patients with AF receiving a CIED, increasing AF burden is significantly associated with increasing risk of adverse HF outcomes and all-cause mortality.

Genetics of atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. In addition to traditional risk factors, it is increasingly recognized that a genetic component underlies atrial fibrillation development. This review aims to provide an overview of the genetic cause of atrial fibrillation and clinical applications, with a focus on recent developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genome-wide association studies have now identified around 140 genetic loci associated with atrial fibrillation. Studies into the effects of several loci and their tentative gene targets have identified novel pathways associated with atrial fibrillation development. However, further validations of causality are still needed for many implicated genes. Genetic variants at identified loci also help predict individual atrial fibrillation risk and response to different therapies.

SUMMARY

Continued advances in the field of genetics and molecular biology have led to significant insight into the genetic underpinnings of atrial fibrillation. Potential clinical applications of these studies include the identification of new therapeutic targets and development of genetic risk scores to optimize management of this common cardiac arrhythmia.

Ex Ante Economic Evaluation of Arg389 Genetically Targeted Treatment with Bucindolol versus Empirical Treatment with Carvedilol in NYHA III/IV Heart Failure

OBJECTIVE

The Beta-Blocker Evaluation Survival Trial showed no survival benefit for bucindolol in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, but subanalyses suggested survival benefits for non-Black subjects and Arg389 homozygotes. We conducted an ex ante economic evaluation of Arg389 targeted treatment with bucindolol versus carvidolol, complementing a previous ex ante economic evaluation of bucindolol preceded by genetic testing for the Arg389 polymorphism, in which genetic testing prevailed economically over no testing.

METHODS

A decision tree analysis with an 18-month time horizon was performed to estimate the cost effectiveness/cost utility of trajectories of 100%, 50%, and 0% of patients genetically tested for Arg389 and comparing bucindolol with empirical carvedilol treatment as per prior BEST subanalyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness/cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Race-based analyses for non-White subjects at 100% testing showed a loss of (0.04) life-years and (0.03) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $2185, yielding a negative ICER of ($54,625)/life-year and ICUR of ($72,833)/QALY lost; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.27) life-years and (0.16) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1843, yielding a negative ICER of ($6826)/life-year and ICUR of ($11,519)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost. Arg389 homozygote analyses at 100% testing showed incremental gains of 0.02 life-years and 0.02 QALYs at an incremental cost of $378, yielding an ICER of 18,900/life-year and ICUR of $18,900/QALY gained; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.24) life-years and (0.09) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1039, yielding a negative ICER of ($4329)/life-year and ICUR of ($9336)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost.

CONCLUSION

This independent ex ante economic evaluation suggests that genetically targeted treatment with bucindolol is unlikely to yield clinicoeconomic benefits over empirical treatment with carvedilol in NYHA III/IV HF.

The Role of Pharmacogenomics in Contemporary Cardiovascular Therapy: A position statement from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy

There is a strong and ever-growing body of evidence regarding the use of pharmacogenomics to inform cardiovascular pharmacology. However, there is no common position taken by international cardiovascular societies to unite diverse availability, interpretation and application of such data, nor is there recognition of the challenges of variation in clinical practice between countries within Europe. Aside from the considerable barriers to implementing pharmacogenomic testing and the complexities of clinically actioning results, there are differences in the availability of resources and expertise internationally within Europe. Diverse legal and ethical approaches to genomic testing and clinical therapeutic application also require serious thought. As direct-to-consumer genomic testing becomes more common, it can be anticipated that data may be brought in by patients themselves, which will require critical assessment by the clinical cardiovascular prescriber. In a modern, pluralistic and multi-ethnic Europe, self-identified race/ethnicity may not be concordant with genetically detected ancestry and thus may not accurately convey polymorphism prevalence. Given the broad relevance of pharmacogenomics to areas such as thrombosis and coagulation, interventional cardiology, heart failure, arrhythmias, clinical trials, and policy/regulatory activity within cardiovascular medicine, as well as to genomic and pharmacology subspecialists, this position statement attempts to address these issues at a wide-ranging level.

The Interface of Therapeutics and Genomics in Cardiovascular Medicine

Pharmacogenomics has a burgeoning role in cardiovascular medicine, from warfarin dosing to antiplatelet choice, with recent developments in sequencing bringing the promise of personalised medicine ever closer to the bedside. Further scientific evidence, real-world clinical trials, and economic modelling are needed to fully realise this potential. Additionally, tools such as polygenic risk scores, and results from Mendelian randomisation analyses, are only in the early stages of clinical translation and merit further investigation. Genetically targeted rational drug design has a strong evidence base and, due to the nature of genetic data, academia, direct-to-consumer companies, healthcare systems, and industry may meet in an unprecedented manner. Data sharing navigation may prove problematic. The present manuscript addresses these issues and concludes a need for further guidance to be provided to prescribers by professional bodies to aid in the consideration of such complexities and guide translation of scientific knowledge to personalised clinical action, thereby striving to improve patient care. Additionally, technologic infrastructure equipped to handle such large complex data must be adapted to pharmacogenomics and made user friendly for prescribers and patients alike.

How Will Genetics Inform the Clinical Care of Atrial Fibrillation?

Susceptibility to atrial fibrillation (AF) is determined by well-recognized risk factors such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, emerging risk factors such as sleep apnea or inflammation, and increasingly well-defined genetic variants. As discussed in detail in a companion article in this series, studies in families and in large populations have identified multiple genetic loci, specific genes, and specific variants increasing susceptibility to AF. Since it is becoming increasingly inexpensive to obtain genotype data and indeed whole genome sequence data, the question then becomes to define whether using emerging new genetics knowledge can improve care for patients both before and after development of AF. Examples of improvements in care could include identifying patients at increased risk for AF (and thus deploying increased surveillance or even low-risk preventive therapies should these be available), identifying patient subsets in whom specific therapies are likely to be effective or ineffective or in whom the driving biology could motivate the development of new mechanism-based therapies or identifying an underlying susceptibility to comorbid cardiovascular disease. While current guidelines for the care of patients with AF do not recommend routine genetic testing, this rapidly increasing knowledge base suggests that testing may now or soon have a place in the management of select patients. The opportunity is to generate, validate, and deploy clinical predictors (including family history) of AF risk, to assess the utility of incorporating genomic variants into those predictors, and to identify and validate interventions such as wearable or implantable device-based monitoring ultimately to intervene in patients with AF before they present with catastrophic complications like heart failure or stroke.

Pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: review of current knowledge and future directions

Introduction: Both heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) independently cause significant morbidity and mortality. The two conditions commonly coexist and AF in the setting of HFrEF is associated with worse mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life compared to HFrEF without AF. Despite the large burden of these conditions, there is no clear optimal management strategy for when they occur together.Areas covered: This review focuses on the pharmacological management of AF in HFrEF. Studies were identified through PubMed search of relevant keywords. The authors review key clinical trials that have influenced management strategies and guidelines. The authors focus on the classes of drugs used to treat AF for both rate and rhythm control strategies including beta-blockers, digoxin, amiodarone, and dofetilide. Additionally, the authors discuss select non-antiarrhythmic medications that affect AF in HFrEF. The authors highlight the strengths and weakness of the data supporting the use of these medications and suggest future directions.Expert opinion: The pharmacological treatment of AF in HFrEF will need further refinement alongside the emerging role of catheter ablation. Novel HF medications and antiarrhythmics offer new tools to prevent the development of AF, as well as for rate and rhythm control strategies.