Digoxin for chronic heart failure: a review of the randomized controlled trials with special attention to the PROVED (Prospective Randomized Study of Ventricular Failure and the Efficacy of Digoxin) and RADIANCE (Randomized Assessment of Digoxin on Inhibitors of the angiotensin Converting Enzyme) trials

Quality, origins and limitations of common therapeutic drug reference intervals

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is used to manage drugs with a narrow window between effective and toxic concentrations. TDM involves measuring blood concentrations of drugs to ensure effective therapy, avoid toxicity and monitor compliance. Common drugs for which TDM is used include aminoglycosides for infections, anticonvulsants to treat seizures, immunosuppressants for transplant patients and cardiac glycosides to regulate cardiac output and heart rate. An essential element of TDM is the provision of accurate and clinically relevant reference intervals. Unlike most laboratory reference intervals, which are derived from a healthy population, TDM reference intervals need to relate to clinical outcomes in the form of efficacy and toxicity. This makes TDM inherently more difficult to develop as healthy individuals are not on therapy, so there is no "normal value". In addition, many of the aforementioned drugs are old and much of the information regarding reference intervals is based on small trials using methods that have changed. Furthermore, individuals have different pharmacokinetics and drug responses, particularly in the context of combined therapies, which exacerbates the challenge of universal TDM targets. This focused review examines the origins and limitations of existing TDM reference intervals for common drugs, providing targets where possible based on available guidelines.

Prediction of appropriate defibrillator therapy in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy

The necessity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may be questioned. The aim of this study was to identify patients at low risk for sustained ventricular arrhythmia. One hundred sixty-nine consecutive patients with HF (mean age 60 +/- 12 years, 125 men, 73% in New York Heart Association class III) referred for CRT and prophylactic, primary prevention ICD implantation underwent baseline clinical and echocardiographic assessment and regular device follow-up. The primary study end point was appropriate ICD therapy. During a mean follow-up period of 654 +/- 394 days, 35 patients (21%) had sustained ventricular arrhythmias requiring appropriate ICD therapy. Of the 3 patients who experienced sudden cardiac death, 2 had been treated with appropriate ICD therapy before sudden cardiac death. In a multivariate model, only history of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (p = 0.001), a severely (<20%) decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.001), and digitalis therapy (p = 0.08) independently predicted appropriate ICD therapy. Patients with 0 (n = 46), 1 (n = 36), 2 (n = 73), and 3 (n = 14) risk factors for appropriate ICD therapy had a 7%, 14%, 27%, and 64% and 0%, 6%, 10%, and 43% incidence of appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmias and for rapid ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, respectively. In conclusion, apart from commonsense considerations (age and significant co-morbidities), ICD addition seems ineffective in CRT patients without nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, digoxin therapy, and severely reduced left ventricular systolic function.

Digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study showed that rhythm-control treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) offered no survival advantage over a rate-control strategy. In a subgroup analysis of that study, it was found that digoxin increased the death rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.42), but it was suggested that this may have been attributable to prescription of digoxin for patients at greater risk of death, such as those with congestive heart failure (CHF). No study has investigated a priori the effect of digoxin on mortality in patients with AF. This study aimed to address this question.

METHODS

Using data from the Registry of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive care Admissions (RIKS-HIA), we studied the 1-year mortality among patients admitted to coronary care units with AF, CHF, or AF+CHF with or without digoxin (n = 60,764) during 1995-2003. Adjustment for differences in background characteristics and other medications and treatments was made by propensity scoring.

RESULTS

Twenty percent of patients with AF without CHF in this cohort were discharged with digoxin. This group had a higher mortality rate than the corresponding group not given digoxin [adjusted RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.29-1.56)], whereas no such difference was seen among patients with CHF with or without AF, although these patients had a nearly three-times higher mortality.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that long-term therapy with digoxin is an independent risk factor for death in patients with AF without CHF.

Pharmacological treatment of chronic heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is associated with a high morbidity and mortality in the Western World. Our knowledge of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and therapy has improved dramatically during the last 20 years. Pharmacological treatment, as it stands today, is a combination of preventive and symptomatic strategies. The mainstay life-saving drugs are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. Additional benefits are obtained when angiotensin-receptor blockers or aldosterone antagonists are added. Digitalis and/or diuretics are useful for symptom reduction. In addition, combination therapy with hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate is recommended in African Americans.

Pharmacologic therapy for patients with chronic heart failure and reduced systolic function: review of trials and practical considerations

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome resulting from any structural or functional cardiac disorder impairing the ability of the ventricles to fill with or eject blood. The approach to pharmacologic treatment has become a combined preventive and symptomatic management strategy. Ideally, treatment should be initiated in patients at risk, preventing disease progression. In patients who have progressed to symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, certain therapies have been demonstrated to improve survival, decrease hospitalizations, and reduce symptoms. The mainstay therapies are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers (bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol XL/CR), with diuretics to control fluid balance. In patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors because of angioedema or severe cough, valsartan can be substituted. Valsartan should not be added in patients already taking an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker. Spironolactone is recommended in patients who have New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III to IV symptoms despite maximal therapies with ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, diuretics, and digoxin. Low-dose digoxin, yielding a serum concentration <1 ng/mL can be added to improve symptoms and, possibly, mortality. The combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate might be useful in patients (especially in African Americans) who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors or valsartan because of hypotension or renal dysfunction. Calcium antagonists, with the exception of amlodipine, oral or intravenous inotropes, and vasodilators, should be avoided in HF with reduced systolic function. Amiodarone should be used only if patients have a history of sudden death, or a history of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia, and should be used in conjunction with an implantable defibrillator [corrected]. Finally, anticoagulation is recommended only in patients who have concomitant atrial fibrillation or a previous history of cerebral or systemic emboli.

Digoxin remains useful in the management of chronic heart failure

Despite the introduction of a variety of new classes of drugs for the management of heart failure, digoxin continues to have an important role in long-term outpatient management. A wide variety of placebo-controlled clinical trials have unequivocally shown that treatment with digoxin can improve symptoms, quality of life, and exercise tolerance in patients with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure. These benefits are evident regardless of the underlying rhythm (normal sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation), etiology of the heart failure, or concomitant therapy (eg. ACE inhibitors). Unlike other agents with positive inotropic properties, digoxin does not increase all-cause mortality and has a substantial benefit in reducing heart failure hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recently been published by the Heart Failure Society of America and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, and they contain the following recommendations for digoxin treatment: 1. Digoxin should be considered for the outpatient treatment of all patients who have persistent symptoms of heart failure (NYHA class II-IV) despite conventional pharmacologic therapy with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and a beta-blocker when the heart failure is caused by systolic dysfunction (the strength of evidence = A for NYHA class II and III; strength of evidence = C for NYHA class IV). 2. Digoxin is not indicated as primary treatment for the stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. (Strength of evidence = B). Digoxin may be initiated after emergent treatment of heart failure has been completed in an effort to establish a long-term treatment strategy. 3. Digoxin should not be administered to patients who have significant sinus or atrioventricular block, unless the block has been treated with a permanent pacemaker (strength of evidence = B). The drug should be used cautiously in patients who receive other agents known to depress sinus or atrioventricular nodal function (such as amiodarone or a beta-blocker) (strength of evidence = B). 4. The dosage of digoxin should be 0.125-0.25 mg daily in the majority of patients (strength of evidence = C). The lower dose should be used in patients over 70 years of age, those with impaired renal function, or those with a low lean body mass. Higher doses (eg, digoxin 0.375-0.50 mg daily) are rarely needed. Loading doses of digoxin are not necessary during initiation of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure. 5. Serial assessment of serum digoxin levels is unnecessary in most patients. The radioimmunoassay was developed to assist in the evaluation of toxicity, not the efficacy of the drug. There appears to be little relationship between serum digoxin concentration and the drug's therapeutic effects. 6. Digoxin toxicity is commonly associated with serum levels >2 ng/mL but may occur with lower digoxin levels if hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, or hypothyroidism coexist. Likewise, the concomitant use of agents such as quinidine, verapamil, spironolactone, flecainide, and amiodarone can increase serum digoxin levels and increase the likelihood of digoxin toxicity. 7. For patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response, the administration of high doses of digoxin (>0.25 mg daily) for the purpose of rate control is not recommended. When necessary, additional rate control should be achieved by the addition of beta-blocker therapy or amiodarone (strength of evidence = C). If amiodarone is added, the dose of digoxin should be reduced. Digitalis preparations are now entering their fourth century of clinical use for the treatment of chronic heart failure symptoms. Its clinical efficacy can no longer be doubted and its safety has been verified by the multicenter DIG trial. Future advances in pharmacogenetics should facilitate identification of those patients most likely to benefit from its pharmacologic effects.

Digoxin

After 200 years of use, digitalis still appears to have a place in our armamentarium for heart failure and atrial fibrillation despite the proven survival benefits with ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers. Digoxin therapy is inexpensive and well tolerated and may result in considerable savings. Digoxin is the only oral inotrope that does not increase mortality in heart failure patients, particularly if low doses are being used. Digoxin therapy should be used in patients with systolic heart failure who continue to have signs and symptoms despite therapeutic doses of ACE inhibitors or diuretics or in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without heart failure for rate control.

[Status of digitalis in therapy of acute and chronic heart failure]

Although supported by more than 200 years of experience and anecdotal clinical evidence, the efficacy of digitalis in the management of heart failure has been questioned until the past decade. The idea to improve contractility of the diseased myocardium with an inotropic agent is fundamental in the management of left ventricular dysfunction. The majority of clinical trials published since 1980, most of which examined patients with mild to moderate heart failure, indicate that digitalis alone or in combination with vasodilators may improve the clinical outcome particular in those patients with more advanced symptoms and poorer left ventricular function. Aside from its action as an inotropic drug the pharmacology and the mechanisms by which digitalis influence the diseased myocardium and peripheral circulation in heart failure has gained more complexity within the last years, raising the idea of other mechanisms that might be involved in its action. Particular for ACE inhibition multiple clinical trials have conclusively demonstrated its impact on survival and morbidity in congestive heart failure. Improvement of clinical outcome as measured in terms of fewer hospitalizations and improvement of symptoms in patients receiving digitalis seems to be comparable to patients receiving beta-blockers additional to diuretics and ACE inhibitors, an entirely different approach to the treatment of heart failure. Despite initial improvement of hemodynamics it now appears that there is no survival benefit found for digitalis in the management of heart failure.

Value of digoxin in heart failure and sinus rhythm: new features of an old drug?

Digoxin has been a controversial drug since its introduction >200 years ago. Although its efficacy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation is clear, its value in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm has often been questioned. In the 1980s, reports of some large-scale trials indicated that digoxin, with or without vasodilators or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, reduced signs and symptoms of congestive heart failure and improved exercise tolerance. This beneficial influence was mainly found in patients with more advanced heart failure and dilated ventricles, whereas the effect in those with mild disease appeared to be less pronounced. In the last few years, new data have shown that digoxin may also have clinical value in mild heart failure, either when used in combination with other drugs or when administered alone. As neurohumoral activation has increasingly been recognized to be a contributing factor in the disease progression of chronic heart failure, the modulating effects of digoxin on neurohumoral and autonomic status have received more attention. Also, there is evidence that relatively low doses of digoxin may be at least as effective as higher doses and have a lower incidence of side effects. Further, the recognition that the use of digoxin too early after myocardial infarction may be harmful and the development of other drugs, in particular angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, have obviously changed the place of digoxin in the treatment of chronic heart failure. The large-scale survival trial by the Digitalis Investigators Group (DIG), whose preliminary results have recently been presented, has shown that although digoxin has a neutral effect on total mortality during long-term treatment, it reduces the number of hospital admissions and deaths due to worsening heart failure. The potentially new features of the old drug digoxin are discussed in this review.