Key result
Bucindolol cuts 24-week AF burden ~33% vs. metoprolol in ADRB1 Arg389Arg heart failure.
Why the study?
In the GENETIC-AF trial, bucindolol and metoprolol succinate showed similar results for time to first AF event, but AF burden and other rhythm control measures were not analyzed.
Does genetically targeted bucindolol reduce atrial fibrillation burden compared to metoprolol in patients with heart failure and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype?
RCT (n=257)
Double-blind
1:1 centralized, stratified by HF etiology, LVEF, device type, and rhythm
Yes
Does genetically targeted bucindolol reduce atrial fibrillation burden compared to metoprolol in patients with heart failure and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype?
Effect estimate: 33% reduction
Absolute Event Rate: 24.4% vs 36.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Bucindolol significantly reduces atrial fibrillation burden and the need for adjunctive rhythm control interventions compared to metoprolol in patients with heart failure who possess the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype.
Supports genotype-guided bucindolol over metoprolol to reduce AF burden in HF; extends GENETIC-AF to continuous device-monitored endpoints.
Background: Bucindolol is a genetically targeted β-blocker/mild vasodilator with the unique pharmacological properties of sympatholysis and ADRB1 Arg389 receptor inverse agonism. In the GENETIC-AF trial (Genotype-Directed Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Bucindolol and Toprol-XL for the Prevention of Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation/Atrial Flutter in Patients With Heart Failure) conducted in a genetically defined heart failure population at high risk for recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF), similar results were observed for bucindolol and metoprolol succinate for the primary end point of time to first AF event; however, AF burden and other rhythm control measures were not analyzed. Methods: The prevalence of ECGs in normal sinus rhythm, AF interventions for rhythm control (cardioversion, ablation, and antiarrhythmic drugs) and biomarkers were evaluated in the overall population entering efficacy follow-up (N=257). AF burden was evaluated for 24 weeks in the device substudy (N=67). Results: In 257 patients with heart failure, the mean age was 65.6±10.0 years, 18% were female, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 36%, and 51% had persistent AF. Cumulative 24-week AF burden was 24.4% (95% CI, 18.5–30.2) for bucindolol and 36.7% (95% CI, 30.0–43.5) for metoprolol (33% reduction, P <0.001). Daily AF burden at the end of follow-up was 15.1% (95% CI, 3.2–27.0) for bucindolol and 34.7% (95% CI, 17.9–51.2) for metoprolol (55% reduction, P <0.001). For the metoprolol and bucindolol respective groups, the prevalence of ECGs in normal sinus rhythm was 4.20 and 3.03 events per patient (39% increase in the bucindolol group, P <0.001), while the rate of AF interventions was 0.56 and 0.82 events per patient (32% reduction for bucindolol, P =0.011). Reductions in plasma norepinephrine ( P =0.038) and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide; P =0.009) were also observed with bucindolol compared with metoprolol. Conclusions: Compared with metoprolol, bucindolol reduced AF burden, improved maintenance of sinus rhythm, and lowered the need for additional rhythm control interventions in patients with heart failure and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01970501.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piccini et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Heart failure and symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation with ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype (n=257). Bucindolol vs. Metoprolol succinate 200 mg once daily (with placebo dose for blinding) was evaluated on Cumulative 24-week atrial fibrillation burden (33% reduction, p=<0.001). Bucindolol reduced cumulative 24-week atrial fibrillation burden by 33% compared to metoprolol in patients with heart failure and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: