• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Drug Delivery Business

  • Clinical Trials
  • Research & Development
  • Drug-Device Combinations
  • FDA
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Policy

HRS 2018: Study questions benefit of ablation over drug therapy for atrial fibrillation

May 10, 2018 By Sarah Faulkner

HRS 2018Long-awaited data released today from a large clinical trial comparing catheter ablation with drug therapy in treating atrial fibrillation showed no significant benefit for ablation, according to Dr. Douglas Packer, who presented the findings today at the annual meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society in Boston.

The 2,204-patient trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and industry players Medtronic (NYSE:MDT), Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX), Abbott (NYSE:ABT) and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) unit BioSense Webster, focused on a primary composite endpoint of total mortality, disabling stroke, bleeding and cardiac arrest. When considering all patients as randomized, Packer said, the researchers saw no difference between the control and treatment arms.

Researchers included patients who “warranted therapy” due to their under-treated paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation and followed them, on average, for 48 months. The patients were randomized 1:1 to either ablation or medical therapy with rate or rhythm control drugs.

Packer pointed out that there were concerns in the sub-group analyses, mainly that a number of patients crossed over between the treatment and control arms. Many patients who were randomized to ablation did not actually receive ablation therapy, due to patient preference or cost, he noted.

That said, for those that received ablation therapy, there was a benefit in relative risk reduction, Packer said.

“You can’t get a benefit from the therapy if you don’t get the therapy,” he explained.

There was a 47% drop in the relative risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation for patients who received ablation compared to those who received drug therapy, he said.

The takeaway, according to Packer, is that ablation may be right for patients in particular sub-groups – like those who are under the age of 65 or have a history of heart failure – but it would be wrong to assume that all atrial fibrillation patients should be ablated based on the data from Cabana.

“That’s simply not the case,” he said. “We do think that ablation is an acceptable treatment strategy for treating atrial fibrillation with low adverse events rates, which surprised us quite a bit, in higher-risk patients.”

“I think the bulk of data now presented suggest at the very least [ablation] is equivalent, and in many cases probably superior to drug therapy. I think patients should be allowed to have it as first-line treatment by people who know what they’re doing,” Dr. Eric Prystowsky said at HRS, commenting on the study.

“I would recommend for everyone here to avoid the usual ‘trial creep’ and that means you have to read the paper when it comes to look carefully at who was in the trial,” he added, pointing out that the results are largely dependent on patient sub-groups.

Parker also said that they will soon publish analyses relating to quality of life measures in patients who were ablated.

“Sometimes there are patients who are so burdened by their atrial fibrillation that they don’t care about mortality. They care about quality of life,” he said.

“Clinical trials give you data and they give you knowledge, but they don’t give you wisdom or judgement,” Dr. Robert Sheldon, of the University of Calgary, said. “I think that Cabana should increase your thinking and change your thinking, but what it does for each particular patient depends upon the patient.”

Asked whether the Cabana results will affect how she advises patients, Dr. Christine Albert of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital said she wants to review the data in detail.

“I want to see the paper,” Albert said.

Filed Under: Cardiovascular, Clinical Trials, Featured, Pharmaceuticals, Vascular, Wall Street Beat Tagged With: Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, HRS 2018, Medtronic, St. Jude

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

  • Shareholder lawsuit over BD’s Alaris pumps recall moves forward
  • Embecta stock soars on first full-quarter results after BD spinoff
  • Abbott will spend $450M to up FreeStyle Libre production in Ireland
  • Better Therapeutics Q2 beats Street as it prepares to submit diabetes therapy for FDA review
  • Study backs Fluidx embolic device for vessel filling

Primary Sidebar

MEDTECH 100 INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
Need Drug Delivery Business News in a minute? We Deliver!
Drug Delivery Enewsletters get you caught up on all the mission critical news you need in med tech. Sign up today.

Signup for the newsletter

Footer

Drug Delivery Business News Logo

MassDevice Medical NETWORK

MassDevice
DeviceTalks
Medical Tubing & Extrusion
Medical Design & Outsourcing
MedTech100 Index
Drug Discovery & Development
Pharmaceutical Processing World
Medical Design Sourcing
R&D World

DRUG DELIVERY BUSINESS NEWS

Subscribe to Drug Delivery’s E-Newsletter
Advertise with us
About
Contact us
Privacy
Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
Add us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterConnect with us on LinkedIn

Copyright © 2022 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Advertise | Privacy Policy | RSS