A Comparison Of Single Versus Dual Treatment With Stabilizers And Silencers In Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy

IF 8.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiac Failure Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.10.019
Joban Vaishnav, Lisa Yanek, Yazan Alshawkani, Bairavi Shankar, Daniel Tsottles, Isaiah Norman, Jennifer Barranco, Mark Ranek, Kavita Sharma, Michael Polydefkis
{"title":"A Comparison Of Single Versus Dual Treatment With Stabilizers And Silencers In Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy","authors":"Joban Vaishnav,&nbsp;Lisa Yanek,&nbsp;Yazan Alshawkani,&nbsp;Bairavi Shankar,&nbsp;Daniel Tsottles,&nbsp;Isaiah Norman,&nbsp;Jennifer Barranco,&nbsp;Mark Ranek,&nbsp;Kavita Sharma,&nbsp;Michael Polydefkis","doi":"10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.10.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Treatment for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) with TTR stabilization or gene silencing depends on presence of pathogenic variant and phenotype (cardiomyopathy v neuropathy). There are limited data on efficacy of dual treatment with TTR stabilizer and silencer.</div></div><div><h3>Hypothesis</h3><div>We hypothesize dual treatment with stabilizers and silencers will confer no added benefit compared to single agent treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients seen at our center with a diagnosis of ATTR-CM treated with either stabilizer (Tafamidis, Diflunisal), silencer (Patisiran, Vutisiran), or both (stabilizer and silencer) for &gt;6 months were included. Mortality data was collected through 5 years from diagnosis. Characteristics for single v dual treatment groups were compared using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, or t-tests or Wilcoxon tests. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess relationships with mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 183 patients, 144 (79%) were on single agent, including 132 (72%) on stabilizer, and 13 (7%) on silencer and 38 (21%) were on dual treatment with stabilizer and silencer. Patients on dual treatment were younger (70.1 [8.3] v 76.1 [9.0] yrs), more likely hereditary (79.0% v 43.9%), had higher eGFR, lower NT-proBNP, and less likely on loop diuretic (39.5 v 69.9%) at baseline, all p&lt;0.05. There was no difference in sex, race, or NAC stage by groups at baseline (<strong>Table</strong>). K-M curves showed significantly superior survival with dual treatment (log-rank p-value 0.009, <strong>Figure</strong>). In univariate Cox analysis, dual treatment significantly reduced risk of death (HR 0.363, 95% CI 0.164-0.801, p&lt;0.05); however, in multivariate model including age, dual treatment was no longer statistically significant (HR 0.468, 95% CI 0.21-1.07 p=0.07), though age was significantly associated with risk of death (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.004-1.07, p=0.025).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In a large ATTR-CM cohort, we found that dual treatment with stabilizers and silencers was not associated with reduction in risk of death when adjusted for age. While larger scale studies are needed, given the expense of current FDA approved treatments, our findings suggest that dual treatment is unlikely to be cost effective or of incremental clinical benefit. Future studies are needed to determine optimal treatment, stabilizer or silencer, for the various phenotypes associated with ATTR-CM.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15204,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Failure","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 184-185"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107191642400441X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Treatment for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) with TTR stabilization or gene silencing depends on presence of pathogenic variant and phenotype (cardiomyopathy v neuropathy). There are limited data on efficacy of dual treatment with TTR stabilizer and silencer.

Hypothesis

We hypothesize dual treatment with stabilizers and silencers will confer no added benefit compared to single agent treatment.

Methods

Patients seen at our center with a diagnosis of ATTR-CM treated with either stabilizer (Tafamidis, Diflunisal), silencer (Patisiran, Vutisiran), or both (stabilizer and silencer) for >6 months were included. Mortality data was collected through 5 years from diagnosis. Characteristics for single v dual treatment groups were compared using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, or t-tests or Wilcoxon tests. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess relationships with mortality.

Results

Of 183 patients, 144 (79%) were on single agent, including 132 (72%) on stabilizer, and 13 (7%) on silencer and 38 (21%) were on dual treatment with stabilizer and silencer. Patients on dual treatment were younger (70.1 [8.3] v 76.1 [9.0] yrs), more likely hereditary (79.0% v 43.9%), had higher eGFR, lower NT-proBNP, and less likely on loop diuretic (39.5 v 69.9%) at baseline, all p<0.05. There was no difference in sex, race, or NAC stage by groups at baseline (Table). K-M curves showed significantly superior survival with dual treatment (log-rank p-value 0.009, Figure). In univariate Cox analysis, dual treatment significantly reduced risk of death (HR 0.363, 95% CI 0.164-0.801, p<0.05); however, in multivariate model including age, dual treatment was no longer statistically significant (HR 0.468, 95% CI 0.21-1.07 p=0.07), though age was significantly associated with risk of death (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.004-1.07, p=0.025).

Conclusion

In a large ATTR-CM cohort, we found that dual treatment with stabilizers and silencers was not associated with reduction in risk of death when adjusted for age. While larger scale studies are needed, given the expense of current FDA approved treatments, our findings suggest that dual treatment is unlikely to be cost effective or of incremental clinical benefit. Future studies are needed to determine optimal treatment, stabilizer or silencer, for the various phenotypes associated with ATTR-CM.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转甲状腺素淀粉样心肌病单药与双药稳定剂和消音器的比较
转甲状腺素淀粉样心肌病(atr - cm)的TTR稳定或基因沉默治疗取决于致病变异和表型(心肌病或神经病)的存在。关于TTR稳定剂和消声器双重治疗的疗效数据有限。假设我们假设与单一药物治疗相比,稳定剂和消声器的双重治疗不会带来额外的益处。方法纳入在本中心就诊的诊断为atr - cm的患者,患者接受稳定剂(他法米地、双氟尼拉)、消声器(帕西兰、武替西兰)或两者(稳定剂和消声器)治疗6个月。死亡率数据从诊断后5年内收集。采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验、t检验或Wilcoxon检验比较单、双治疗组的特征。Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox比例风险回归模型用于评估与死亡率的关系。结果183例患者中,144例(79%)采用单药治疗,其中稳定剂132例(72%),消音器13例(7%),稳定剂和消音器联合治疗38例(21%)。接受双重治疗的患者更年轻(70.1 [8.3]v 76.1[9.0]岁),更有可能遗传(79.0% v 43.9%), eGFR较高,NT-proBNP较低,在基线时使用利尿剂的可能性较低(39.5 v 69.9%),均p < 0.05。在基线时,各组在性别、种族或NAC分期方面没有差异(表)。K-M曲线显示双重治疗的生存率显著提高(log-rank p值0.009,图)。在单因素Cox分析中,双重治疗显著降低了死亡风险(HR 0.363, 95% CI 0.164-0.801, p<0.05);然而,在包括年龄在内的多变量模型中,双重治疗不再具有统计学意义(HR 0.468, 95% CI 0.21-1.07 p=0.07),尽管年龄与死亡风险显著相关(HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.004-1.07, p=0.025)。结论:在一个大型的atr - cm队列中,我们发现,在调整年龄后,稳定剂和沉默剂的双重治疗与死亡风险降低无关。虽然需要更大规模的研究,但考虑到目前FDA批准的治疗费用,我们的研究结果表明,双重治疗不太可能具有成本效益或增加临床获益。未来的研究需要确定与atr - cm相关的各种表型的最佳治疗方法,稳定剂或消声器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Journal of Cardiac Failure 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
653
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Failure publishes original, peer-reviewed communications of scientific excellence and review articles on clinical research, basic human studies, animal studies, and bench research with potential clinical applications to heart failure - pathogenesis, etiology, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanisms, assessment, prevention, and treatment.
期刊最新文献
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Integrating Pharmacologic, Device, and Advanced Heart Failure Therapies. Performance of the HFpEF-ABA, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF Algorithms in HFpEF: A Participant-Level Pooled Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Importance of the Physiological Examination in Cardiogenic Shock. Table of Contents Masthead
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1