logo
Can Cardiology's Oldest Drug Make a Comeback?

Can Cardiology's Oldest Drug Make a Comeback?

Medscape4 hours ago

Cardiac glycosides derived from the foxglove plant have been used in cardiology for two centuries, but digoxin and digitoxin have gradually fallen out of favor and are now considered controversial in heart failure treatment.
The early rationale for the use of glycosides in heart failure stemmed from the 1997 DIG trial comparing digoxin to placebo — both in combination with standard therapy — in 6800 patients with heart failure. People with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) who used the drug were less likely to require hospitalization, but the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups.
'Digoxin/digitoxin received a class 1 recommendation in earlier heart failure guidelines, but this has since been downgraded to a weaker class 2b,' in light of therapeutic advances, Gregg Fonarow, MD, told Medscape Medical News .
Can New Study Findings Resurrect an Old Drug?
Heart failure medications have evolved substantially in the quarter-century since the DIG trial, said Fonarow, who directs the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center and is the co-director of UCLA's Preventative Cardiology Program. Two new trials are reexamining digitoxin and digoxin to see if they offer any benefit over and above the 'fantastic 4' of heart failure pharmacotherapy: Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and SGLT2 inhibitors.
At this year's Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2025 in Belgrade, Serbia, investigators reported early data from the DIGIT-HF trial, which is comparing digitoxin or placebo in combination with guideline-directed therapy in 1212 patients with symptomatic HFrEF.
'We started DIGIT-HF to demonstrate whether digitoxin at low serum concentrations improves outcomes on top of a modern guideline-directed medical therapy and to show that the use of digitoxin is safe,' lead investigator Udo Bavendiek, MD, told Medscape Medical News . 'The latter is of particular importance because cardiac glycosides are needed for effective frequency control in patients with atrial fibrillation and HFrEF when beta-blocker treatment alone is not enough for effective rate control.'
Results should arrive later this year, but Bavendiek, of Hannover Medical School in Hannover, Germany, said the study population is more complex relative to the subjects in pivotal trials of other contemporary therapies for heart failure.
DIGIT-HF patients had a 'pronounced HF symptomatic burden,' Bavendiek and his co-authors wrote in the European Journal of Heart Failure , but also were receiving 'superior implementation of contemporary HF treatment,' including guideline-directed medications: 40% were receiving ARNI, 70% MRA, 64% had a cardioverter-defibrillator, and 25% had received cardiac resynchronization therapy.
If digitoxin shows a benefit in this severely ill population already on optimized therapy, this finding would be of great interest, Bavendiek told Medscape Medical News . So far, use of digitoxin appears safe in this population, with no new safety signals observed. The investigators opted for digitoxin because its hepatic excretion is preferred in patients with impaired kidney function, as opposed to digoxin, which is excreted via the kidneys.
Another ongoing trial with the potential to inform the use of glycosides is the DECISION study of more than 1000 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50%. Unlike DIGIT-HF, the DECISION trial uses low-dose digoxin, said lead investigator Dirk Jan van Veldhuisen, MD, of University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands. This decision was based on sub-analyses of the DIG trial suggesting serum concentrations of digoxin > 1.2 ng/mL were associated with increased mortality, while more favorable outcomes were seen with lower concentrations. In DECISION, the target serum concentration is 0.5-0.9 ng/mL The DECISION investigators also enrolled more women to develop a better understanding of the use of digoxin in this population.
Cautionary Tales
The most recent American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of heart failure state glycoside agents can be considered for patients with HFrEF who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical therapy or who cannot tolerate such treatment, with the aim of reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, said Fonarow, who serves as a spokesman for the society.
Outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation might be of particular interest, Fonarow said. 'DIGIT-HF trial randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation. As such, this trial will provide important information on the role of this therapy in patients with HFrEF and atrial fibrillation,' he said.
However, many patients in DIGIT-HF were not receiving all of the 'fantastic four' therapies at baseline, he added. 'For these reasons, the DIGIT-HF trial may not be definitive enough to influence guideline recommendations without confirmation from additional clinical trials.'
Fonarow reported consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bavendiek reported receiving travel support and honoraria from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vital, and institutional research support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harnessing Wearable Data Without Information Overload
Harnessing Wearable Data Without Information Overload

Medscape

time29 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Harnessing Wearable Data Without Information Overload

AMSTERDAM — Here at HLTH Europe 2025, experts discussed how wearable tracking devices are affecting healthcare. From watches and rings to smart bras and nano-thin fabrics, the use of trackers has boomed in recent years. The market is projected to reach €120 billion by 2028. These consumer devices are generating vast quantities of health data and creating opportunities for medical research and personalized medicine, particularly in women's health. However, significant hurdles remain before these data can be integrated into clinical practice. Few devices have undergone rigorous clinical validation, and questions surround equitable access and the security of sensitive health data. 'Companies do their best to make the most out of them, but we still don't use them for the full benefit,' Michiel Winter, MD, a cardiologist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center specializing in digital health, told Medscape Medical News . There is also a risk for unnecessarily alarming users, resulting in people 'showing up at the doctor's office because a measure was flagged by their wearable device — while it's perfectly normal.' Wearables Provide Insight Wearables collect continuous physiological data in a person's real-world environment, which can help overcome major limitations of traditional clinical studies. This is particularly transformative for fields like sleep medicine, explained Ines Ramos Barreiras, EMEA Regional Medical Advisor at Bayer. Ines Ramos Barreiras 'When we take people to the sleeping lab, they never get a natural sleep the way they get it at home,' she said. Wearable devices offer access to much larger datasets that can reveal long-term patterns, which is especially crucial for underdiagnosed conditions in women, such as sleep apnea. Jennifer Kanady, PhD, director of Sleep Health Technology at Samsung Electronics America, noted, 'Sleep apnea is typically thought of as a man's disease. But it is also very prevalent in women, and the women's presentation often looks different.' She emphasized that consumer devices can capture cases missed by traditional pathways. Jennifer Kanady, PhD Translating wearable data into clinical practice remains a challenge. Current healthcare systems are ill-equipped to handle the sheer volume of data, often requiring manual filtering or advanced algorithms to become clinically useful. 'Most of these devices are made for consumers and not for patients, and these are two completely different species,' Winter said. The consensus is that without intelligent algorithms and triage systems to filter the noise, the data are overwhelming. Risk for Data Overload The flood of information from wearables can lead to 'data overload,' warned Elisabeth Roider, MD, PhD, partner and co-founder of InnoMed Advisors. 'People are getting tired of these hundreds and sometimes thousands of markers they're supposed to fulfill. And honestly, most of them do not matter really often.' Elisabeth Roider, MD, PhD This information deluge can generate significant health anxiety and trigger unnecessary clinical visits. 'We get a lot of patients who are worried with no reason,' Winter said, citing young, athletic people who visit a cardiologist because their device flagged a low heart rate during sleep. 'They get worried because they get an alarm. But if you are young and active, that is very normal, and you are taking the spot of somebody who really needs to see me.' Furthermore, systemic barriers related to access and reimbursement persist. 'Most people who are driving the bulk of the cost, particularly in the US healthcare system, are not utilizing wearables,' said Alyssa Jaffee, a partner at 7wire Ventures. Alyssa Jaffee Vulnerable populations, including elderly patients, those with lower socioeconomic status, and non-native language speakers, often struggle to use these devices effectively, widening the gap in health equity. Without proper financial support and a clear reimbursement strategy, these powerful tools will 'remain for the happy few,' Winter concluded.

Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, and Forecasts, 2024-2025 & 2026-2034
Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, and Forecasts, 2024-2025 & 2026-2034

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, and Forecasts, 2024-2025 & 2026-2034

The Global Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market is projected to grow from USD 6.52 Billion in 2025 to USD 10.73 Billion by 2034, at a CAGR of 7.4%. Key growth factors include technological advancements, telemedicine integration, and increased demand in remote areas. North America and Europe lead in adoption while Asia-Pacific shows rapid uptake. Key trends include AI diagnostics, solar-powered units, and digital health integration. Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market Dublin, June 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, and Forecast 2025-2034 | Global Industry Growth, Competitive Landscape, Opportunities, and Challenges" has been added to offering. The Global Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market is projected to reach USD 6.52 Billion by 2025, with a robust CAGR of 7.4%, anticipated to hit USD 10.73 Billion by 2034 This market represents a pivotal segment of mobile healthcare infrastructure, offering diagnostic imaging services through mobile units equipped with cutting-edge radiography, fluoroscopy, CT, or X-ray systems. Designed to serve remote, underserved, or emergency areas, these units are a strategic asset for expanding diagnostic capabilities without costly infrastructural investments. The momentum gained in 2024 is attributed to the rising demand for decentralized healthcare and integration with telemedicine. Technological innovations are leading to lighter, more energy-efficient imaging equipment, while hybrid models with radiology and laboratory capabilities are emerging. North America and Europe are key markets, with Asia-Pacific displaying rapid adoption due to rural health initiatives. Future expansions are expected to integrate AI-assisted diagnostics, solar or electric power synergies, and enhanced digital platform interoperability, rendering mobile scan radiology rooms central to future healthcare mobility. Analysis and Customization: The comprehensive analysis covers latest trends, trade dynamics, and supply-chain aspects, offering up to 10% free customization to address specific client interests. Post-sale support and report customizations are available to align with individual client needs, ensuring an exhaustive understanding of market opportunities and challenges. Who Can Benefit: Top management, strategists, product developers, and investors can harness this research to navigate market landscapes, identify emerging opportunities, analyze competition, and strategize investments effectively. Key Takeaways: Mobile scan radiology rooms facilitate rapid deployment of imaging services in regions lacking fixed infrastructure. Equipped with advanced X-ray, CT, or fluoroscopy machines, coupled with safety features and climate control. Post-pandemic strategies underscore mobile diagnostics for extended public health outreach and care continuity. Hybrid configurations optimize resource-limited settings by combining imaging with point-of-care lab services. Regulatory support in North America and Europe fosters adoption, while Asia-Pacific benefits from governmental health initiatives. Advances in AI and cloud-based diagnostics speed up and improve diagnostic accuracy. Battery, solar, and hybrid electric drive systems enhance mobility and reduce environmental impact. Mobile radiology rooms alleviate hospital wait times, manage overflow, and support satellite facilities. NGOs and private operators leverage these units for diagnostic camps and underserved population outreach. Customizable designs support diverse service deliveries, although workforce training and compliance remain challenges. Direct linkage with digital health platforms facilitates mobile diagnostics' integration into patient care systems. Strategic partnerships with healthcare networks broaden the deployment reach across regions. There is increasing interest in rental and leasing models, enhancing accessibility for smaller healthcare providers. Market Details: Base Year: 2024 Estimated Year: 2025 Forecast Period: 2026-2034 Market Size-Units: USD billion Market Splits Covered: By Product Type, By Application, By End User, By Technology, By Distribution Channel Countries Covered: Includes North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, South and Central America Key Attributes: Report Attribute Details No. of Pages 150 Forecast Period 2025 - 2034 Estimated Market Value (USD) in 2025 $6.52 Billion Forecasted Market Value (USD) by 2034 $12.4 Billion Compound Annual Growth Rate 7.4% Regions Covered Global Companies Featured GE HealthCare Siemens Healthineers Philips Healthcare Canon Medical Systems Corporation Neusoft Medical Systems United Imaging Healthcare Allengers Medical Systems Mobile Healthcare Facilities LLC Medtrucks DMS Imaging Carestream Health Digirad Corporation LG Healthcare Solutions MinFound Medical Systems Shenzhen Anke High-tech Co., Ltd. For more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachment Mobile Scan Radiology Room Market CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Federal Proposals Threaten Provider Taxes
Federal Proposals Threaten Provider Taxes

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Federal Proposals Threaten Provider Taxes

Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to healthcare for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republican House reconciliation bill as well as a more drastic Senate bill, would significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key healthcare policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of healthcare businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over 5 years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for healthcare for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least 5 years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, while the House and Senate bills must be negotiated into one and passed by both chambers of Congress. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The Senate version, released on June 16, would gradually reduce the allowable amount of many provider taxes. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the effort to shrink provider taxes is embedded in both Republican reconciliation bills and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by $800 billion or more. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: Fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this,' Park said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store