Showing papers on "Randomized controlled trial published in 2022"

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients

Abstract: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29.A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group.Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients

Abstract: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain.We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28.A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group.Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).

Commentary concerning treatment of depression in patients with heart failure according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice.

Abstract: See the editorial comment for this article ‘Treating depression in patients with heart failure: what is (not) recommended?’, by Christoph Herrmann-Lingen, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwac092. We read with interest ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice including a new recommendation for not using SSRI, SNRI, and TCA (Class III, Level B).1 The guideline refers to recent metanalysis2 including eight studies, among which there were two randomized controlled trials (RCTs)3,4 and six observational studies. The two analyzed RCTs3,4 have shown safety of sertraline (although this study was not designed to evaluate mortality) and escitalopram, but no benefit over placebo was observed. The metanalytic outcome provides evidence that the use of antidepressants in patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, regardless of whether they had clinical depression or the type of antidepressants they used.3 Such recommendation should be treated with caution as the evidence from randomized studies is limited and the clinical consequences of untreated depression in patients with HF must be taken into consideration. Major depression disorder (MDD) is a chronic and recurrent condition associated with substantial comorbidity of substance use, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment which all contribute to the negative prognosis in HF. The pathophysiology of MDD includes dysregulation in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, autonomous system overdrive, and low-grade systemic inflammation. Depression appears in 20–30% of HF cases and results in increased mortality and morbidity.5 There is a need for head-to-head randomized studies investigating both, the change in depressive symptom severity and the use of antidepressant. One study in the metanalysis6 was based on the prescription of antidepressants in a National Danish Cohort and did not include data on the clinical diagnosis and the severity of depressive symptoms which is a methodological consideration. Measuring of the severity of depression is necessary to answer if antidepressants are harmful because it is possible that ineffectively treated depression increases mortality and not the antidepressants used. In another study from this metanalysis,7 the correlation with higher mortality risk was observed only in case of fluoxetine, but not with other antidepressants and fluoxetine has specific metabolism and can cause more interactions than other SSRIs. Moreover, 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF guideline8 state that adequate conventional treatment of depression should be offered and that there is still no consensus on the best therapy for patients with HF. If it does not recommend pharmacological treatment it can lead to diminishing the significance of this comorbidity in clinical practice. Why bother with diagnosis if the treatment is harmful? The guideline should be placed in context of treatment adherence and rehabilitation of patients with HF.

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor.A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion.In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509.Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related.First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks.Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: a multinational randomized trial

Abstract: The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751 ), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68; P = 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment.

Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies of Aducanumab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract: Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive, irreversible, and fatal disease for which accumulation of amyloid beta is thought to play a key role in pathogenesis. Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid beta. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in early Alzheimer’s disease. EMERGE and ENGAGE were two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global, phase 3 studies of aducanumab in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. These studies involved 348 sites in 20 countries. Participants included 1638 (EMERGE) and 1647 (ENGAGE) patients (aged 50–85 years, confirmed amyloid pathology) who met clinical criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild Alzheimer's disease dementia, of which 1812 (55.2%) completed the study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive aducanumab low dose (3 or 6 mg/kg target dose), high dose (10 mg/kg target dose), or placebo via IV infusion once every 4 weeks over 76 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to week 78 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), an integrated scale that assesses both function and cognition. Other measures included safety assessments; secondary and tertiary clinical outcomes that assessed cognition, function, and behavior; and biomarker endpoints. EMERGE and ENGAGE were halted based on futility analysis of data pooled from the first approximately 50% of enrolled patients; subsequent efficacy analyses included data from a larger data set collected up to futility declaration and followed prespecified statistical analyses. The primary endpoint was met in EMERGE (difference of -0.39 for high-dose aducanumab vs placebo [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.09; P=.012; 22% decrease]) but not in ENGAGE (difference of 0.03, [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.33; P=.833; 2% increase]). Results of biomarker substudies confirmed target engagement and dose-dependent reduction in markers of Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology. The most common adverse event was amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema. Data from EMERGE demonstrated a statistically significant change across all four primary and secondary clinical endpoints. ENGAGE did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints. A dose-and time-dependent reduction in pathophysiological markers of Alzheimer’s disease was observed in both trials.

Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab (T) and durvalumab (D) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): HIMALAYA.

Abstract: 379 Background: A single priming dose of T (anti-CTLA-4) added to D (anti-PD-L1) in the STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D) regimen, formerly T300+D, showed encouraging clinical activity and limited toxicity in a phase 2 uHCC study (Study 22, NCT02519348), suggesting single exposure to T is sufficient to improve upon D activity. HIMALAYA (NCT03298451) evaluated the efficacy and safety of STRIDE or D vs sorafenib (S) in uHCC. Methods: HIMALAYA is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study, in which pts with uHCC and no prior systemic therapy were initially randomized to STRIDE (T 300 mg plus D 1500 mg [one dose] plus D 1500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]), D (1500 mg Q4W), S (400 mg twice daily), or T 75 mg Q4W (4 doses) plus D 1500 mg Q4W (T75+D). Recruitment to T75+D ceased after a planned analysis of Study 22 showed T75+D did not meaningfully differ from D. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) for STRIDE vs S. The secondary objective was OS noninferiority (NI) of D to S (NI margin: 1.08). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v.1.1), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Results: In total, 1171 pts were randomized to STRIDE (N=393), D (N=389), or S (N=389). At data cutoff (DCO), the primary objective was met: OS was significantly improved for STRIDE vs S (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 96% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.92; p=0.0035; Table). D met the objective of OS NI to S (HR, 0.86; 96% CI, 0.73–1.03). ORRs were higher for STRIDE (20.1%) and D (17.0%) than for S (5.1%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 25.8% (STRIDE), 12.9% (D), and 36.9% (S) of pts. Grade 3/4 hepatic TRAEs occurred in 5.9% (STRIDE), 5.2% (D), and 4.5% (S) of pts. No TRAE of esophageal varices hemorrhage occurred. Rates of TRAEs leading to discontinuation were 8.2% (STRIDE), 4.1% (D), and 11.0% (S). Conclusions: HIMALAYA was the first large phase 3 trial with a diverse, representative uHCC population and extensive long-term follow-up to assess both mono- and combination immunotherapy. D was noninferior to S with favorable safety. The combination of a single priming dose of T plus D in STRIDE displayed superior efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile vs S. STRIDE is a proposed, novel, first-line standard of care systemic therapy for uHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03298451. [Table: see text]

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis Guiding Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II Colon Cancer

Abstract: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer continues to be debated. The presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after surgery predicts very poor recurrence-free survival, whereas its absence predicts a low risk of recurrence. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for ctDNA-positive patients is not well understood.We conducted a trial to assess whether a ctDNA-guided approach could reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising recurrence risk. Patients with stage II colon cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to have treatment decisions guided by either ctDNA results or standard clinicopathological features. For ctDNA-guided management, a ctDNA-positive result at 4 or 7 weeks after surgery prompted oxaliplatin-based or fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Patients who were ctDNA-negative were not treated. The primary efficacy end point was recurrence-free survival at 2 years. A key secondary end point was adjuvant chemotherapy use.Of the 455 patients who underwent randomization, 302 were assigned to ctDNA-guided management and 153 to standard management. The median follow-up was 37 months. A lower percentage of patients in the ctDNA-guided group than in the standard-management group received adjuvant chemotherapy (15% vs. 28%; relative risk, 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 2.65). In the evaluation of 2-year recurrence-free survival, ctDNA-guided management was noninferior to standard management (93.5% and 92.4%, respectively; absolute difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.1 to 6.2 [noninferiority margin, -8.5 percentage points]). Three-year recurrence-free survival was 86.4% among ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and 92.5% among ctDNA-negative patients who did not.A ctDNA-guided approach to the treatment of stage II colon cancer reduced adjuvant chemotherapy use without compromising recurrence-free survival. (Supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; DYNAMIC Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000381583.).

Effect of Sotrovimab on Hospitalization or Death Among High-risk Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Older patients and those with comorbidities who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be at increased risk of hospitalization and death. Sotrovimab is a neutralizing antibody for the treatment of high-risk patients to prevent COVID-19 progression. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of sotrovimab in preventing progression of mild to moderate COVID-19 to severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial including 1057 nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate COVID-19 and at least 1 risk factor for progression conducted at 57 sites in Brazil, Canada, Peru, Spain, and the US from August 27, 2020, through March 11, 2021; follow-up data were collected through April 8, 2021. Interventions Patients were randomized (1:1) to an intravenous infusion with 500 mg of sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 progression through day 29 (all-cause hospitalization lasting >24 hours for acute illness management or death); 5 secondary outcomes were tested in hierarchal order, including a composite of all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization of any duration for acute illness management, or death through day 29 and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation. Results Enrollment was stopped early for efficacy at the prespecified interim analysis. Among 1057 patients randomized (median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-62], 20% were ≥65 years of age, and 65% Latinx), the median duration of follow-up was 103 days for sotrovimab and 102 days for placebo. All-cause hospitalization lasting longer than 24 hours or death was significantly reduced with sotrovimab (6/528 [1%]) vs placebo (30/529 [6%]) (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.50]; absolute difference, -4.53% [95% CI, -6.70% to -2.37%]; P < .001). Four of the 5 secondary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of sotrovimab, including reduced ED visit, hospitalization, or death (13/528 [2%] for sotrovimab vs 39/529 [7%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.63]; absolute difference, -4.91% [95% CI, -7.50% to -2.32%]; P < .001) and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 (7/528 [1%] for sotrovimab vs 28/529 [5%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.59]; absolute difference, -3.97% [95% CI, -6.11% to -1.82%]; P = .002). Adverse events were infrequent and similar between treatment groups (22% for sotrovimab vs 23% for placebo); the most common events were diarrhea with sotrovimab (n = 8; 2%) and COVID-19 pneumonia with placebo (n = 22; 4%). Conclusions and Relevance Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of disease progression, a single intravenous dose of sotrovimab, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of a composite end point of all-cause hospitalization or death through day 29. The findings support sotrovimab as a treatment option for nonhospitalized, high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, although efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged since the study was completed is unknown. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04545060.

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Abstract: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support.DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome).No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support.European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation.For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Nirsevimab for Prevention of RSV in Healthy Late-Preterm and Term Infants

Abstract: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infection and hospitalization in infants. Nirsevimab is a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein that has an extended half-life. The efficacy and safety of nirsevimab in healthy late-preterm and term infants are uncertain. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, infants who had been born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo before the start of an RSV season. The primary efficacy end point was medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. The secondary efficacy end point was hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. A total of 1490 infants underwent randomization: 994 were assigned to the nirsevimab group and 496 to the placebo group. Medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 12 infants (1.2%) in the nirsevimab group and in 25 infants (5.0%) in the placebo group; these findings correspond to an efficacy of 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.6 to 87.1; P<0.001) for nirsevimab. Hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 6 infants (0.6%) in the nirsevimab group and in 8 infants (1.6%) in the placebo group (efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, −8.6 to 86.8; P=0.07). Among infants with data available to day 361, antidrug antibodies after baseline were detected in 58 of 951 (6.1%) in the nirsevimab group and in 5 of 473 (1.1%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 67 of 987 infants (6.8%) who received nirsevimab and in 36 of 491 infants (7.3%) who received placebo. A single injection of nirsevimab administered before the RSV season protected healthy late-preterm and term infants from medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi; MELODY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03979313.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYNirsevimab for RSV Prevention in Late-Preterm and Term Infants 01:37

Effect of Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Daily Liraglutide on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity Without Diabetes

Abstract: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management.To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity.Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338).Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85).The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points.Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide.Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

Abstract: Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited.In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival.Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates.Organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME, and postoperative chemotherapy.

Vitamin D and marine omega 3 fatty acid supplementation and incident autoimmune disease: VITAL randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Abstract Objective To investigate whether vitamin D and marine derived long chain omega 3 fatty acids reduce autoimmune disease risk. Design Vitamin D and omega 3 trial (VITAL), a nationwide, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design. Setting Nationwide in the United States. Participants 25 871 participants, consisting of 12 786 men ≥50 years and 13 085 women ≥55 years at enrollment. Interventions Vitamin D (2000 IU/day) or matched placebo, and omega 3 fatty acids (1000 mg/day) or matched placebo. Participants self-reported all incident autoimmune diseases from baseline to a median of 5.3 years of follow-up; these diseases were confirmed by extensive medical record review. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test the effects of vitamin D and omega 3 fatty acids on autoimmune disease incidence. Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was all incident autoimmune diseases confirmed by medical record review: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, and all others. Results 25 871 participants were enrolled and followed for a median of 5.3 years. 18 046 self-identified as non-Hispanic white, 5106 as black, and 2152 as other racial and ethnic groups. The mean age was 67.1 years. For the vitamin D arm, 123 participants in the treatment group and 155 in the placebo group had a confirmed autoimmune disease (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.99, P=0.05). In the omega 3 fatty acids arm, 130 participants in the treatment group and 148 in the placebo group had a confirmed autoimmune disease (0.85, 0.67 to 1.08, P=0.19). Compared with the reference arm (vitamin D placebo and omega 3 fatty acid placebo; 88 with confirmed autoimmune disease), 63 participants who received vitamin D and omega 3 fatty acids (0.69, 0.49 to 0.96), 60 who received only vitamin D (0.68, 0.48 to 0.94), and 67 who received only omega 3 fatty acids (0.74, 0.54 to 1.03) had confirmed autoimmune disease. Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation for five years, with or without omega 3 fatty acids, reduced autoimmune disease by 22%, while omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant). Both treatment arms showed larger effects than the reference arm (vitamin D placebo and omega 3 fatty acid placebo). Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01351805 and NCT01169259

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in 2 Phase 3 Studies Evaluating Aducanumab in Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease

Abstract: The EMERGE and ENGAGE phase 3 randomized clinical trials of aducanumab provide a robust data set to characterize amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) that occur with treatment with aducanumab, an amyloid-β (Aβ)-targeting monoclonal antibody, in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease or mild Alzheimer disease dementia.To describe the radiographic and clinical characteristics of ARIA that occurred in EMERGE and ENGAGE.Secondary analysis of data from the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials, which were 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 randomized clinical trials that compared low-dose and high-dose aducanumab treatment with placebo among participants at 348 sites across 20 countries. Enrollment occurred from August 2015 to July 2018, and the trials were terminated early (March 21, 2019) based on a futility analysis. The combined studies consisted of a total of 3285 participants with Alzheimer disease who received 1 or more doses of placebo (n = 1087) or aducanumab (n = 2198; 2752 total person-years of exposure) during the placebo-controlled period. Primary data analyses were performed from November 2019 to July 2020, with additional analyses performed through July 2021.Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to high-dose or low-dose intravenous aducanumab or placebo once every 4 weeks. Dose titration was used as a risk-minimization strategy.Brain magnetic resonance imaging was used to monitor patients for ARIA; associated symptoms were reported as adverse events.Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. A total of 764 participants from EMERGE and 709 participants from ENGAGE were categorized as withdrawn before study completion, most often owing to early termination of the study by the sponsor. Unless otherwise specified, all results represent analyses from the 10-mg/kg group. During the placebo-controlled period, 425 of 1029 patients (41.3%) experienced ARIA, with serious cases occurring in 14 patients (1.4%). ARIA-edema (ARIA-E) was the most common adverse event (362 of 1029 [35.2%]), and 263 initial events (72.7%) occurred within the first 8 doses of aducanumab; 94 participants (26.0%) with an event exhibited symptoms. Common associated symptoms among 103 patients with symptomatic ARIA-E or ARIA-H were headache (48 [46.6%]), confusion (15 [14.6%]), dizziness (11 [10.7%]), and nausea (8 [7.8%]). Incidence of ARIA-E was highest in aducanumab-treated participants who were apolipoprotein E ε4 allele carriers. Most events (479 of 488 [98.2%]) among those with ARIA-E resolved radiographically; 404 of 488 (82.8%) resolved within 16 weeks. In the placebo group, 29 of 1076 participants (2.7%) had ARIA-E (apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers: 16 of 742 [2.2%]; noncarriers, 13 of 334 [3.9%]). ARIA-microhemorrhage and ARIA-superficial siderosis occurred in 197 participants (19.1%) and 151 participants (14.7%), respectively.In this integrated safety data set from EMERGE and ENGAGE, the most common adverse event in the 10-mg/kg group was ARIA-E, which occurred in 362 of the 1029 patients (35.2%) in the 10-mg/kg group with at least 1 postbaseline MRI scan, with 94 patients (26.0%) experiencing associated symptoms. The most common associated symptom was headache.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02484547, NCT02477800.

Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy

Abstract: The benefits and safety of the treatment of mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg) during pregnancy are uncertain. Data are needed on whether a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes without compromising fetal growth. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. In this open-label, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at a gestational age of less than 23 weeks to receive antihypertensive medications recommended for use in pregnancy (active-treatment group) or to receive no such treatment unless severe hypertension (systolic pressure, ≥160 mm Hg; or diastolic pressure, ≥105 mm Hg) developed (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of preeclampsia with severe features, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks’ gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The safety outcome was small-for-gestational-age birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age. Secondary outcomes included composites of serious neonatal or maternal complications, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. A total of 2408 women were enrolled in the trial. The incidence of a primary-outcome event was lower in the active-treatment group than in the control group (30.2% vs. 37.0%), for an adjusted risk ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The percentage of small-for-gestational-age birth weights below the 10th percentile was 11.2% in the active-treatment group and 10.4% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.76). The incidence of serious maternal complications was 2.1% and 2.8%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.26), and the incidence of severe neonatal complications was 2.0% and 2.6% (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.30). The incidence of any preeclampsia in the two groups was 24.4% and 31.1%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.89), and the incidence of preterm birth was 27.5% and 31.4% (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99). In pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension, a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg was associated with better pregnancy outcomes than a strategy of reserving treatment only for severe hypertension, with no increase in the risk of small-for-gestational-age birth weight. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CHAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02299414.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYTreating Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy 02:00

Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma

Abstract: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine

Abstract: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older.In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose.A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3).A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Effect of Intra-arrest Transport, Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, and Immediate Invasive Assessment and Treatment on Functional Neurologic Outcome in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has poor outcome. Whether intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), and immediate invasive assessment and treatment (invasive strategy) is beneficial in this setting remains uncertain. Objective To determine whether an early invasive approach in adults with refractory OHCA improves neurologically favorable survival. Design, Setting, and Participants Single-center, randomized clinical trial in Prague, Czech Republic, of adults with a witnessed OHCA of presumed cardiac origin without return of spontaneous circulation. A total of 256 participants, of a planned sample size of 285, were enrolled between March 2013 and October 2020. Patients were observed until death or day 180 (last patient follow-up ended on March 30, 2021). Interventions In the invasive strategy group (n = 124), mechanical compression was initiated, followed by intra-arrest transport to a cardiac center for ECPR and immediate invasive assessment and treatment. Regular advanced cardiac life support was continued on-site in the standard strategy group (n = 132). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was survival with a good neurologic outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 1-2) at 180 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included neurologic recovery at 30 days (defined as CPC 1-2 at any time within the first 30 days) and cardiac recovery at 30 days (defined as no need for pharmacological or mechanical cardiac support for at least 24 hours). Results The trial was stopped at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board when prespecified criteria for futility were met. Among 256 patients (median age, 58 years; 44 [17%] women), 256 (100%) completed the trial. In the main analysis, 39 patients (31.5%) in the invasive strategy group and 29 (22.0%) in the standard strategy group survived to 180 days with good neurologic outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.63 [95% CI, 0.93 to 2.85]; difference, 9.5% [95% CI, -1.3% to 20.1%]; P = .09). At 30 days, neurologic recovery had occurred in 38 patients (30.6%) in the invasive strategy group and in 24 (18.2%) in the standard strategy group (OR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.57]; difference, 12.4% [95% CI, 1.9% to 22.7%]; P = .02), and cardiac recovery had occurred in 54 (43.5%) and 45 (34.1%) patients, respectively (OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.47]; difference, 9.4% [95% CI, -2.5% to 21%]; P = .12). Bleeding occurred more frequently in the invasive strategy vs standard strategy group (31% vs 15%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the bundle of early intra-arrest transport, ECPR, and invasive assessment and treatment did not significantly improve survival with neurologically favorable outcome at 180 days compared with standard resuscitation. However, the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666.

Effect of Subcutaneous Tirzepatide vs Placebo Added to Titrated Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-5 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance The effects of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, as an addition to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes have not been described. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide added to insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted at 45 medical research centers and hospitals in 8 countries (enrollment from August 30, 2019, to March 20, 2020; follow-up completed January 13, 2021) in 475 adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control while treated with once-daily insulin glargine with or without metformin. Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of 5-mg (n = 116), 10-mg (n = 119), or 15-mg (n = 120) tirzepatide or volume-matched placebo (n = 120) over 40 weeks. Tirzepatide was initiated at 2.5 mg/week and escalated by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was achieved. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 40. The 5 key secondary end points included mean change in body weight and percentage of patients achieving prespecified HbA1c levels. Results Among 475 randomized participants (211 [44%] women; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.9] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.31% [0.85%]), 451 (94.9%) completed the trial. Treatment was prematurely discontinued by 10% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 12% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, 18% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group, and 3% in the placebo group. At week 40, mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.40% with 10-mg tirzepatide and -2.34% with 15-mg tirzepatide vs -0.86% with placebo (10 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.53% [97.5% CI, -1.80% to -1.27%]; 15 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.47% [97.5% CI, -1.75% to -1.20%]; P < .001 for both). Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.11% with 5-mg tirzepatide (difference vs placebo, -1.24% [95% CI, -1.48% to -1.01%]; P < .001]). Mean body weight change from baseline was -5.4 kg with 5-mg tirzepatide, -7.5 kg with 10-mg tirzepatide, -8.8 kg with 15-mg tirzepatide and 1.6 kg with placebo (5 mg: difference, -7.1 kg [95% CI, -8.7 to -5.4]; 10 mg: difference, -9.1 kg [95% CI, -10.7 to -7.5]; 15 mg: difference, -10.5 kg [95% CI, -12.1 to -8.8]; P < .001 for all). Higher percentages of patients treated with tirzepatide vs those treated with placebo had HbA1c less than 7% (85%-90% vs 34%; P < .001 for all). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups vs placebo group were diarrhea (12%-21% vs 10%) and nausea (13%-18% vs 3%). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control despite treatment with insulin glargine, the addition of subcutaneous tirzepatide, compared with placebo, to titrated insulin glargine resulted in statistically significant improvements in glycemic control after 40 weeks. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04039503.