Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this trial in persons with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, combination therapy with finerenone and empagliflozin led to a greater reduction in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio than either drug alone.

Abstract Rationale A decade after drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) was released on the market worldwide, its benefit-to-risk ratio remains a matter of debate. Objectives The current investigator-led trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAA, in combination with low-dose steroids, in adults with persistent septic shock. Methods This was a multicenter (24 intensive care units), placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial design trial in which adults with persistent septic shock and no contraindication to DAA were randomly assigned to DAA alone (24 μg/kg/h for 96 h), hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone alone, their respective combinations, or their respective placebos. Primary outcome was mortality rate on Day 90. Measurements and Main Results On October 25, 2011, the trial was suspended after the withdrawal from the market of DAA. The Scientific Committee decided to continue the trial according to a two parallel group design comparing low-dose steroids with their placebos and to analyze the effects of DAA on patients included before trial suspension. At the time trial was suspended, 411 patients had been recruited, 208 had received DAA, and 203 had received its placebo. There was no significant interaction between DAA and low-dose steroids (P = 0.47). On Day 90, there were 99 deaths (47.6%) among the 208 patients receiving DAA and 94 deaths (46.3%) among the 203 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.79). There was no evidence of a difference between DAA and its placebo for any secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. Conclusions In adults with established and severe septic shock, DAA showed no evidence of benefit or harm. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00625209).

Three drug classes (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors [ARNIs], and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers. Each class was previously studied with different background therapies and the expected treatment benefits with their combined use are not known. Here, we used data from three previously reported randomised controlled trials to estimate lifetime gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive therapy versus conventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF. In this cross-trial analysis, we estimated treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy (ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor) versus conventional therapy (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal trials, EMPHASIS-HF (n=2737), PARADIGM-HF (n=8399), and DAPA-HF (n=4744). Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure; we also assessed these endpoints individually and assessed all-cause mortality. Assuming these relative treatment effects are consistent over time, we then projected incremental long-term gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive disease-modifying therapy in the control group of the EMPHASIS-HF trial (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker). The hazard ratio (HR) for the imputed aggregate treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure was 0·38 (95% CI 0·30–0·47). HRs were also favourable for cardiovascular death alone (HR 0·50 [95% CI 0·37–0·67]), hospital admission for heart failure alone (0·32 [0·24–0·43]), and all-cause mortality (0·53 [0·40–0·70]). Treatment with comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy was estimated to afford 2·7 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 8·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) free from cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure and 1·4 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 6·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) of survival compared with conventional therapy. Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of early comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy are substantial and support the combination use of an ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor as a new therapeutic standard. None.

In this trial, obinutuzumab, a humanized type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, plus standard therapy provided significantly better renal responses than standard therapy alone in patients with lupus nephritis.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, as a component of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy.DesignA randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study was conducted to verify the non-inferiority of vonoprazan 20 mg to lansoprazole 30 mg as part of first-line triple therapy (with amoxicillin 750 mg and clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg) in H pylori-positive patients with gastric or duodenal ulcer history. The first 50 patients failing first-line therapy with good compliance also received second-line vonoprazan-based triple therapy (with amoxicillin 750 mg and metronidazole 250 mg) as an open-label treatment.ResultsOf the 650 subjects randomly allocated to either first-line triple therapy, 641 subjects completed first-line therapy and 50 subjects completed second-line therapy. The first-line eradication rate (primary end point) was 92.6% (95% CI 89.2% to 95.2%) with vonoprazan versus 75.9% (95% CI 70.9% to 80.5%) with lansoprazole, with the difference being 16.7% (95% CI 11.2% to 22.1%) in favour of vonoprazan, thus confirming the non-inferiority of vonoprazan (p<0.0001). The second-line eradication rate (secondary end point) was also high (98.0%; 95% CI 89.4% to 99.9%) in those who received second-line therapy (n=50). Both first-line triple therapies were well tolerated with no notable differences. Second-line triple therapy was also well tolerated.ConclusionVonoprazan is effective as part of first-line triple therapy and as part of second-line triple therapy in H pylori-positive patients with a history of gastric or duodenal ulcer.Trial registration numberNCT01505127.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, is the standard antithrombotic treatment following acute coronary syndromes. The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban reduced mortality and ischaemic events when added to DAPT, but caused increased bleeding. The safety of a dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban (in place of aspirin) with a P2Y12 inhibitor has not been assesssed in acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to assess rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily versus aspirin 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patients with acute coronary syndromes started within 10 days after presentation and continued for 6–12 months. In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial (GEMINI-ACS-1) done at 371 clinical centres in 21 countries, eligible patients were older than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with positive cardiac biomarkers and either ischaemic electrocardiographic changes or an atherosclerotic culprit lesion identified during angiography. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) within 10 days after admission for the index acute coronary syndromes event to either aspirin or rivaroxaban based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks with size of four and was stratified based on the background P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisation. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Patients received a minimum of 180 days of double-blind treatment with rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily or aspirin 100 mg daily. The choice of clopidogrel or ticagrelor during trial conduct was not randomised and was based on investigator preference. The primary endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) clinically significant bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; major, minor, or requiring medical attention) up to day 390. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02293395. Between April 22, 2015, and Oct 14, 2016, 3037 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned; 1518 to receive aspirin and 1519 to receive rivaroxaban. 1704 patients (56%) were in the ticagrelor and 1333 (44%) in the clopidogrel strata. Median duration of treatment was 291 days (IQR 239–354). TIMI non-CABG clinically significant bleeding was similar with rivaroxaban versus aspirin therapy (total 154 patients [5%]; 80 participants [5%] of 1519 vs 74 participants [5%] of 1518; HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·80–1·50]; p=0·5840). A dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban with a P2Y12 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes had similar risk of clinically significant bleeding as aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. A larger, adequately powered trial would be required to definitively assess the efficacy and safety of this approach. Janssen Research & Development and Bayer AG.

In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with giant-cell arteritis, the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (15 mg) significantly improved remission of disease, with less glucocorticoid use.

For decades, poor treatment options and low-quality evidence plagued care for patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. The advent of new drugs to treat tuberculosis and enhanced funding now permit randomized, controlled trials of shortened-duration, all-oral treatments for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial to compare standard therapy for treatment of fluoroquinolone-susceptible, rifampin-resistant tuberculosis with five 9-month oral regimens that included various combinations of bedaquiline (B), delamanid (D), linezolid (L), levofloxacin (Lfx) or moxifloxacin (M), clofazimine (C), and pyrazinamide (Z). Participants were randomly assigned (with the use of Bayesian response-adaptive randomization) to receive one of five combinations or standard therapy. The primary end point was a favorable outcome at week 73, defined by two negative sputum culture results or favorable bacteriologic, clinical, and radiologic evolution. The noninferiority margin was -12 percentage points. Among the 754 participants who underwent randomization, 699 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, and 562 in the per-protocol analysis. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 80.7% of the patients in the standard-therapy group had favorable outcomes. The risk difference between standard therapy and each of the four new regimens that were found to be noninferior in the modified intention-to-treat population was as follows: BCLLfxZ, 9.8 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 18.7); BLMZ, 8.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.8 to 17.4); BDLLfxZ, 4.6 percentage points (95% CI, -4.9 to 14.1); and DCMZ, 2.5 percentage points (95% CI, -7.5 to 12.5). Differences were similar in the per-protocol population, with the exception of DCMZ, which was not noninferior in that population. The proportion of participants with grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar across the regimens. Grade 3 or higher hepatotoxic events occurred in 11.7% of participants overall and in 7.1% of those receiving standard therapy. Consistent results across all the analyses support the noninferior efficacy of three all-oral shortened regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. (Funded by Unitaid and others; endTB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02754765.).

Colistin–carbapenem combinations are synergistic in vitro against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. We aimed to test whether combination therapy improves clinical outcomes for adults with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. A randomised controlled superiority trial was done in six hospitals in Israel, Greece, and Italy. We included adults with bacteraemia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, by computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by centre, to intravenous colistin (9-million unit loading dose, followed by 4·5 million units twice per day) or colistin with meropenem (2-g prolonged infusion three times per day). The trial was open-label, with blinded outcome assessment. Treatment success was defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, improved or stable Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, stable or improved ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of expired oxygen for patients with pneumonia, and microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined as not meeting all success criteria by intention-to-treat analysis, at 14 days after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250, and is closed to accrual. Between Oct 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, we randomly assigned 406 patients to the two treatment groups. Most patients had pneumonia or bacteraemia (355/406, 87%), and most infections were caused by Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406, 77%). No significant difference between colistin monotherapy (156/198, 79%) and combination therapy (152/208, 73%) was observed for clinical failure at 14 days after randomisation (risk difference −5·7%, 95% CI −13·9 to 2·4; risk ratio [RR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·83–1·03). Results were similar among patients with A baumannii infections (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·09). Combination therapy increased the incidence of diarrhoea (56 [27%] vs 32 [16%] patients) and decreased the incidence of mild renal failure (37 [30%] of 124 vs 25 [20%] of 125 patients at risk of or with kidney injury). Combination therapy was not superior to monotherapy. The addition of meropenem to colistin did not improve clinical failure in severe A baumannii infections. The trial was unpowered to specifically address other bacteria. EU AIDA grant Health-F3-2011-278348.

In this multicenter, randomized trial, edoxaban monotherapy led to a lower risk of net clinical adverse events at 12 months than dual antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease.