NEJM original articles

Background. Effective targets for systolic blood-pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes are unclear.

Methods. We enrolled patients 50 years of age or older with type 2 diabetes, elevated systolic blood pressure, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease at 145 clinical sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive treatment that targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg or standard treatment that targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg for up to 5 years. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, treatment or hospitalization for heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Multiple imputation was used for missing outcome data, with an assumption that the data were missing at random.

Results. Of 12,821 patients (6414 patients in the intensive-treatment group and 6407 in the standard-treatment group) enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021, 5803 (45.3%) were women; the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 63.8±7.5 years. At 1 year of follow-up, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.6 mm Hg (median, 118.3 mm Hg) in the intensive-treatment group and 133.2 mm Hg (median, 135.0 mm Hg) in the standard-treatment group. During a median follow-up of 4.2 years, primary-outcome events occurred in 393 patients (1.65 events per 100 person-years) in the intensive-treatment group and 492 patients (2.09 events per 100 person-years) in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the treatment groups. However, symptomatic hypotension and hyperkalemia occurred more frequently in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group.

Conclusions. Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the incidence of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower with intensive treatment targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg than with standard treatment targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. (Funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and others; BPROAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03808311.).

Background. IgG4-related disease is a multiorgan, relapsing, fibroinflammatory, immune-mediated disorder with no approved therapy. Inebilizumab targets and depletes CD19+ B cells and may be effective for treating patients with IgG4-related disease.

Methods. In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, adults with active IgG4-related disease underwent randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive inebilizumab (300-mg intravenous infusions on days 1 and 15 and week 26) or placebo for a 52-week treatment period. Participants in both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Glucocorticoids were allowed to treat disease flares, but background immunosuppressants were not permitted. The primary end point was the first treated, adjudicated disease flare during the treatment period, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Key secondary end points were the annualized flare rate and treatment-free and glucocorticoid-free complete remission.

Results. A total of 135 participants with IgG4-related disease underwent randomization: 68 participants were assigned to receive inebilizumab and 67 were assigned to receive placebo. Treatment with inebilizumab reduced flare risk; 7 participants (10%) in the inebilizumab group had at least one flare, as compared with 40 participants (60%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.28; P<0.001). The annualized flare rate was lower with inebilizumab than with placebo (rate ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.31; P<0.001). More participants in the inebilizumab group than in the placebo group had flare-free, treatment-free complete remission (odds ratio, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.21 to 9.91; P<0.001) and flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission (odds ratio, 4.96; 95% CI, 2.34 to 10.52; P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred during the treatment period in 12 of the participants (18%) who received inebilizumab and 6 of the participants (9%) who received placebo.

Conclusions. Inebilizumab reduced the risk of flares of IgG4-related disease and increased the likelihood of flare-free complete remission at 1 year, confirming the role of CD19-targeted B-cell depletion as a potential treatment for IgG4-related disease. (Funded by Amgen; MITIGATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04540497.).

Background. Treatment with tezepelumab has been effective for sinonasal symptoms in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and a history of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, but its efficacy and safety in adults with severe, uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is unknown.

Methods. We randomly assigned adults with physician-diagnosed, symptomatic, severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps to receive standard care and either tezepelumab (at a dose of 210 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The coprimary end points were the changes from baseline in the total nasal-polyp score (range, 0 to 4 [for each nostril]; higher scores indicate greater severity) and the mean nasal-congestion score (range, 0 to 3; higher scores indicate greater severity) at week 52. Key secondary end points assessed in the overall population were the loss-of-smell score, the total score on the Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22; range, 0 to 110; higher scores indicate greater severity), the Lund-Mackay score (range, 0 to 24; higher scores indicate greater severity), the total symptom score (range, 0 to 24; higher scores indicate greater severity), and the first decision to treat with nasal-polyp surgery or use of systemic glucocorticoid therapy, or both, assessed in time-to-event analyses (individual and composite).

Results. In total, 203 patients were assigned to receive tezepelumab and 205 to receive placebo. At week 52, the patients who received tezepelumab had significant improvements in the total nasal-polyp score (mean difference vs. placebo, -2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.39 to -1.74) and the mean nasal-congestion score (-1.03; 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.86) (P<0.001 for both scores). Tezepelumab significantly improved the loss-of-smell score (mean difference vs. placebo, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.83), SNOT-22 total score (-27.26; 95% CI, -32.32 to -22.21), Lund-Mackay score (-5.72; 95% CI, -6.39 to -5.06), and total symptom score (-6.89; 95% CI, -8.02 to -5.76) (P<0.001 for all scores). Surgery for nasal polyps was indicated in significantly fewer patients in the tezepelumab group (0.5%) than in the placebo group (22.1%) (hazard ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.09); there was significantly less use of systemic glucocorticoids with tezepelumab (5.2%) than with placebo (18.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.27) (P<0.001 for both time-to-event analyses).

Conclusions. Tezepelumab therapy led to significantly greater reductions in the size of nasal polyps, the severity of nasal congestion and sinonasal symptoms, and the use of nasal-polyp surgery and systemic glucocorticoids than placebo in adults with severe, uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Amgen; WAYPOINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04851964.).

Background. Imlunestrant is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen-receptor (ER) degrader that delivers continuous ER inhibition, even in cancers with mutations in the gene encoding ERα (ESR1).

Methods. In a phase 3, open-label trial, we enrolled patients with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer that recurred or progressed during or after aromatase inhibitor therapy, administered alone or with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive imlunestrant, standard endocrine monotherapy, or imlunestrant-abemaciclib. Primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival with imlunestrant as compared with standard therapy among patients with ESR1 mutations and among all patients and with imlunestrant-abemaciclib as compared with imlunestrant among all patients who had undergone randomization concurrently.

Results. Overall, 874 patients underwent randomization, with 331 assigned to imlunestrant, 330 to standard therapy, and 213 to imlunestrant-abemaciclib. Among 256 patients with ESR1 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with imlunestrant and 3.8 months with standard therapy. The estimated restricted mean survival time at 19.4 months was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8 to 9.1) with imlunestrant and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 6.2) with standard therapy (difference, 2.6 months; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.9; P<0.001). In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months with imlunestrant and 5.5 months with standard therapy (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = 0.12). Among 426 patients in the comparison of imlunestrant-abemaciclib with imlunestrant, the median progression-free survival was 9.4 months and 5.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 17.1% with imlunestrant, 20.7% with standard therapy, and 48.6% with imlunestrant-abemaciclib.

Conclusions. Among patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, treatment with imlunestrant led to significantly longer progression-free survival than standard therapy among those with ESR1 mutations but not in the overall population. Imlunestrant-abemaciclib significantly improved progression-free survival as compared with imlunestrant, regardless of ESR1-mutation status. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EMBER-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04975308.).