NEJM original articles

Background. The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Methods. In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.4 Gy and carboplatin and paclitaxel) plus surgery. Eligibility criteria included a primary tumor with a clinical stage of cT1 cN+, cT2-4a cN+, or cT2-4a cN0 disease, in which T indicates the size and extent of the tumor (higher numbers indicate a more advanced tumor), and N indicates the presence (N+) or absence (N0) of cancer spread to the lymph nodes, without evidence of metastatic spread. The primary end point was overall survival.

Results. From February 2016 through April 2020, we assigned 221 patients to the FLOT group and 217 patients to the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. With a median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival at 3 years was 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1 to 64.0) in the FLOT group and 50.7% (95% CI, 43.5 to 57.5) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival at 3 years was 51.6% (95% CI, 44.3 to 58.4) in the FLOT group and 35.0% (95% CI, 28.4 to 41.7) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). Among the patients who started the assigned treatment, grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 120 of 207 patients (58.0%) in the FLOT group and in 98 of 196 patients (50.0%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Serious adverse events were observed in 98 of 207 patients (47.3%) in the FLOT group and in 82 of 196 patients (41.8%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Mortality at 90 days after surgery was 3.1% in the FLOT group and 5.6% in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group.

Conclusions. Perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT led to improved survival among patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma as compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; ESOPEC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509286.).

Background. In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the effectiveness of drugs such as epinephrine is highly time-dependent. An intraosseous route of drug administration may enable more rapid drug administration than an intravenous route; however, its effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.

Methods. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial across 11 emergency medical systems in the United Kingdom that involved adults in cardiac arrest for whom vascular access for drug administration was needed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment from paramedics by means of an intraosseous-first or intravenous-first vascular access strategy. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes included any return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic function at hospital discharge (defined by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale, on which scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). No adjustment for multiplicity was made.

Results. A total of 6082 patients were assigned to a trial group: 3040 to the intraosseous group and 3042 to the intravenous group. At 30 days, 137 of 3030 patients (4.5%) in the intraosseous group and 155 of 3034 (5.1%) in the intravenous group were alive (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.32; P = 0.74). At the time of hospital discharge, a favorable neurologic outcome was observed in 80 of 2994 patients (2.7%) in the intraosseous group and in 85 of 2986 (2.8%) in the intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.47); a return of spontaneous circulation at any time occurred in 1092 of 3031 patients (36.0%) and in 1186 of 3035 patients (39.1%), respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97). During the trial, one adverse event, which occurred in the intraosseous group, was reported.

Conclusions. Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requiring drug therapy, the use of an intraosseous-first vascular access strategy did not result in higher 30-day survival than an intravenous-first strategy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; PARAMEDIC-3 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN14223494.).

Background. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide. Establishing vascular access is critical for administering guideline-recommended drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Both the intraosseous route and the intravenous route are used routinely, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear.

Methods. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of initial attempts at intraosseous or intravenous vascular access in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was a sustained return of spontaneous circulation. Key secondary outcomes were survival at 30 days and survival at 30 days with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined by a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability).

Results. Among 1506 patients who underwent randomization, 1479 were included in the primary analysis (731 in the intraosseous-access group and 748 in the intravenous-access group). The successful establishment of vascular access within two attempts occurred in 669 patients (92%) assigned to the intraosseous-access group and in 595 patients (80%) assigned to the intravenous-access group. Sustained return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 221 patients (30%) in the intraosseous-access group and in 214 patients (29%) in the intravenous-access group (risk ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.24; P = 0.49). At 30 days, 85 patients (12%) in the intraosseous-access group and 75 patients (10%) in the intravenous-access group were alive (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.56); a favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days occurred in 67 patients (9%) and 59 patients (8%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.62). Prespecified adverse events were uncommon.

Conclusions. There was no significant difference in sustained return of spontaneous circulation between initial intraosseous and intravenous vascular access in adults who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; IVIO EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2022-500744-38-00; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05205031.).

Background. Abelacimab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to the inactive form of factor XI and blocks its activation. The safety of abelacimab as compared with a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation is unknown.

Methods. Patients with atrial fibrillation and a moderate-to-high risk of stroke were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous injection of abelacimab (150 mg or 90 mg once monthly) administered in a blinded fashion or oral rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) administered in an open-label fashion. The primary end point was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Results. A total of 1287 patients underwent randomization; the median age was 74 years, and 44% were women. At 3 months, the median reduction in free factor XI levels with abelacimab at a dose of 150 mg was 99% (interquartile range, 98 to 99) and with abelacimab at a dose of 90 mg was 97% (interquartile range, 51 to 99). The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee because of a greater-than-anticipated reduction in bleeding events with abelacimab. The incidence rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was 3.2 events per 100 person-years with 150-mg abelacimab and 2.6 events per 100 person-years with 90-mg abelacimab, as compared with 8.4 events per 100 person-years with rivaroxaban (hazard ratio for 150-mg abelacimab vs. rivaroxaban, 0.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.24 to 0.60]; hazard ratio for 90-mg abelacimab vs. rivaroxaban, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.51]; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The incidence and severity of adverse events appeared to be similar in the three groups.

Conclusions. Among patients with atrial fibrillation who were at moderate-to-high risk for stroke, treatment with abelacimab resulted in markedly lower levels of free factor XI and fewer bleeding events than treatment with rivaroxaban. (Funded by Anthos Therapeutics; AZALEA-TIMI 71 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04755283.).