Guest, this browser only · 388 unread · 0 saved · pick a name · updated Oct 11, 6:10 am
Background. Despite guideline recommendations, evidence from randomized trials evaluating the appropriate low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol target for secondary prevention in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains limited.
Methods. In this open-label superiority trial conducted in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a 1:1 ratio to a target LDL cholesterol level of less than 55 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) (intensive-targeting group) or less than 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) (conventional-targeting group). The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, any revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 3 years. Safety was also assessed.
Results. Of 3048 patients who underwent randomization, 1526 were assigned to the intensive-targeting group and 1522 to the conventional-targeting group. The median follow-up was 3.0 years. The median LDL cholesterol level during the trial was 56 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the intensive-targeting group and 66 mg per deciliter (1.7 mmol per liter) in the conventional-targeting group. A primary end-point event occurred in 100 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative incidence, 6.6%) in the intensive-targeting group and in 147 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative incidence, 9.7%) in the conventional-targeting group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.002). The incidence of prespecified safety end points was similar in the two trial groups, except for a lower incidence of creatinine elevation in the intensive-targeting group.
Conclusions. Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, targeting an LDL cholesterol level of less than 55 mg per deciliter resulted in a lower risk of cardiovascular events at 3 years than targeting a level of less than 70 mg per deciliter. (Funded by the Cardiovascular Research Center and Yuhan; Ez-PAVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04626973.).
A note or tag saves the article on its own.
Background. Uncontrolled hypertension disproportionately affects populations that have substantial health disparities. Data regarding the effectiveness and implementation of multifaceted, team-based strategies for hypertension control among low-income patients are lacking.
Methods. We randomly assigned federally qualified health center clinics in Louisiana and Mississippi to use either a multifaceted implementation strategy (intervention group) or enhanced usual care (control group) for hypertension control. The intervention included team-based care, protocol-based intensive blood-pressure management, blood-pressure audit and feedback, health coaching on lifestyle changes and medication adherence, and home blood-pressure monitoring. Enhanced usual care involved educating physicians about clinical guidelines for hypertension. The primary effectiveness outcome was the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 18 months. The primary implementation outcome was the adherence summary score (on a scale of 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating better adherence to blood-pressure management).
Results. A total of 36 clinics underwent randomization. Among these clinics, we enrolled 1272 patients with uncontrolled hypertension who were 40 years of age or older; 642 were in the intervention group and 630 were in the control group. The mean age of the patients was 58.8 years, 56.7% were women, 63.4% were Black, 75.9% were unemployed, and 73.4% had a family income of less than $25,000 per year. At 18 months, the mean change from baseline in the systolic blood pressure was -15.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -17.4 to -13.6) in the intervention group and -9.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -11.0 to -7.2) in the control group (between-group difference, -6.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, -9.0 to -3.8; P<0.001). The mean adherence summary score over the 18-month follow-up period was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.7 to 2.9) in the intervention group and 2.1 (95% CI, 2.0 to 2.2) in the control group (between-group difference, 0.7 points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.8; P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 20.9% of the patients in the intervention group and in 21.7% of those in the control group.
Conclusions. Among low-income patients with hypertension, a multifaceted, team-based implementation strategy resulted in a significantly greater reduction in systolic blood pressure than enhanced usual care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; IMPACTS-BP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03483662.).
A note or tag saves the article on its own.
Background. Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a disorder of increased platelet destruction and reduced platelet production and is associated with an increased bleeding risk and a compromised quality of life. Available therapies are ineffective in at least 20% of cases. Mezagitamab is an anti-CD38 antibody that targets plasma cells, plasmablasts, and natural killer cells.
Methods. We conducted this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of mezagitamab at a dose of 100 mg, 300 mg, or 600 mg, as compared with placebo, administered subcutaneously once weekly for 8 weeks in adults with persistent or chronic ITP (mean platelet count on ≥2 measurements, <30,000 per microliter). The primary end point was adverse events. A key secondary efficacy end point was a platelet response (defined by a platelet count of ≥50,000 per microliter and ≥20,000 per microliter above the baseline value) on at least two visits at any time through week 16.
Results. In the combined mezagitamab groups (28 participants), the mean age was 50 years (range, 24 to 88) and the mean number of previous ITP therapies was 4 (range, 1 to 9); in the combined placebo groups (13 participants), the mean age was 39 years (range, 20 to 65) and the mean number of previous ITP therapies was 4 (range, 1 to 13). The mean baseline platelet count was 19,100 and 17,300 per microliter, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 19 of 28 participants (68%) in the combined mezagitamab groups and in 9 of 13 participants (69%) in the combined placebo groups; adverse events of grade 3 or higher in 5 of 28 participants (18%) and in 3 of 13 participants (23%), respectively; and serious adverse events in 4 of 28 participants (14%) and in 1 of 13 participants (8%). Through week 16, a platelet response was observed in 10 of 11 participants (91%) in the mezagitamab 600-mg group and in 3 of 13 participants (23%) in the combined placebo groups.
Conclusions. Treatment with mezagitamab led to increased platelet counts, with a safety profile that appeared to be similar to that of placebo among participants with persistent or chronic ITP. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04278924.).
A note or tag saves the article on its own.
Background. A next-generation, live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine, vYF, was developed in Vero cells to improve vaccine supply and availability. The safety of and immune response to vYF as compared with those of the licensed yellow fever vaccine, YF-VAX, are unclear.
Methods. In this year 1 interim analysis of a phase 2, observer-blinded, randomized, active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy adults 18 to 60 years of age in a 2:1 ratio to receive vYF or YF-VAX as a single vaccine injection on day 1. Neutralizing antibody titers were measured on day 29, month 6, and year 1. The primary analysis focused on the per-protocol population, which included participants with no history of yellow fever infection or vaccination and with no protocol deviations. Noninferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference in the percentage of participants with seroconversion was greater than -5 percentage points on day 29.
Results. A total of 568 participants were enrolled: 382 in the vYF group and 186 in the YF-VAX group; 329 and 156 participants, respectively, were included in the per-protocol population for the noninferiority analysis. Seroconversion by day 29 occurred in 99.7% of participants receiving vYF and 99.4% of those receiving YF-VAX (difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 3.2, which met the criterion for noninferiority). Neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers were similar in the two vaccine groups, peaking on day 29 (in the vYF group, 1:2654 among participants with no history of yellow fever infection or vaccination and 1:1312 among participants with a history of yellow fever infection or vaccination; in the YF-VAX group, 1:3147 and 1:1079, respectively), then decreasing through 1 year after vaccination (in the vYF group, 1:401 among participants with no history of yellow fever infection or vaccination and 1:490 among participants with a history of yellow fever infection or vaccination; in the YF-VAX group, 1:548 and 1:646, respectively). No major safety concerns were identified. The safety profiles were similar in the two vaccine groups: solicited adverse events were reported by 208 of 367 participants (56.7%) in the vYF group and 113 of 185 participants (61.1%) in the YF-VAX group, and unsolicited adverse events were reported by 99 of 379 participants (26.1%) and 39 of 186 participants (21.0%), respectively.
Conclusions. In this trial, vYF had immunogenicity and safety profiles similar to those of YF-VAX. (Funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04942210.).
A note or tag saves the article on its own.
Background. The KRAS p.G12D variant occurs in 5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is the most common substitution variant in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, occurring in 40% of patients, but no targeted therapies directed against this variant are currently approved for clinical use. Setidegrasib (ASP3082) is a first-in-class KRAS G12D-targeted protein degrader.
Methods. We conducted this phase 1 study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of setidegrasib in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors harboring KRAS p.G12D variants. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety profile, as indicated by dose-limiting toxic effects and adverse events (the primary end points), and to determine the phase 2 dose. Setidegrasib was administered intravenously once weekly at doses of 10 to 800 mg.
Results. Overall, 203 patients were enrolled. Among the 76 patients who received setidegrasib at a dose of 600 mg, which was ultimately selected as the phase 2 dose, adverse events occurred during treatment in all the patients, with events of grade 3 or higher in 42%. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 93% of the patients; the most common were transient infusion-related reactions (in 80%) and nausea (in 30%). Adverse events led to discontinuation in 2 patients. Among the 45 patients with NSCLC who received the 600-mg dose, 36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22 to 51) had a partial response, the median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.1 to could not be estimated), and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 59% (95% CI, 40 to 74). Among the 21 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who received the 600-mg dose as second- or third-line treatment (of whom 67% received setidegrasib as third-line treatment), 24% (95% CI, 8 to 47) had a response, the median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 6.9), and the median overall survival was 10.3 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.0).
Conclusions. Setidegrasib was associated with antitumor activity and a low incidence of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events in patients with previously treated advanced KRAS p.G12D-mutated NSCLC or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. (Funded by Astellas Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05382559.).
A note or tag saves the article on its own.