METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.

RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.

METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).

METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year.

RESULTS: A total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction.

METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.

RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.

METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, time-to-event trial, 143 adults were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either intravenous eculizumab (at a dose of 900 mg weekly for the first four doses starting on day 1, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks starting at week 4) or matched placebo. The continued use of stable-dose immunosuppressive therapy was permitted. The primary end point was the first adjudicated relapse. Secondary outcomes included the adjudicated annualized relapse rate, quality-of-life measures, and the score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which ranges from 0 (no disability) to 10 (death).

RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 23 of the 24 prespecified adjudicated relapses, given the uncertainty in estimating when the final event would occur. The mean (±SD) annualized relapse rate in the 24 months before enrollment was 1.99±0.94; 76% of the patients continued to receive their previous immunosuppressive therapy during the trial. Adjudicated relapses occurred in 3 of 96 patients (3%) in the eculizumab group and 20 of 47 (43%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.20; P<0.001). The adjudicated annualized relapse rate was 0.02 in the eculizumab group and 0.35 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15; P<0.001). The mean change in the EDSS score was -0.18 in the eculizumab group and 0.12 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.01). Upper respiratory tract infections and headaches were more common in the eculizumab group. There was one death from pulmonary empyema in the eculizumab group.

METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.

RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.

METHODS: In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority.

RESULTS: A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority).

METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, adults with transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia to receive best supportive care plus luspatercept (at a dose of 1.00 to 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo for at least 48 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction in the transfusion burden of at least 33% from baseline during weeks 13 through 24 plus a reduction of at least 2 red-cell units over this 12-week interval. Other efficacy end points included reductions in the transfusion burden during any 12-week interval and results of iron studies.

RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were assigned to the luspatercept group and 112 to the placebo group. Luspatercept or placebo was administered for a median of approximately 64 weeks in both groups. The percentage of patients who had a reduction in the transfusion burden of at least 33% from baseline during weeks 13 through 24 plus a reduction of at least 2 red-cell units over this 12-week interval was significantly greater in the luspatercept group than in the placebo group (21.4% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). During any 12-week interval, the percentage of patients who had a reduction in transfusion burden of at least 33% was greater in the luspatercept group than in the placebo group (70.5% vs. 29.5%), as was the percentage of those who had a reduction of at least 50% (40.2% vs. 6.3%). The least-squares mean difference between the groups in serum ferritin levels at week 48 was -348 μg per liter (95% confidence interval, -517 to -179) in favor of luspatercept. Adverse events of transient bone pain, arthralgia, dizziness, hypertension, and hyperuricemia were more common with luspatercept than placebo.

METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups.