The New England Journal of Medicine

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910993pmid: 31774950

AbstractBackgroundAlthough several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial.MethodsWe conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days.ResultsA total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P=0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P=0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs.ConclusionsBoth MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142pmid: 31633896

AbstractBackgroundObservational studies suggest that beta-blockers may reduce the risk of exacerbations and death in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but these findings have not been confirmed in randomized trials.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized trial, we assigned patients between the ages of 40 and 85 years who had COPD to receive either a beta-blocker (extended-release metoprolol) or placebo. All the patients had a clinical history of COPD, along with moderate airflow limitation and an increased risk of exacerbations, as evidenced by a history of exacerbations during the previous year or the prescribed use of supplemental oxygen. We excluded patients who were already taking a beta-blocker or who had an established indication for the use of such drugs. The primary end point was the time until the first exacerbation of COPD during the treatment period, which ranged from 336 to 350 days, depending on the adjusted dose of metoprolol.ResultsA total of 532 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 65.0±7.8 years; the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 41.1±16.3% of the predicted value. The trial was stopped early because of futility with respect to the primary end point and safety concerns. There was no significant between-group difference in the median time until the first exacerbation, which was 202 days in the metoprolol group and 222 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metoprolol vs. placebo, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.32; P=0.66). Metoprolol was associated with a higher risk of exacerbation leading to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.83). The frequency of side effects that were possibly related to metoprolol was similar in the two groups, as was the overall rate of nonrespiratory serious adverse events. During the treatment period, there were 11 deaths in the metoprolol group and 5 in the placebo group.ConclusionsAmong patients with moderate or severe COPD who did not have an established indication for beta-blocker use, the time until the first COPD exacerbation was similar in the metoprolol group and the placebo group. Hospitalization for exacerbation was more common among the patients treated with metoprolol. (Funded by the Department of Defense; BLOCK COPD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02587351.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1902328pmid: 31826340

AbstractBackgroundAsciminib is an allosteric inhibitor that binds a myristoyl site of the BCR-ABL1 protein, locking BCR-ABL1 into an inactive conformation through a mechanism distinct from those for all other ABL kinase inhibitors. Asciminib targets both native and mutated BCR-ABL1, including the gatekeeper T315I mutant. The safety and antileukemic activity of asciminib in patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive leukemia are unknown.MethodsIn this phase 1, dose-escalation study, we enrolled 141 patients with chronic-phase and 9 with accelerated-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who had resistance to or unacceptable side effects from at least two previous ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose or the recommended dose (or both) of asciminib. Asciminib was administered once or twice daily (at doses of 10 to 200 mg). The median follow-up was 14 months.ResultsPatients were heavily pretreated; 70% (105 of 150 patients) had received at least three TKIs. The maximum tolerated dose of asciminib was not reached. Among patients with chronic-phase CML, 34 (92%) with a hematologic relapse had a complete hematologic response; 31 (54%) without a complete cytogenetic response at baseline had a complete cytogenetic response. A major molecular response was achieved or maintained by 12 months in 48% of patients who could be evaluated, including 8 of 14 (57%) deemed to have resistance to or unacceptable side effects from ponatinib. A major molecular response was achieved or maintained by 12 months in 5 patients (28%) with a T315I mutation at baseline. Clinical responses were durable; a major molecular response was maintained in 40 of 44 patients. Dose-limiting toxic effects included asymptomatic elevations in the lipase level and clinical pancreatitis. Common adverse events included fatigue, headache, arthralgia, hypertension, and thrombocytopenia.ConclusionsAsciminib was active in heavily pretreated patients with CML who had resistance to or unacceptable side effects from TKIs, including patients in whom ponatinib had failed and those with a T315I mutation. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02081378.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906661pmid: 31577396

AbstractBackgroundModerate therapeutic hypothermia is currently recommended to improve neurologic outcomes in adults with persistent coma after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the effectiveness of moderate therapeutic hypothermia in patients with nonshockable rhythms (asystole or pulseless electrical activity) is debated.MethodsWe performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing moderate therapeutic hypothermia (33°C during the first 24 hours) with targeted normothermia (37°C) in patients with coma who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurologic outcome, assessed on day 90 after randomization with the use of the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale (which ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). We defined a favorable neurologic outcome as a CPC score of 1 or 2. Outcome assessment was blinded. Mortality and safety were also assessed.ResultsFrom January 2014 through January 2018, a total of 584 patients from 25 ICUs underwent randomization, and 581 were included in the analysis (3 patients withdrew consent). On day 90, a total of 29 of 284 patients (10.2%) in the hypothermia group were alive with a CPC score of 1 or 2, as compared with 17 of 297 (5.7%) in the normothermia group (difference, 4.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1 to 8.9; P=0.04). Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (81.3% and 83.2%, respectively; difference, −1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −8.0 to 4.3). The incidence of prespecified adverse events did not differ significantly between groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with coma who had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm, moderate therapeutic hypothermia at 33°C for 24 hours led to a higher percentage of patients who survived with a favorable neurologic outcome at day 90 than was observed with targeted normothermia. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; HYPERION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994772.)