BACKGROUNDThe cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODSIn a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTSAt 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONSAlthough the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998.)

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all‐cause mortality may guide interventions.Methods and ResultsIn the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose‐adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all‐cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention‐to‐treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS 2 score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow‐up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33–1.70, P<0.0001) and age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51–1.90, P<0.0001) were associated with higher all‐cause mortality. Multiple additional characteristics were independently associated with higher mortality, with decreasing creatinine clearance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes being among the most strongly associated (model C‐index 0.677).ConclusionsIn a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≈7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereas <1 in 10 deaths were caused by nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. Optimal prevention and treatment of heart failure, renal impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes may improve survival.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

SummaryBackgroundClostridium difficile infection is the most common health-care-associated infection in the USA. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ridinilazole versus vancomycin for treatment of C difficile infection.MethodsWe did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Participants with signs and symptoms of C difficile infection and a positive diagnostic test result were recruited from 33 centres in the USA and Canada and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ridinilazole (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was achievement of a sustained clinical response, defined as clinical cure at the end of treatment and no recurrence within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomycin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population comprising all individuals with C difficile infection confirmed by the presence of free toxin in stool who were randomly assigned to receive one or more doses of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092935.FindingsBetween June 26, 2014, and August 31, 2015, 100 patients were recruited; 50 were randomly assigned to receive ridinilazole and 50 to vancomycin. 16 patients did not complete the study, and 11 discontinued treatment early. The primary efficacy analysis included 69 patients (n=36 in the ridinilazole group; n=33 in the vancomycin group). 24 of 36 (66·7%) patients in the ridinilazole group versus 14 of 33 (42·4%) of those in the vancomycin group had a sustained clinical response (treatment difference 21·1%, 90% CI 3·1–39·1, p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical superiority at the 10% level. Ridinilazole was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of vancomycin: 82% (41 of 50) of participants reported adverse events in the ridinilazole group and 80% (40 of 50) in the vancomycin group. There were no adverse events related to ridinilazole that led to discontinuation.InterpretationRidinilazole is a targeted-spectrum antimicrobial that shows potential in treatment of initial C difficile infection and in providing sustained benefit through reduction in disease recurrence. Further clinical development is warranted.FundingWellcome Trust and Summit Therapeutics.

Background.Although the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is increasing, available CDI treatment options are limited in terms of sustained response after treatment. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, versus oral vancomycin in subjects with CDI.Methods.In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, international trial, subjects with CDI confirmed by a positive toxin result were randomized to receive surotomycin (250 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary endpoints were clinical response at end of treatment and evaluation of surotomycin safety. The key secondary endpoints were clinical response over time and sustained clinical response through a 30- to 40-day follow-up period. Clostridium difficile infection recurrence during follow-up and time to diarrhea resolution were also analyzed.Results.In total, 570 subjects were randomized and had confirmed CDI; 290 subjects received surotomycin and 280 subjects received vancomycin. Surotomycin clinical cure rates at end of treatment (surotomycin/vancomycin: 79.0%/83.6%; difference of −4.6%; 95% confidence interval, −11.0 to 1.9]), clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = .832), and sustained clinical response at end of trial (Day 40–50) (60.6%/61.4%; difference of −0.8%; 95% CI, −8.8 to 7.1) in the microbiological modified intent to treat population did not meet noninferiority or superiority criteria versus vancomycin. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.Conclusions.Surotomycin failed to meet the criteria for noninferiority versus vancomycin for the primary and key secondary endpoints in this trial.