The New England Journal of Medicine

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001337pmid: 20231232

BackgroundRate control is often the therapy of choice for atrial fibrillation. Guidelines recommend strict rate control, but this is not based on clinical evidence. We hypothesized that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict rate control for preventing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.MethodsWe randomly assigned 614 patients with permanent atrial fibrillation to undergo a lenient rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <110 beats per minute) or a strict rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <80 beats per minute and heart rate during moderate exercise <110 beats per minute). The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke, systemic embolism, bleeding, and life-threatening arrhythmic events. The duration of follow-up was at least 2 years, with a maximum of 3 years.ResultsThe estimated cumulative incidence of the primary outcome at 3 years was 12.9% in the lenient-control group and 14.9% in the strict-control group, with an absolute difference with respect to the lenient-control group of −2.0 percentage points (90% confidence interval, −7.6 to 3.5; P<0.001 for the prespecified noninferiority margin). The frequencies of the components of the primary outcome were similar in the two groups. More patients in the lenient-control group met the heart-rate target or targets (304 [97.7%], vs. 203 [67.0%] in the strict-control group; P<0.001) with fewer total visits (75 [median, 0], vs. 684 [median, 2]; P<0.001). The frequencies of symptoms and adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsIn patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, lenient rate control is as effective as strict rate control and is easier to achieve. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00392613.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001266pmid: 20231231

BackgroundThe potential benefits and risks of the use of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond a 12-month period in patients receiving drug-eluting stents have not been clearly established.MethodsIn two trials, we randomly assigned a total of 2701 patients who had received drug-eluting stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 months to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. Data from the two trials were merged for analysis.ResultsThe median duration of follow-up was 19.2 months. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 1.8% with dual antiplatelet therapy, as compared with 1.2% with aspirin monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 3.36; P=0.17). The individual risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, need for repeat revascularization, major bleeding, and death from any cause did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, in the dual-therapy group as compared with the aspirin-alone group, there was a nonsignificant increase in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.00; P=0.051) and in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiac causes (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.45; P=0.06).ConclusionsThe use of dual antiplatelet therapy for a period longer than 12 months in patients who had received drug-eluting stents was not significantly more effective than aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. These findings should be confirmed or refuted through larger, randomized clinical trials with longer-term follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00484926 and NCT00590174.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904492pmid: 20393175

BackgroundThe comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and azathioprine therapy alone or in combination for Crohn's disease are unknown.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind trial, we evaluated the efficacy of infliximab monotherapy, azathioprine monotherapy, and the two drugs combined in 508 adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who had not undergone previous immunosuppressive or biologic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of 5 mg of infliximab per kilogram of body weight at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 8 weeks plus daily oral placebo capsules; 2.5 mg of oral azathioprine per kilogram daily plus a placebo infusion on the standard schedule; or combination therapy with the two drugs. Patients received study medication through week 30 and could continue in a blinded study extension through week 50.ResultsOf the 169 patients receiving combination therapy, 96 (56.8%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 26 (the primary end point), as compared with 75 of 169 patients (44.4%) receiving infliximab alone (P=0.02) and 51 of 170 patients (30.0%) receiving azathioprine alone (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.006 for the comparison with infliximab). Similar numerical trends were found at week 50. At week 26, mucosal healing had occurred in 47 of 107 patients (43.9%) receiving combination therapy, as compared with 28 of 93 patients (30.1%) receiving infliximab (P=0.06) and 18 of 109 patients (16.5%) receiving azathioprine (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.02 for the comparison with infliximab). Serious infections developed in 3.9% of patients in the combination-therapy group, 4.9% of those in the infliximab group, and 5.6% of those in the azathioprine group.ConclusionsPatients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who were treated with infliximab plus azathioprine or infliximab monotherapy were more likely to have a corticosteroid-free clinical remission than those receiving azathioprine monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094458.)