The New England Journal of Medicine

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413579pmid: 26436208

BackgroundRemote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is reported to reduce biomarkers of ischemic and reperfusion injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but uncertainty about clinical outcomes remains.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving adults who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under total anesthesia with intravenous propofol. The trial compared upper-limb RIPC with a sham intervention. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute renal failure up to the time of hospital discharge. Secondary end points included the occurrence of any individual component of the primary end point by day 90.ResultsA total of 1403 patients underwent randomization. The full analysis set comprised 1385 patients (692 in the RIPC group and 693 in the sham-RIPC group). There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of the composite primary end point (99 patients [14.3%] in the RIPC group and 101 [14.6%] in the sham-RIPC group, P=0.89) or of any of the individual components: death (9 patients [1.3%] and 4 [0.6%], respectively; P=0.21), myocardial infarction (47 [6.8%] and 63 [9.1%], P=0.12), stroke (14 [2.0%] and 15 [2.2%], P=0.79), and acute renal failure (42 [6.1%] and 35 [5.1%], P=0.45). The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis. No treatment effect was found in any subgroup analysis. No significant differences between the RIPC group and the sham-RIPC group were seen in the level of troponin release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital, new onset of atrial fibrillation, and the incidence of postoperative delirium. No RIPC-related adverse events were observed.ConclusionsUpper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413534pmid: 26436207

BackgroundWhether remote ischemic preconditioning (transient ischemia and reperfusion of the arm) can improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is not known. We investigated this question in a randomized trial.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, sham-controlled trial involving adults at increased surgical risk who were undergoing on-pump CABG (with or without valve surgery) with blood cardioplegia. After anesthesia induction and before surgical incision, patients were randomly assigned to remote ischemic preconditioning (four 5-minute inflations and deflations of a standard blood-pressure cuff on the upper arm) or sham conditioning (control group). Anesthetic management and perioperative care were not standardized. The combined primary end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or stroke, assessed 12 months after randomization.ResultsWe enrolled a total of 1612 patients (811 in the control group and 801 in the ischemic-preconditioning group) at 30 cardiac surgery centers in the United Kingdom. There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 12 months between the patients in the remote ischemic preconditioning group and those in the control group (212 patients [26.5%] and 225 patients [27.7%], respectively; hazard ratio with ischemic preconditioning, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.15; P=0.58). Furthermore, there were no significant between-group differences in either adverse events or the secondary end points of perioperative myocardial injury (assessed on the basis of the area under the curve for the high-sensitivity assay of serum troponin T at 72 hours), inotrope score (calculated from the maximum dose of the individual inotropic agents administered in the first 3 days after surgery), acute kidney injury, duration of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, distance on the 6-minute walk test, and quality of life.ConclusionsRemote ischemic preconditioning did not improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG with or without valve surgery. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program [a Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research partnership] and the British Heart Foundation; ERICCA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01247545.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1501481pmid: 26444729

BackgroundDaclizumab high-yield process (HYP) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to CD25 (alpha subunit of the interleukin-2 receptor) and modulates interleukin-2 signaling. Abnormalities in interleukin-2 signaling have been implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune disorders.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study involving 1841 patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis to compare daclizumab HYP, administered subcutaneously at a dose of 150 mg every 4 weeks, with interferon beta-1a, administered intramuscularly at a dose of 30 μg once weekly, for up to 144 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate.ResultsThe annualized relapse rate was lower with daclizumab HYP than with interferon beta-1a (0.22 vs. 0.39; 45% lower rate with daclizumab HYP; P<0.001). The number of new or newly enlarged hyperintense lesions on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over a period of 96 weeks was lower with daclizumab HYP than with interferon beta-1a (4.3 vs. 9.4; 54% lower number of lesions with daclizumab HYP; P<0.001). At week 144, the estimated incidence of disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks was 16% with daclizumab HYP and 20% with interferon beta-1a (P=0.16). Serious adverse events, excluding relapse of multiple sclerosis, were reported in 15% of the patients in the daclizumab HYP group and in 10% of those in the interferon beta-1a group. Infections were more common in the daclizumab HYP group than in the interferon beta-1a group (in 65% vs. 57% of the patients, including serious infection in 4% vs. 2%), as were cutaneous events such as rash or eczema (in 37% vs. 19%, including serious events in 2% vs. <1%) and elevations in liver aminotransferase levels that were more than 5 times the upper limit of the normal range (in 6% vs. 3%).ConclusionsAmong patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, daclizumab HYP showed efficacy superior to that of interferon beta-1a with regard to the annualized relapse rate and lesions, as assessed by means of MRI, but was not associated with a significantly lower risk of disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks. The rates of infection, rash, and abnormalities on liver-function testing were higher with daclizumab HYP than with interferon beta-1a. (Funded by Biogen and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; DECIDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01064401.)