The New England Journal of Medicine

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2313487pmid: 38598571

AbstractBackgroundTrials evaluating the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and sentinel-lymph-node metastases have been compromised by limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and a scarcity of data on relevant clinical subgroups.MethodsWe conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with clinically node-negative primary T1 to T3 breast cancer (tumor size, T1, ≤20 mm; T2, 21 to 50 mm; and T3, >50 mm in the largest dimension) with one or two sentinel-node macrometastases (metastasis size, >2 mm in the largest dimension) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to completion axillary-lymph-node dissection or its omission (sentinel-node biopsy only). Adjuvant treatment and radiation therapy were used in accordance with national guidelines. The primary end point was overall survival. We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondary end point of recurrence-free survival. To show noninferiority of sentinel-node biopsy only, the upper boundary of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for recurrence or death had to be below 1.44.ResultsBetween January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 2766 patients were enrolled across five countries. The per-protocol population included 2540 patients, of whom 1335 were assigned to undergo sentinel-node biopsy only and 1205 to undergo completion axillary-lymph-node dissection (dissection group). Radiation therapy including nodal target volumes was administered to 1192 of 1326 patients (89.9%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and to 1058 of 1197 (88.4%) in the dissection group. The median follow-up was 46.8 months (range, 1.5 to 94.5). Overall, 191 patients had recurrence or died. The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5 to 91.9) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3 to 91.1) in the dissection group, with a country-adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence or death of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), which was significantly (P<0.001) below the prespecified noninferiority margin.ConclusionsThe omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was noninferior to the more extensive surgery in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had sentinel-node macrometastases, most of whom received nodal radiation therapy. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; SENOMAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02240472.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2312323pmid: 38598572

AbstractBackgroundLixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of diabetes, has shown neuroprotective properties in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease.MethodsIn this phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the effect of lixisenatide on the progression of motor disability in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Participants in whom Parkinson’s disease was diagnosed less than 3 years earlier, who were receiving a stable dose of medications to treat symptoms, and who did not have motor complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to daily subcutaneous lixisenatide or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 2-month washout period. The primary end point was the change from baseline in scores on the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III (range, 0 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater motor disability), which was assessed in patients in the on-medication state at 12 months. Secondary end points included other MDS-UPDRS subscores at 6, 12, and 14 months and doses of levodopa equivalent.ResultsA total of 156 persons were enrolled, with 78 assigned to each group. MDS-UPDRS part III scores at baseline were approximately 15 in both groups. At 12 months, scores on the MDS-UPDRS part III had changed by −0.04 points (indicating improvement) in the lixisenatide group and 3.04 points (indicating worsening disability) in the placebo group (difference, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 5.30; P=0.007). At 14 months, after a 2-month washout period, the mean MDS-UPDRS motor scores in the off-medication state were 17.7 (95% CI, 15.7 to 19.7) with lixisenatide and 20.6 (95% CI, 18.5 to 22.8) with placebo. Other results relative to the secondary end points did not differ substantially between the groups. Nausea occurred in 46% of participants receiving lixisenatide, and vomiting occurred in 13%.ConclusionsIn participants with early Parkinson’s disease, lixisenatide therapy resulted in less progression of motor disability than placebo at 12 months in a phase 2 trial but was associated with gastrointestinal side effects. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effects and safety of lixisenatide in persons with Parkinson’s disease. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; LIXIPARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439943.)

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2311708pmid: 38598574

AbstractBackgroundDespite the availability of effective therapies for patients with chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension (the kidney-dysfunction triad), the results of large-scale trials examining the implementation of guideline-directed therapy to reduce the risk of death and complications in this population are lacking.MethodsIn this open-label, cluster-randomized trial, we assigned 11,182 patients with the kidney-dysfunction triad who were being treated at 141 primary care clinics either to receive an intervention that used a personalized algorithm (based on the patient’s electronic health record [EHR]) to identify patients and practice facilitators to assist providers in delivering guideline-based interventions or to receive usual care. The primary outcome was hospitalization for any cause at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, readmissions, cardiovascular events, dialysis, and death.ResultsWe assigned 71 practices (enrolling 5690 patients) to the intervention group and 70 practices (enrolling 5492 patients) to the usual-care group. The hospitalization rate at 1 year was 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.7 to 21.8) in the intervention group and 21.1% (95% CI, 20.1 to 22.2) in the usual-care group (between-group difference, 0.4 percentage points; P=0.58). The risks of emergency department visits, readmissions, cardiovascular events, dialysis, or death from any cause were similar in the two groups. The risk of adverse events was also similar in the trial groups, except for acute kidney injury, which was observed in more patients in the intervention group (12.7% vs. 11.3%).ConclusionsIn this pragmatic trial involving patients with the triad of chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension, the use of an EHR-based algorithm and practice facilitators embedded in primary care clinics did not translate into reduced hospitalization at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ICD-Pieces ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02587936.)