SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “46,XY DSD”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

171 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepwise treatment intensification is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes, including insulin initiation when non-insulin glucose-lowering medications are insufficient. Guidelines recommend combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin to improve glycaemic efficacy while reducing weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk. COMBINE 4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of IcoSema, a once-weekly combination therapy of basal insulin icodec and semaglutide (a GLP-1-receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: COMBINE 4 was a 40-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3b trial conducted across 97 sites in nine countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8·0%) receiving oral glucose-lowering medications were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio without stratification to IcoSema or once-daily glargine U100. The titration target was 3·9-5·0 mmol/L (70-90 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in bodyweight, both from baseline to week 40, evaluated in all randomly allocated participants. Adverse events were recorded during weeks 0-45. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269107) and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 653 individuals screened between Feb 15 and Aug 6, 2024, 151 did not meet screening criteria and 17 withdrew before initiating treatment; 243 were randomised to IcoSema and 242 to glargine U100. Of the 485 randomly allocated participants, 286 (59%) were male and 199 (41%) were female, and median age was 58 years (range 26-82). For HbA1c, from baseline (9·57% for IcoSema and 9·50% for glargine U100), mean change to week 40 was greater with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (-3·32 vs -2·44 percentage points; estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·88 percentage points [95% CI -1·12 to -0·63]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). From baseline to week 40, mean bodyweight decreased with IcoSema and increased with glargine U100 (-0·79 vs 3·81 kg; ETD -4·61 kg [95% CI -5·46 to -3·75]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). Rate of combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL], confirmed with a blood glucose meter) or severe hypoglycaemia (severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery) was statistically significantly lower with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (0·29 vs 0·59 episodes per person-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·56 [95% CI 0·32 to 0·97]; p=0·04). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events with IcoSema. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly IcoSema demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction and bodyweight change, with lower rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia, versus glargine U100, suggesting that IcoSema might be an effective once-weekly treatment option for insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A Multimethod Evaluation to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of HPVVaxFacts, a Tailored Mobile Web App, for Parents With Unvaccinated Children: Pilot 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve provider-parent communication on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to reduce concerns, and increase intention and uptake. HPVVaxFacts (233 Analytics) is a novel, mobile web app delivering tailored education based on the Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action, addressing parental concerns preclinic visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HPVVaxFacts among parents of adolescents aged 9-17 years. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial in 2 urban Tennessee clinics from June to September 2023 comparing 2 groups: tailored education via HPVVaxFacts mobile web app (intervention, n=27), and nutrition education (attention control, n=30). Eligible parents had or were caregivers to a child aged 9 to 17 years unvaccinated against HPV, had a mobile phone, had an upcoming clinic visit, and spoke English. The recruitment strategy was patient intake software-Phreesia (Phreesia, Inc) and eClinicalWorks (eClinicalWorks). Although unblinded, parents could deduce their study arm assignment. Providers were blinded. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HPV vaccine knowledge, concerns, intentions, and vaccination rates) were assessed using multimethod evaluation. Parents were assessed at baseline and immediately post intervention via surveys. Vaccination rates were assessed at 12 months post intervention via electronic health records. Nineteen parent interviews were conducted up to 9 months post intervention. A clinic staff consultation (n=6) was 1 month post intervention. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled parents, most were female (52/57, 91%), non-Hispanic White (44/57, 77%), had ≤US $80,000 household income (32/57, 56%), and had some college or less (27/57, 47%). In total, 81% (29/36) of parents viewed HPVVaxFacts. Post intervention, HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the intervention group compared to the attention control group (48% vs 17%; difference 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-0.46; P=.01). Parents in the HPVVaxFacts arm demonstrated a greater reduction in knowledge (ie, knowledge increase; mean change: -0.6 vs 0.1) and concern scores (mean change: -3.4 vs -1.4) than those in the nutrition education arm. However, between-arm differences were not statistically significant (P=.13 and P=.14, respectively). The majority found the study protocol and HPVVaxFacts acceptable. Benefits of HPVVaxFacts include confirming their decision to vaccinate, supporting parent-child discussion on the vaccine, and answering questions preclinic visit or offering questions for the provider. Study protocol delivery and mobile web app instructions were suggested areas for improvement. Barriers for HPVVaxFacts use include content in English only and digital format. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests HPVVaxFacts was feasible and acceptable among parents to provide previsit, tailored information on HPV vaccination. Outcomes offer a positive trajectory but need more exploration. Next steps include a well-powered efficacy trial to determine the impact of HPVVaxFacts on initiation vaccine rates and parental hesitancy factors, as well as to explore an interaction, effect modification, and mediation among different variables.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Restrictive vs Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of the TRAIN Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Anemia is a prevalent condition among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, the optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to initiate red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess which of 2 different Hb thresholds for guiding RBCT in patients with anemia and TBI is associated with a more favorable neurological outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of the Transfusion Strategies in Acute Brain Injured Patients multicentric randomized clinical trial, conducted in 72 intensive care units across 22 countries between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. Follow-up was completed June 30, 2023. Only patients with TBI were included in the present analysis, conducted from February to May 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Liberal (transfusion at Hb <9 g/dL [to convert to g/L, multiply by 10.0]) vs restrictive (transfusion at Hb <7 g/dL) RBCT strategy over a maximum of 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the occurrence of unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1 to 5 (overall range, 1-8, with higher scores indicating more favorable outcome) at 180 days. In addition, 14 prespecified serious adverse events, including infection and cerebral ischemia, were assessed. Data were analyzed using both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles. RESULTS: Of 486 patients who presented with TBI (mean [SD] age, 46.8 [17.6] years; 347 [71.4%] male), 475 were included in the primary outcome analysis: 236 were randomized to the liberal transfusion strategy group and 239 to the restrictive transfusion strategy group. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. In total, 534 RBCTs were administered in the liberal transfusion strategy group, compared with 246 RBCTs in the restrictive group. At 180 days after randomization, 138 patients (58.5%) in the liberal group had unfavorable neurological outcome compared with 161 patients (67.4%) in the restrictive group (relative risk [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-1.00]; P = .047; fragility index = 1). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality: 42 of 240 [17.5%] vs 51 of 244 [20.9%]; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.58-1.21]; P = .34) or serious adverse events (eg, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.88-1.43]; P = .34 for infection and RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.40-1.90]; P = .72 for cerebral ischemia). After adjustment for several confounders, being randomized to the liberal group was associated with a lower observed probability of unfavorable neurological outcome (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.38-0.94]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, a liberal RBCT strategy was associated with a lower risk than a restrictive RBCT strategy of unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days among patients with TBI. These findings should be interpreted with caution in light of the inherent uncertainty of the estimate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02968654.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Direct and spillover hospitalisation patterns during climate hazards across regions of different health-system resilience levels in China: a nationwide retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health-system resilience serves as a key contributor in mitigating adverse health impacts during climate hazards. However, quantitative insights into resilience-associated health-care utilisation patterns and targeted adaptation policies remain scarce. We aimed to capture the spatiotemporal health impacts in disaster-exposed counties and their neighbouring counties in China during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards or winter storms; understand the association between health-system resilience metrics and hazard-attributable hospitalisations; and develop evidence-based adaptation policies towards climate extremes. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational analysis of county-level aggregated hospitalisation data, we used a propensity score matching-difference-in-differences framework to assess the spatiotemporal changes of nine types of disease-specific hospitalisations in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards in China. We quantified the relative importance and health gains of health-system metrics during such hazards through random forest approach with interpretable partial dependence plots to derive evidence-based adaptation recommendations. FINDINGS: We included hospitalisation data from Jan 1, 2016 to Dec 31, 2023. In this period, 3241 county-hazard event combinations and 41 747 482 hospitalisations were recorded across 955 Chinese counties. The disaster-exposed regions experienced an initial decline in hospitalisation rates, followed by admission surges after disasters. For example, infectious disease admissions decreased by 11·92% (95% CI -10·53 to -13·31) during the flood-active period but increased by 7·68% (6·46-8·91) after 1-2 weeks of floods. Neighbouring zones were also affected through spillover effects, with infectious disease admissions increasing by 3·18% (1·76-4·61) after 1-2 weeks of the floods. Cardiovascular disease, injuries, infectious, respiratory, and mental disorders were more sensitive across all regions. Particularly for disaster-exposed counties, cardiovascular hospitalisations increased by 14·31% (7·34-21·29) during the tropical cyclone-active period. Notably, compared with low-resilience counties, high-resilience counties were associated with 19·48-30·03% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates during the hazard-active period and 27·07-31·08% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates in post-hazard periods. For instance, during the storm-active period, the increase in respiratory hospitalisations was 7·21% (0·67-13·75) in high-resilience counties versus 12·13% (5·20-19·05) in low-resilience counties. Health workforce (relative importance 14·58% during the hazard-active period and 13·80% during the post-hazard period) and service delivery (14·10% during the hazard-active period and 14·17% during the post-hazard period) were identified as key contributors of health-system resilience. Empirical synergistic effects were observed when combining interventions during the post-hazard period, with the combined effect of service delivery (individual contribution 8%) and workforce (individual contribution 4%) exceeding the sum of their individual contributions (16% reduction in cumulative excess admissions) by 33%. INTERPRETATION: Climate hazards are associated with substantial changes in hospitalisation rates in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions. Health-system resilience is essential in addressing disaster-health challenges. Targeted adaptation interventions should be context-appropriate and threshold-aware, thereby maximising the public health benefits relative to resilience-oriented investments in health systems. FUNDING: Gates Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, a selective orexin 2 receptor agonist for narcolepsy type 1 (Vibrance-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical potential of orexin 2 receptor (OX2R) agonism for improving measures of wakefulness and cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy type 1 has been described in a phase 2 study. Here, we aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, another oral OX2R agonist, in narcolepsy type 1. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, adult participants (aged 18-70 years) with narcolepsy type 1 were recruited from 46 hospitals and private research centres across the USA, Europe, and Australia. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) in blocks of four via an interactive response technology system stratified by region and baseline weekly cataplexy rate (WCR) to receive 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg tablets of alixorexton or placebo once daily for 6 weeks, followed by an optional 7-week open-label extension. Participants had narcolepsy type 1, diagnosed per the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition, and confirmed by overnight polysomnography and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test or cerebrospinal hypocretin-1 concentrations. The sponsor, assessors, investigators, and participants were masked during the randomised double-blind treatment period. Efficacy and safety assessments were conducted in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in mean sleep latency (MSL) on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06358950) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2024, and May 5, 2025, 153 individuals were screened and 92 participants were randomly assigned to receive alixorexton 4 mg (n=23), 6 mg (n=22), 8 mg (n=24), or placebo (n=23). Mean age was 33·5 years (SD 12·1), 57 (62%) were women, and 35 (38%) were men. At week 6, the observed MSL on the MWT was 2·3 min (SD 2·7) for placebo, 24·0 min (8·7) for alixorexton 4 mg, 25·9 min (9·4) for 6 mg, and 28·2 min (11·4) for 8 mg. Alixorexton improved MSL on the MWT, with a least-squares mean placebo-corrected change from baseline of 22·2 min (95% CI 17·2-27·2) for alixorexton 4 mg, 24·1 min (19·0-29·1) for 6 mg, and 26·0 min (21·0-31·0) for 8 mg (adjusted p=0·0099 for 4 mg, adjusted p<0·0001 for 6 mg and 8 mg). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of participants given alixorexton and more frequently than those given placebo up to week 6 were pollakiuria (38 [55%]), insomnia (19 [28%]), salivary hypersecretion (17 [25%]), micturition urgency (ten [14%]), blurred vision (ten [14%]), and hyperhidrosis (five [7%]). INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial, once-daily oral alixorexton provided clinically meaningful improvements at 6 weeks for participants with narcolepsy type 1, including in wakefulness, excessive daytime sleepiness, and cataplexy. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events consistent with the known on-target effects of OX2R agonists. Together, these findings support the further phase 3 evaluation of alixorexton as a potential therapeutic option for people with narcolepsy type 1. FUNDING: Alkermes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ifebemtinib is a potent oral focal adhesion kinase inhibitor. Preclinical evidence supports combining ifebemtinib with the KRASG12C inhibitor garsorasib. This study aimed to evaluate this combination in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 1b/2 study had a phase 1b component to establish the recommended phase 2 dose and a phase 2 multitumour expansion component. In phase 1b, the safety and tolerability of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib was assessed using a 3 + 3 design in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed, and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as ifebemtinib 100 mg orally once daily plus garsorasib 600 mg orally twice daily. Here, we report the results of the cohort of previously treated KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer from phase 2 expansion. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer harbouring the KRASG12C mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 or 1, and had disease progression after previous irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy, were recruited from seven of nine participating tertiary hospitals in China. On the basis of the recommended phase 2 dose, phase 2 comprised a single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib and an open-label, randomised study in which patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ifebemtinib plus garsorasib or garsorasib alone, by use of centralised computer-generated block randomisation with no stratification. Investigators were masked to the block size. The primary efficacy endpoint of phase 2 was investigator-assessed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1), assessed in the safety analysis set in the single-arm study and in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population) in the randomised study. At least six objective responses (safety analysis set) were required in the single-arm study to proceed to the randomised study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06166836 and NCT05379946, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2023 and Dec 13, 2024, 51 patients were enrolled in phase 2 (15 in the single-arm study and 36 in the randomised study). In the single-arm study, the median age was 53 years (IQR 39 to 63), nine (60%) patients were female, six (40%) were male, and all were Asian. In the randomised study, the median age was 51 years (IQR 42 to 59) in the combination group and 63 years (IQR 54 to 66) in the monotherapy group, 24 (67%) were female, 12 (33%) were male, and all patients were Asian. In the single-arm part, the confirmed objective response rate was 46·7% (95% CI 21·3 to 73·4). Seven patients had partial responses, triggering progression to the randomised study. In the randomised study, the confirmed objective response rate was 38·9% (95% CI 17·3 to 64·3) with the combination therapy versus 16·7% (95% CI 3·6 to 41·4) with garsorasib alone (between-group difference 22·2%, 95% CI -7·7 to 49·1; one-sided p=0·068). In the single-arm study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (27%) of 15 patients, and in the randomised study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six (33%) of 18 patients in the combination group and five (28%) of 18 in the garsorasib group. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least two patients were diarrhoea (six [18%]), proteinuria (two [6%]), and intestinal obstruction (two [6%]) in patients treated with combination therapy (combined), and increased alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyltransferase (two [11%] each) in patients treated with garsorasib alone. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (30%) patients in the combination group and in four (22%) patients in the monotherapy group. One patient in the garsorasib monotherapy group died due to the underlying malignancy within 30 days after completing study treatment, which was reported as a serious adverse event. The death was assessed by the investigators as not related to garsorasib. No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported across all cohorts. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ifebemtinib and garsorasib showed promising anticancer activity and manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the improvement in response rate did not reach statistical significance in the randomised study, these findings support further evaluation of ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in this population. FUNDING: InxMed, InventisBio, National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Jian Bing Ling Yan + X Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, and the Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗