SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “geographical origin”

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.

166 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (HARMONi): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ivonescimab has shown clinical efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC whose disease progressed after third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. METHODS: HARMONi is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 114 cancer centres and hospitals across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (upper limit: 75 years in Asia) with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV non-squamous EGFR-mutated NSCLC, disease progression after treatment with a third-generation EGFR-TKI, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive voice response system or interactive web response system to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or placebo plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and carboplatin (target area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by brain metastases status at enrolment and geographical region. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent radiology review committee and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06396065), has completed enrolment, and is ongoing for treatment and follow-up. FINDINGS: From Jan 25, 2022, to Oct 1, 2024, 660 individuals were screened for eligibility; of these, 438 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ivonescimab plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy (219 per group). Of enrolled patients, 257 (59%) were female and 181 (41%) were male; 306 (70%) reported race as Asian, and 105 (24%) as White. At a median follow-up of 22·3 months (95% CI 21·5-23·0), 275 progression or death events had occurred in 345 patients (129 events among 172 patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 146 events among 173 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·7-7·1) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·52; 95% CI 0·41-0·66; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 29·7 months (95% CI 27·7-31·0), 262 deaths occurred in 438 patients (122 in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 140 in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median overall survival was 16·8 months (14·3-19·0) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·0 months (12·8-15·7) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0·79; 0·62-1·01). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus the placebo plus chemotherapy group were decreased neutrophil count (42 [19%] of 218 vs 36 [17%] of 218), decreased white blood cell count (28 [13%] vs 24 [11%]), decreased platelet count (27 [12%] vs 14 [6%]), and anaemia (22 [10%] vs 27 [12%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61 (28%) patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 33 (15%) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four patients (disease progression, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and hepatic failure, each in one patient; gastrointestinal haemorrhage and pulmonary embolism in one patient) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and five patients (pneumonitis, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cognitive disorder, and embolic stroke, each in one patient) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on EGFR-TKI therapy. The clinical benefit and lack of new safety signals of ivonescimab with chemotherapy support the potential for the combination as a new treatment option in this patient population. FUNDING: Summit Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Improved quality of life and prolonged survival with add-on homeopathic treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, add-on homeopathy might help to alleviate adverse effects of conventional therapy. AIM: The aim of this study was to replicate previous studies on the effect of adjunctive homeopathy on quality of life (QoL) and survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHOD: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm multicenter phase III study with quadruple-checked data analysis, we investigated the potential effects of an add-on homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC in terms of QoL. Ninety-eight received either individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs; n = 51) or placebo (n = 47) in a double-blinded fashion. Fifty-two control patients without homeopathic treatment were only observed in terms of their survival rate. The ingredients of the various HMPs were mainly prepared of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The data entry and statistical analysis were subject to an exceptional quadruple-checked data analysis process. The analysis presented in this article was inspired by our earlier report of this trial published in The Oncologist in 2020, which was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections; a majority of the co-authors disagreed with this decision. The present article is based on the same trial dataset but was deliberately designed to highlight the unique research methodology: design and preparation by a lead statistician, data entry, data clearing and independent statistical evaluation were performed in four mutually independent steps, reporting follows the CONSORT statement, and the interpretation of the findings has been reframed conservatively. RESULTS: Global health status (QoL) was higher in the homeopathy group than in the placebo group after 9 weeks and after 18 weeks (p < 0.001). With the exception of cognitive functioning at 9 weeks and of pain, diarrhea and financial difficulties at 9 weeks, all functional and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 favored the homeopathy group (p < 0.001 for the multivariate comparisons), with between-group differences exceeding the threshold of 10 points that is generally regarded as clinically meaningful. Median survival time over the 730-day observation period was 435 days in the homeopathy group, 257 days in the placebo group (p = 0.010), and 228 days in the non-randomized control group (p < 0.001); the corresponding 2-year survival rates were 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% (homeopathy vs. placebo p = 0.020; homeopathy vs. control p < 0.001). The difference between the placebo group and the non-randomized control group was not statistically significant (p = 0.154). CONCLUSION: In this trial, add-on homeopathy was associated with better quality of life across most functional and symptom domains, with clinically meaningful effect sizes congruently to a previous open study. Survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group compared to both the placebo and control groups. Independent replication, ideally within contemporary immuno-oncological treatment regimens is required. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01509612; January 7, 2012.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

APOL1 kidney disease: a critical narrative review of molecular mechanisms, clinical heterogeneity, and the emerging therapeutic landscape.

BACKGROUND: The G1 and G2 variants of the APOL1 gene represent significant genetic risk factors for APOL1 kidney disease and contribute substantially to the excess burden of renal disease observed in individuals of African ancestry. Importantly, both variants exhibit incomplete penetrance, with only approximately 15-20% of high-risk genotype carriers ultimately developing overt nephropathy. OBJECTIVE: To provide a critically appraised, clinically oriented narrative synthesis of APOL1 kidney disease that (i) assigns an explicit certainty rating to each major mechanistic and clinical claim, (ii) identifies where published estimates diverge, where associations remain contested, and where conclusions have been overstated in the secondary literature, and (iii) aligns terminology, testing guidance and therapeutic expectations with the conclusions of the 2025 KDIGO Controversies Conference and with clinical trial data available to August 2026. METHODS: This literature narrative review was performed using a literature search of PubMed and Scopus focusing on APOL1-related nephropathy. Mainly studies published from 2010 to 2026 were considered; however, some selected historical papers from 2005 to 2010 were used for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and history. Used search terms were "APOL1," "APOL1 risk variants," "chronic kidney disease," AMPLITUDE trial, MZE829, HORIZON trial, "focal segmental glomerulosclerosis," "HIV-associated nephropathy," "podocyte injury," "inaxaplin," "VX-147," KDIGO 2025, and "antisense oligonucleotides." Trial status and topline results for agents in development were additionally verified against ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and sponsor disclosures. The literature search was last updated on 10 August 2026. The inclusion criteria of the study were peer-reviewed original articles, genome-wide association studies, randomised controlled trials, translational studies, mechanistic investigations, and high-quality review articles published in the English language. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts without peer review, duplicate papers, non-English publications with unreliable translation, and case reports with no relevance to the underlying mechanisms. More attention was paid to studies focusing on molecular pathogenesis of APOL1 nephropathy, second-hit pathophysiology, genotypes/phenotypes, and new therapies (e.g. inhibitors such as Inaxaplin). The review method and design have been prepared according to SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) criteria. Among eligible articles, priority was given to studies with larger sample sizes, more recent publication dates, higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, and direct clinical or mechanistic relevance to APOL1-associated nephropathy; where multiple studies addressed the same question, the most methodologically rigorous and most recent source was preferentially cited. To move beyond description, each principal claim carried forward into this review was assigned a qualitative certainty rating (high, moderate, low or very low) on the basis of study design, consistency across independent cohorts, directness of the evidence to human disease, and precision of the estimate. These ratings, together with the study design that would be required to resolve each remaining uncertainty, are presented in Table 5. This grading represents a structured judgement by the authors and is not a formal GRADE assessment. RESULTS: Pathogenic actions of APOL1 risk alleles depend on toxic gain-of-function activities that result from the disruption of ion channels. Mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammasome activation play roles as secondary downstream modulators of podocyte damage. The existence of incomplete penetrance and lack of symptoms in people with high-risk alleles highlights the need for secondary triggers, including environmental, infectious, and inflammatory factors, for disease onset and progression. High-risk APOL1 genotypes increase the likelihood of rapidly progressing kidney diseases like FSGS, which amplify susceptibility in HIVAN when accompanied by secondary causes like HIV infection. Management is mainly through renin-angiotensin antagonists, but recent treatments include antisense oligonucleotides, immunomodulators, and small molecule inhibitors like inaxaplin. Although promising, inaxaplin (VX-147) showed a ~47% reduction in urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) in Phase 2a trial; however, these findings are based on a relatively small sample size, an open-label study design, and short-term follow-up, and therefore require confirmation in ongoing Phase 3 studies. As this is a narrative review rather than a primary study, no new patient-level data are reported. Across the studies synthesised, high-risk APOL1 genotypes were consistently associated with podocyte injury and with a faster decline in kidney function than low-risk genotypes; however, the magnitude of this association varied substantially with how cohorts were ascertained. The association is robust and reproducible for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, HIV-associated nephropathy, and hypertension-attributed kidney failure, and remains inconsistent for diabetic kidney disease. Therapeutic development has accelerated, but the supporting clinical evidence remains early phase. Inaxaplin (VX-147) reduced the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio by approximately 47.6% at week 13 in a 16-participant, single-group, open-label Phase 2a study, and is now being evaluated in the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 AMPLITUDE trial (NCT05312879), whose pre-specified week 48 interim analysis is anticipated in early 2027. MZE829, an orally administered APOL1 inhibitor, produced a mean 35.6% reduction in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks in the Phase 2 HORIZON study; because HORIZON was a small, open-label, single-arm basket study (15 participants enrolled, 12 evaluable) whose primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, this reduction is neither placebo adjusted nor the result of a formal test of efficacy. To date, no APOL1-targeted agent has demonstrated benefit on a hard kidney endpoint. CONCLUSION: APOL1 is the clearest current example of a genetically defined, mechanism-targetable kidney disease, but its evidence base is uneven. The genetic association is firmly established; whereas much of the mechanistic literature derives from overexpression systems, several downstream pathways remain contested, and every APOL1-targeted therapy is so far supported only by short-term, surrogate-endpoint data. The principal unresolved issues are the determinants of incomplete penetrance, the absence of a validated progression biomarker and of any model reproducing the common slowly progressive phenotype, and the long-term efficacy and safety of APOL1-directed therapy. Genotype-guided risk stratification is therefore best regarded as clinically reasonable but not yet proven, and routine population-level screening is not currently supported.

AMPLITUDE trial↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗