SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “usher syndrome”

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.

167 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Valproate vs levetiracetam in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset typically in adolescence and a chronic course requiring long-term antiseizure medications (ASMs). Valproate (VPA) is the most effective treatment for seizure control in JME but use is limited by metabolic, cognitive, and teratogenic adverse effects (AEs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is an alternative ASM when VPA is contraindicated or not tolerated. Comparisons of the efficacy and long-term tolerability of VPA and LEV remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2026 for studies in JME patients comparing LEV and VPA, and included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were seizure remission and ASM failure or treatment discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included, memory impairment, weight gain or obesity, dizziness, and overall AEs. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 1,009 patients were included. VPA was associated with higher pooled seizure remission rates compared with LEV (344 of 574 vs. 169 of 390; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 88.4%) limits confidence in this finding. VPA was associated with a lower risk of drug failure or treatment discontinuation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). VPA was also associated with a higher risk of memory impairment (RR 5.37, 95% CI 2.05-14.04; I2 = 74.5%) and weight gain or obesity (RR 6.40, 95% CI 3.64-11.26; I2 = 35.9%). No significant differences were observed between treatments regarding dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.37; I2 = 21.2%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: VPA was associated with higher seizure remission rates and lower treatment discontinuation compared with LEV; however, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity, the predominance of observational studies, and the serious risk of bias identified in most included studies VPA also demonstrated lower rates of treatment discontinuation, despite a higher burden of cognitive impairment and weight gain. No relevant differences were observed regarding dizziness. Large-scale randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to define the comparative risk-benefit profiles of LEV and VPA in JME.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Clinical Efficacy and Learning Curve of Far-Lateral Approach (FLA) in Uni-Portal Non-Coaxial Spinal Endoscopic Surgery (UNSES) in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Uniportal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery (UNSES) via far-lateral approach (FLA) is an innovative minimally invasive procedure for lumbar degenerative diseases, particularly far-lateral disc herniation and foraminal stenosis. However, complex lateral lumbar anatomy and strict endoscope-instrument coordination create a distinct learning curve that may compromise early surgical efficiency and safety. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety, quantify the learning curve, and to provide clinical guidance for the standardized promotion and application of this technology. METHODS: A total of 40 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent UNSES via FLA by a single surgeon between January 2025 and December 2025 were included. All data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 statistical software (IBM, USA). Primary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, and intraoperative complication rate. Secondary outcomes were VAS, ODI, and modified Macnab criteria at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The learning curve and the inflection point of the learning curve was determined using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The differences in clinical indicators between early and proficient stage were compared. RESULT: Operation time, blood loss, and fluoroscopy times decreased significantly with case accumulation (p < 0.05). CUSUM identified an inflection point at the 16th case, after which operation time stabilized at (55.3 ± 8.6) min, much shorter than the early phase (89.5 ± 10.3) min (p < 0.001). Before the 16th case, the curve was in an upward trend; after the 16th case, the curve tended to be flat, indicating the proficiency stage. Postoperative VAS and ODI improved significantly than those before surgery at each follow-up time (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative VAS score and ODI between the two groups at each follow-up time point (p > 0.05). The total complication rate was 12.5% (5/40), were cured by conservative treatment. The total excellent-good rate was 90.0% (36/40). L5/S1 and Bertolotti's syndrome were independent factors affecting the learning curve. CONCLUSION: UNSES via FLA is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique for treating complex lumbar degenerative diseases. It has a certain learning curve, and the inflection point is about the 16th case. After mastering the key techniques such as anatomical positioning, endoscopic manipulation and hemostasis, the surgeon can gradually reach the proficiency stage, with significantly improved surgical efficiency and clinical efficacy, and controllable complications. This study provides a theoretical basis for the clinical training and technology promotion of UNSES via FLA.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The glucagon and GLP-1 receptor dual agonist DD01 for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and steatohepatitis (DD01-DN-02): 12-week results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a major public health problem arising in the context of metabolic syndrome and obesity. DD01 is a liver-targeted GLP-1 receptor and glucagon dual agonist being investigated for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and MASH. The DD01-DN-02 trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DD01 in adults with MASLD or MASH; this initial analysis reports prespecified 12-week outcomes to assess early hepatic effects. METHODS: DD01-DN-02 is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 12 outpatient clinical sites in the USA. Adults aged 18-70 years with obesity or who were overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) were included in the study. Patients with MASLD or MASH underwent liver biopsy and MRI-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and were eligible if liver fat content was 10% or higher with metabolic risk factors, or if the biopsy confirmed MASH with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of at least 4. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous DD01 40 mg or matched placebo over 48 weeks, dose-escalated over 2 weeks, using a centrally administered interactive response technology system. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by an independent statistician. Participants, investigators, study staff, outcome assessors, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants having at least a 30% relative reduction in liver fat by MRI-PDFF at week 12, which was analysed in all randomly assigned participants receiving at least one dose of study drug or placebo. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Missing primary endpoint data were handled using multiple imputation under a missing-at-random assumption. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06410924) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2024, and Jan 30, 2025, 67 eligible participants were enrolled, of whom 33 were randomly assigned to DD01 and 34 to placebo. The mean age of participants was 48·4 years (SD 10·6), 42 (63%) were female, 25 (37%) were male, 57 (85%) were White, and 52 (78%) participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH. At week 12, 25 (76%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 had a 30% or higher reduction in liver fat versus four (12%) of 34 participants receiving placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 28·8 [95% CI 7·2-115·2]; adjusted relative risk 6·3 [95% CI 2·5-15·9]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 28 (85%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 and 23 (68%) of 34 participants receiving placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea (18 [55%] of 33 participants assigned DD01; six [18%] of 34 participants assigned placebo), diarrhoea (nine [27%] of 33; six [18%] of 34), and vomiting (ten [30%] of 33; four [12%] of 34). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in four (12%) of 33 participants in the DD01 group and one (3%) of 34 participants in the placebo group. Two (6%) treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in the DD01 group (abdominal pain and acute cholecystitis) and zero in the placebo group. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified 12-week primary analysis, DD01 produced rapid reductions in liver fat compared with placebo, supporting further evaluation in long-term studies. FUNDING: D&D Pharmatech, Neuraly.

Humans↗

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

Durvalumab and tremelimumab, with or without lenvatinib, combined with transarterial chemoembolisation in participants with embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-3): a global, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), a standard treatment for embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), induces tumour immune responses. Single tremelimumab regular interval durvalumab (STRIDE) is a standard treatment in advanced HCC. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of STRIDE, with or without lenvatinib, plus TACE, in participants with embolisation-eligible HCC. METHODS: EMERALD-3 is a phase 3, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded study, conducted at 177 medical sites in 21 countries. Eligible participants were 18 years or older (aged ≥21 years in Egypt or Singapore) at screening and had confirmed HCC (by imaging or histopathologically from biopsy specimen, surgery, or both) not amenable to curative surgery, curative ablation, or transplantation but amenable to TACE. Participants had Child-Pugh class A liver function, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable target intrahepatic lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, STRIDE plus TACE, or TACE until each group reached its preplanned enrolment target of 175 participants. After the STRIDE plus TACE group reached its enrolment target, randomisation was adjusted to continue in a 1:1 ratio between the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group and TACE group until approximately 275 participants were enrolled in each of these two groups. Randomisation used a centrally assigned interactive response technology system, stratified by region, baseline tumour burden, and previous palliative embolisation. In the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group, on the first day, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab intravenously, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab plus oral lenvatinib (8 mg for <60 kg bodyweight or 12 mg for ≥60 kg bodyweight); participants then received 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks plus once-daily lenvatinib for up to 36 cycles. In the STRIDE plus TACE group, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab and 1500 mg durvalumab intravenously on the first day, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks. The technique and number of TACE procedures were at the investigators' discretion, with the first procedure administered at least 7 days after the first dose of durvalumab in the two investigation treatment groups and within 7 days of random allocation in the TACE group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE and progression-free survival and overall survival for STRIDE plus TACE versus TACE. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05301842), with enrolment completed. FINDINGS: From March 28, 2022, to Nov 20, 2024, 1124 participants were screened. The full analysis set comprised 760 participants, who were randomly allocated to STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (n=293), STRIDE plus TACE (n=175), or TACE (n=292). 633 (83%) participants were male and 127 (17%) were female; 548 (72%) were Asian. At the first data cutoff (Sept 2, 2025); the overall median follow-up for progression-free survival was 10·0 months (IQR 4·6-17·2); median follow-up for progression-free survival was 11·0 months (IQR 4·8-18·4) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 8·3 months (4·1-15·5) for TACE. Median progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 12·2-16·7) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus 9·8 months (8·0-11·4) for TACE (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·86]; p=0·0007). At the second data cutoff (Feb 23, 2026) and a median follow-up for overall survival of 24·6 months (IQR 16·5-31·5) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 22·9 months (14·9-30·2) for TACE, median overall survival was 39·5 months (95% CI 34·1-not reached) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 34·7 months (28·8-not reached) for TACE (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]; p=0·18). At this data cutoff, median progression-free survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 10·2-15·9) for STRIDE plus TACE and 8·1 months (6·5-10·2) for the first 175 participants randomised to TACE (HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·56-0·91]), with median follow-up of 10·3 months (IQR 4·6-23·7) for STRIDE plus TACE and 7·7 months (3·0-18·5) for the first 175 participants randomly allocated to TACE. The most common adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 were hypertension (34 [12%] of 287) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, post-embolisation syndrome and anaemia (ten [6%] of 175 each) for STRIDE plus TACE, and post-embolisation (17 [6%] of 290) for TACE. 184 (64%) participants receiving STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, 89 (51%) receiving STRIDE plus TACE, and 68 (23%) receiving TACE had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events with an outcome of death during the treatment-emergent period occurred in seven (2%) of 287 participants who received STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (two for myocarditis; and one each for hepatic failure, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, septic shock, cardiac failure, and unknown cause), none of 175 participants who received STRIDE plus TACE, and two (1%) of 290 participants who received TACE (one each for acute myocardial infarction and unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE showed a statistically significant progression-free survival improvement versus TACE. These findings support a STRIDE-based regimen as a potential new treatment option for people with embolisation-eligible HCC; additional follow-up is being conducted for final analysis of overall survival across treatment groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Adult↗