SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “geographic isolation”

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.

183 records · Page 11Linked 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

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Astigmatic vector outcomes after FS-LASIK versus SMILE for high myopic astigmatism: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study without cyclotorsion compensation.

PURPOSE: To compare astigmatic correction vector outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, also termed Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction, KLEx) without intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation in patients with high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D), and to clarify procedure-specific correction tendencies under this non-standardized alignment protocol. METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study enrolled 155 eyes (one eye randomly selected per patient) that underwent FS-LASIK (80 eyes) or SMILE/KLEx (75 eyes) for high myopic astigmatism correction from January 2023 to July 2024 in Beijing Fenglian Jiayue Lige Clinic. Intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation was intentionally disabled to isolate inherent procedural astigmatism correction characteristics. Standardized Alpins vectorial analysis was performed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 12-month Alpins correction index (CI). Multivariable propensity score adjustment was applied to mitigate confounding by clinical treatment selection bias. Statistical multiplicity control was implemented for secondary vector and visual outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, refractive, corneal and ocular biometric parameters were balanced between groups after propensity matching. No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, safety index or efficacy index at 3 and 12 months (all P > 0.05). Under the non-cyclotorsion-compensated protocol, significant intergroup differences were identified in the magnitude of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), correction index (CI), and magnitude error (ME) at both follow-up timepoints (all P < 0.0001). Target induced astigmatism (TIA), difference vector (DV), index of success (IOS), and angle error (AE) magnitudes were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05). The vector mean axis of DV differed significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months (Watson-Williams circular test, all P < 0.0001). No reoperations were documented in clinic medical records for either cohort. No standardized dry eye questionnaires, tear film testing or corneal nerve density metrics were collected to quantify dry eye adverse events; only unstructured clinical notes were reviewed for complication screening. CONCLUSIONS: Under surgical alignment without cyclotorsion compensation, FS-LASIK and SMILE/KLEx both yielded acceptable visual and refractive safety/efficacy for high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D) at 1-year follow-up, but demonstrated divergent astigmatism correction tendencies: FS-LASIK exhibited relative astigmatism overcorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.35 ± 0.43 D × 91°, CI > 1), while SMILE/KLEx showed relative undercorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.21 ± 0.53 D × 12°, CI < 1). These correction biases are specific to the study's manual limbal alignment protocol without cyclotorsion tracking and cannot be generalized to modern optimized surgical platforms equipped with automated cyclotorsion compensation. Residual refractive errors across both groups are likely multifactorial, including differential corneal stromal healing responses, divergent femtosecond/excimer laser tissue modification mechanisms, and uncorrected intraoperative ocular cyclotorsion.

Humans↗