SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “European People”

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.

203 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Relationship between participant-reported outcomes, residual beta cell function and metabolic parameters in youth with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical trials of interventions to preserve beta cell function in new-onset type 1 diabetes frequently employ participant-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the expected changes in PROMs scores immediately following diagnosis and their association with residual beta cell function, metabolic markers and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are unclear. METHODS: Repeated PROMs including Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory diabetes module (PedsQL) and hypoglycaemia fear survey (HFS) were recorded from participants aged 10-18 years with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their parents in two clinical trials: CLOuD (N=97, hybrid closed loop [HCL] vs multiple daily injections [MDI]) and USTEKID (N=72, ustekinumab immunotherapy vs placebo). Scores were compared with serial mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide levels (AUC C-peptide), HbA1c and CGM data. RESULTS: PedsQL and HFS scores for children/adolescents and their parents showed wide variation between individuals but did not change substantially within individuals over the first 48 months from diagnosis. Baseline scores were highly predictive of scores at 12-48 months (p<0.001). PedsQL scores were higher (better) in those reported by children/adolescents than by their parents (p<0.01). In contrast, HFS scores were higher in parents than children (p<0.001), indicating more fear. Strong correlations were observed between child and parent scores (p<0.001). No significant improvement in these scores was detected following intervention (ustekinumab or HCL). Meta-analysis revealed modest but statistically significant associations between HbA1c and PedsQL (β(std)=-0.11; 95% CI -0.20, -0.03) and HFS (β(std)=0.11; 95% CI 0.00, 0.21), and between CGM time in range and PedsQL (β(std)=0.14; 95% CI 0.03, 0.26) but not HFS (β(std)=-0.05; 95% CI -0.16, 0.06). Beta cell function (AUC C-peptide) was strongly associated with HbA1c (β(std)=-0.29; 95% CI -0.39, -0.20) and CGM time in range (β(std)=0.41; 95% CI 0.30, 0.52). Higher beta cell function showed a trend towards better PedsQL (β(std)=0.11; 95% CI -0.03, 0.25) and lower HFS (β(std)=-0.05; 95% CI -0.17, 0.07) but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: PedsQL and HFS scores changed little during the first 48 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. These scores showed modest but statistically significant associations with measures of glucose management (HbA1c and CGM time in range), whereas the relationships with residual beta cell function (C-peptide) were weaker and did not reach significance. The modest size of these effects suggests current PROMs capture only limited aspects of the clinical benefit associated with beta cell preservation. Future research should incorporate psychometric instruments that are specifically adapted for young people using modern diabetes technologies and undergoing disease-modifying therapy, to ensure outcomes are meaningfully represented in early-stage type 1 diabetes trials.

Adolescent↗

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

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

Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms according to comorbidities, risk factors, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage declined between 1980 and 2010, which coincided with a decline in smoking and prevalence of hypertension. We aimed to investigate whether the decrease in subarachnoid haemorrhage incidence is paralleled by declines in unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) prevalence. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles published in any language from Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2025, and reassessed 68 articles published before March 1, 2011 from a 2011 systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they used a cross-sectional or case-control design and provided the crude number of participants and those with UIA. We only included studies reporting numbers of UIA separately from ruptured aneurysms and with ten or more patients. Summary data were independently extracted by JD with AZ or CB and conflicts were resolved by GJER. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with UIA. Relative to a hypothetical reference population (mean age 50 years, 50% women, and no comorbidities), age and/or sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for regions, comorbidities, and risk ratios (RRs) for female sex, smoking, and hypertension were estimated using generalised linear mixed models. A time trend analysis was done by binomial meta regression using the mid-year of data acquisition. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD420261296728. FINDINGS: Our search screened 4708 studies. 67 reassessed and 95 newly identified articles, reporting on 316 131 participants and 11 822 people with UIAs, were included in our meta-analysis. In the reference population, the estimated prevalence of UIAs was 3·9% (95% CI 3·0-5·1). The prevalence of UIAs in individuals with atherosclerosis was 5·5% (4·7-6·4; 2229 of 40970 participants) and the adjusted PR was 1·3 (95% CI 0·8-2·0) compared with the reference population. For positive family history of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) or UIA, the UIA prevalence was 7·9% (5·6-11·1; 412 of 4252 participants) and the adjusted PR was 2·4 (0·5-11·2). For connective-tissue disorder, the UIA prevalence was 10·3% (6·5-16·0; 94 of 879 participants) and the adjusted PR was 3·9 (2·0-7·6). For autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), the UIA prevalence was 12·8% (9·2-17·6; 293 of 1990 participants) and the adjusted PR was 4·4 (1·5-12·6). RRs were for current smoking 1·4 (1·2-1·6; 798 of 27911 participants), for having hypertension 1·6 (1·5-1·7, 4043 of 83053 participants), and for female sex 1·9 (1·8-2·0; 3415 of 65020 women and 2122 of 76130 men). In studies on healthy individuals with MR angiography or CT angiography as imaging modality, the prevalence in 2016-2022 was 6·6% (6·3-6·8; 2904 of 41191 participants). The adjusted PR was 1·8 (1·1-2·8) for 2016-2022 versus 2002-2015. Prevalence of UIAs of 5 mm or larger was 0·7% (0·6-0·8) in 2002-2015 and 1·4% (1·0-1·9) in 2016-2022. The UIA prevalence did not differ between countries. τ2 showed significant heterogeneity between studies. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. INTERPRETATION: Prevalence of UIA is increasing, particularly over the past two decades. This increase is only in part explained by improved detection of small UIAs and an ageing population, and other factors-such as environmental-are likely involved. Alongside patients with ADPKD and a positive family history of aSAH, patients with connective-tissue disorders had a higher prevalence of UIA than the reference population. Our findings warrant further investigation into the potential benefit of personalised screening and management strategies in groups at high risk for having UIAs. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to mental health services in England (the ODDESSI Trial): a multisite cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Open Dialogue is a person-centred, transdiagnostic model of mental health care that emphasises continuity, therapeutic relationships, and collaboration with the service user's social network. Open Dialogue is a service-wide approach to care involving network meetings with the service user, members of their social network, and usually two practitioners who support the network throughout the duration of care. In this cluster-randomised trial, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to community mental health services in England. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel two-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled superiority trial was conducted in mental health services in five National Health Service trusts in London and the South of England. Clusters were defined at the level of primary care practices within service catchment areas. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older presenting in crisis to mental health services and registered with a practice within trial clusters. Randomisation was done at the cluster level (1:1), stratified by catchment area, and balanced on average general practice (GP) list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). The chief investigator, senior statistician, and assessors of the primary outcome were masked in the study. Participants either received Open Dialogue or treatment as usual, which refers to the functional team model currently implemented throughout English mental health services. The primary outcome was time (days) to first relapse following initial recovery from the index crisis censored at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Participant-reported secondary outcomes were EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale, Social Provisions Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, measured at five timepoints over 2 years, and clinical measures were extracted from electronic health records. People with relevant lived experience were involved in the design and execution of the study. Fidelity to the model of care in Open Dialogue and treatment as usual, and adherence to the delivery of Open Dialogue, were measured prior to each site starting participant recruitment, then every 6 months thereafter until the final participant follow-up in that site. The trial was retrospectively registered (ISRCTN52653325) and is complete. FINDINGS: 185 general practices associated with six mental health Trusts across England were identified for screening. 105 practices were excluded, and 80 were included in cluster formation, forming 32 clusters that were randomly assigned (16 to treatment as usual and 16 to the Open Dialogue intervention). One mental health trust (two clusters) withdrew, resulting in five mental health trusts (30 clusters) participating in the trial. Between June 25, 2019, and Dec 9, 2021, 494 participants (266 [54%] female gender, 221 [45%] male gender, 341 [69%] White British) with a mean age of 38·1 years (SD 13·4) provided consent for study inclusion (223 in the treatment as usual group and 271 in the Open Dialogue group). Of these, 174 (78%) in the treatment as usual group and 225 (83%) in the Open Dialogue group recovered and had data enabling relapse determination; there was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of time to relapse following initial recovery (marginal hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·67-1·32]). For secondary outcomes, Open Dialogue was associated with significantly lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to crisis care or secondary mental health services, and with improvements in self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with services. There were no significant differences in social network quality or size. There were 386 serious adverse events (281 in the treatment as usual group and 105 in the Open Dialogue group); 376 (97%) were deemed to be unrelated to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Open Dialogue did not reduce time to first relapse compared with treatment as usual, the primary outcome, but it reduced acute inpatient bed use, improved service user reported outcomes and experience, and there were no significant safety concerns. Further investigation is required to determine whether Open Dialogue can enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of crisis care and continuing care in community mental health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Humans↗