Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Heart failure”

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.

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

233 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-ɑ1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-α1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-ɑ1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-α1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-α1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-ɑ1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-ɑ1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-ɑ1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I² not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I² = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin‑α1 administration for any outcome (P ≥ 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-α1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Sacral Neuromodulation in the Management of Refractory Pediatric Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Sacral neuromodulation is currently used in the pediatric patient population for refractory lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Evidence, however, is currently limited for institutional experiences of long-term outcomes for sacral neuromodulation in the pediatric patient population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to perform a retrospective review of a large multi-institutional cohort of pediatric patients that underwent sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for refractory LUTD, focused on rates of symptom improvement, quality of life, and bowel-bladder dysfunction measures following device implantation. Secondary objectives included assessing device complication rates and device removals due to failure or successful resolution of symptoms. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients at three children's hospitals that underwent SNM device implantation for refractory LUTD. Patients 4-18 years of age who were diagnosed with refractory LUTD and managed at a participating institution with follow-up were included. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and post-operatively after two-stage device implantation at initial follow-up and annually until device removal or final follow-up. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2022, a total of 205 children underwent SNM procedures at three pediatric hospital centers. 204 patients completed the two-stage procedure for permanent device implantation with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (1.3, 4.9). One hundred seventy-eight patients reported partial (25%) or complete (54%) device response/symptom improvement by final follow-up. Comparison of patient-reported validated questionnaires completed at baseline and by final follow-up visit revealed significant improvement in median Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.004) and Vancouver Nonneurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Dysfunctional Elimination Syndrome bowel-bladder dysfunction (BBD) scores (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Of those with any device complication (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;43;21%), 19 patients required device revision, and 20 required complete device removal. Separately, twenty-eight patients (13%) underwent device removal due to resolution of symptoms or treatment success at a median period of 5 years (4,7). CONCLUSION: SNM use demonstrated a majority of patients reporting at least partial subjective symptom improvement following device implantation across multiple institutions by final follow-up. SNM is a viable treatment option for refractory LUTD in the pediatric patient if willing to undergo an invasive procedure and in which thorough counseling of risks and benefits has occurred.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Phase IIB, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Intravenous Defibrotide for the Prevention and Treatment of Respiratory Distress and Cytokine Release Syndrome in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Endothelial dysfunction is key in COVID-19 pathogenesis. This randomized, double-blind phase IIb trial investigated continuous intravenous infusion of defibrotide in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and respiratory failure. METHODS: One-hundred and fifty patients were randomized (2:1) to defibrotide or placebo, stratified by disease severity (WHO COVID-19 severity scale 4/5 vs. 6). The primary endpoint was clinical improvement time (days from first improvement through Day 30). RESULTS: Median clinical improvement time was not significantly different with defibrotide versus placebo (15.0 [IQR: 0-24] vs. 20.0 [IQR: 9-25] days; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.10). Day-30 (23.0% vs. 22.0%) and Day-60 (26.0% vs. 22.0%) mortality, reduction in mean fraction of inspired oxygen during treatment, and median duration of hospitalization did not differ with defibrotide versus placebo. Defibrotide demonstrated favorable safety, with no differences versus placebo in serious adverse events (34.0% vs. 36.0%), hypotension (16.0% vs. 12.0%), or hemorrhage (13.0% vs. 8.0%). Exploratory pre-specified biomarker analyses showed greater early d-dimer reduction and lymphocyte recovery with defibrotide, although these results require validation. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous infusion of defibrotide was safe but did not improve clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19. Further analyses will explore mechanistic actions and pharmacokinetics of defibrotide and the pathophysiology of endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT identifier: 2020-001409-21. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04348383.

Adult↗
PubMed2026

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacokinetically guided and body surface area-based 5-fluorouracil dosing in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Body surface area (BSA)-based 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) dosing remains the standard in colorectal cancer despite substantial interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, which may lead to underexposure, treatment failure, or severe toxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether pharmacokinetically guided 5-FU dosing improves efficacy and safety compared with conventional BSA-based dosing. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to the final search date. The search identified 1,802 records: PubMed/MEDLINE, 47; Embase, 118; and Scopus, 1,637 records. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacokinetically guided, area under the curve-guided, or therapeutic drug monitoring-based 5-FU dosing versus BSA-based dosing in colorectal cancer were included. Random-effects models were employed. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 809 unique patients were included. Across the primary severe-toxicity analysis, the pooled denominator was 1,338 reported observations, including 625 in the PK-guided 5-FU dosing arm and 713 in the BSA-based 5-FU dosing arm, because one study reported severe toxicity by treatment cycle rather than by patient. PK-guided dosing was associated with lower severe or grade&#x2009;&#x2265;&#x2009;3 toxicity (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.001; I&#xb2;=79%). PK-guided dosing was also associated with a higher objective response rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.80; P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001) and disease control rate (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.001). Severe diarrhea was reduced (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.62; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.0006), whereas mucositis, neutropenia/leukopenia, and hand-foot syndrome were not significantly different between dosing strategies. CONCLUSION: PK-guided 5-FU dosing was associated with lower severe toxicity and diarrhea and higher objective response and disease-control rates than conventional BSA-based dosing. However, the evidence was derived from a small and clinically heterogeneous group of studies, and progression-free or overall-survival benefits could not be established. The findings apply predominantly to metastatic colorectal cancer treated with infusional 5-FU within FOLFOX- or FOLFIRI-based regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study was a systematic review and metaanalysis, and not a clinical trial.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical performance of a giomer-based pit and fissure sealant with and without air-abrasion pretreatment: a 12-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pit and fissure sealants are widely used for caries prevention; however, their long-term success depends largely on retention. Giomer-based sealants containing surface pre-reacted glass ionomer fillers offer bioactive properties, yet concerns remain regarding their bonding durability when applied with mild self-etch primers. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment on the retention and caries preventive efficacy of a giomer-based sealant in young adults over 12 months. METHODS: This parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included 96 participants, each contributing one eligible sound permanent molar (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;48 per group). Participants were randomly allocated to either bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment followed by application of a giomer-based sealant (intervention group) or application of the same sealant without pretreatment (comparator group). Sealant retention and secondary caries incidence were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using Simonsen's criteria, and modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, respectively. The primary outcome was sealant retention at 12 months, whereas secondary caries incidence was assessed as a secondary outcome. Intergroup comparisons were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Intragroup comparisons were analyzed using Cochran's Q test followed by multiple comparisons. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals was calculated. Statistical significance was set at p&#x2009;&#x2264;&#x2009;0.05. RESULTS: At 6 months, complete sealant retention was observed in 91.7% of teeth in the intervention group and 75.0% in the comparator group, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.068). At 12 months, complete sealant retention was significantly higher in the intervention group (87.5%) than in the comparator group (33.3%) (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001). Teeth in the intervention group exhibited an 81.25% lower risk of sealant retention failure compared with the comparator group (RR&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.1875; 95% CI: 0.0864-0.4069; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001). No differences in secondary caries incidence were detected between groups during the 12-month follow-up period (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.0000). CONCLUSIONS: Bioactive glass air-abrasion pretreatment significantly improved the retention of a giomer-based fissure sealant compared with sealant application without pretreatment. No differences in secondary caries incidence were detected between groups during the 12-month follow-up period. Incorporating mechanical surface conditioning prior to sealant placement may enhance sealant retention without compromising preventive efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , (NCT06003452), 15-08-2023.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Lateral Femoral Condyle Angle Is an Anatomic Risk Factor for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Injury and Secondary Graft Rerupture.

PURPOSE: To define the lateral femoral condylar angle (LFCA)-a parameter measuring condylar inclination-and assess its predictive capacity for primary and recurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 50&#x2009;years who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2017 and 2022 were screened. Those with graft rerupture were matched 1:1:1 by sex, age, body mass index, and meniscal status to ACL-intact controls and patients without graft failure during a minimum 48-month follow-up. LFCA was measured as the angle between the long axis of the distal femur and the axis of the lateral femoral condyle, alongside 38 established parameters using preoperative 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging scans. Intergroup differences were assessed with one-way analysis of variance; multivariate regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses identified independent predictors and evaluated predictive performance. RESULTS: The study included 540 patients (180 per group: primary ACL injury, rerupture, controls). One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant gradient in LFCA across controls (81.3&#xb0;, 95% CI: 80.8-81.8&#xb0;), primary injuries (81.9&#xb0;, 95% CI: 81.5-82.3&#xb0;), and reruptures (84.2&#xb0;, 95% CI: 83.7-84.6&#xb0;) (P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001). In multivariate models adjusted for baseline factors, LFCA independently predicted primary injury (odds ratio [OR]&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.27, 95% CI: 1.13-1.42, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001; area under the curve [AUC]&#x2009;=&#x2009;.576) and rerupture (OR&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.46, 95% CI: 1.21-1.76, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001; AUC&#x2009;=&#x2009;.704). Combined models incorporating LFCA with tibial slopes, notch angle, and notch height achieved an AUC of .847 for primary injury prediction, whereas models with LFCA, lateral condylar flexion curvature radius, slope asymmetry, and tibial AP distance reached an AUC of .817 for rerupture. LFCA alone with lateral condylar flexion curvature radius yielded an AUC of .777 for rerupture prediction. Sex-stratified analyses confirmed LFCA predicted rerupture in both male patients (OR&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.44, 95% CI: 1.19-1.75) and female patients&#xa0;(OR&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.49, 95% CI: 1.16-1.92), and primary injury in male patients&#xa0;(OR&#x2009;=&#x2009;1.30, 95% CI: 1.15-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: LFCA is an independent predictor of ACL injury, showing particular strength in identifying Asian patients at high risk for graft rerupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study.

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 &#x2265;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 &#x2265;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&#xb7;0 months (IQR 4&#xb7;6-17&#xb7;2); median follow-up for progression-free survival was 11&#xb7;0 months (IQR 4&#xb7;8-18&#xb7;4) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 8&#xb7;3 months (4&#xb7;1-15&#xb7;5) for TACE. Median progression-free survival was 13&#xb7;0 months (95% CI 12&#xb7;2-16&#xb7;7) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus 9&#xb7;8 months (8&#xb7;0-11&#xb7;4) for TACE (HR 0&#xb7;70 [95% CI 0&#xb7;57-0&#xb7;86]; p=0&#xb7;0007). At the second data cutoff (Feb 23, 2026) and a median follow-up for overall survival of 24&#xb7;6 months (IQR 16&#xb7;5-31&#xb7;5) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 22&#xb7;9 months (14&#xb7;9-30&#xb7;2) for TACE, median overall survival was 39&#xb7;5 months (95% CI 34&#xb7;1-not reached) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 34&#xb7;7 months (28&#xb7;8-not reached) for TACE (HR 0&#xb7;84 [95% CI 0&#xb7;65-1&#xb7;09]; p=0&#xb7;18). At this data cutoff, median progression-free survival was 12&#xb7;9 months (95% CI 10&#xb7;2-15&#xb7;9) for STRIDE plus TACE and 8&#xb7;1 months (6&#xb7;5-10&#xb7;2) for the first 175 participants randomised to TACE (HR 0&#xb7;71 [95% CI 0&#xb7;56-0&#xb7;91]), with median follow-up of 10&#xb7;3 months (IQR 4&#xb7;6-23&#xb7;7) for STRIDE plus TACE and 7&#xb7;7 months (3&#xb7;0-18&#xb7;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↗
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Mobile-Delivered Exercise and Yoga Programs on Depressive Symptom Reduction in Employees: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mental health challenges such as stress and depression are prevalent among employees. Mobile health platforms that deliver exercise or yoga interventions offer a promising approach to improve mental health outcomes in this population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of 12-session adaptive moderate-intensity exercise and yoga programs delivered via a motion-detecting digital platform in reducing stress and depressive symptoms among employees. METHODS: This was an unblinded, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial conducted at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Boramae Medical Center between November 2023 and January 2024. Eligible participants were full-time employees. Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to an exercise, a yoga, or a cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-care control group using computer-generated randomization. The exercise and yoga groups engaged in motion-detecting, adaptive physical activity training, whereas the control group accessed mobile-based, self-directed stress management educational materials. The intervention was largely automated, with no individualized therapeutic guidance provided. Allocation was concealed until trial entry. All recruitment and outcome assessments were conducted in person at the hospitals. The primary outcomes were perceived stress and depressive symptoms, whereas the secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress, insomnia severity, cognitive stress response, occupational stress, and burnout. Physiological outcomes were assessed using heart rate variability and electroencephalography. Measurements were collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at 4-week follow-up. Data were analyzed using a multivariate linear model to evaluate the main effects of time, group, and time&#xd7;group interactions. RESULTS: Of the 75 randomized participants (exercise: n=24, 32%; yoga: n=25, 33.3%; and control: n=26, 34.7%), 71 (94.7%) who completed at least 9 of the 12 sessions (&#x2265;40 min each) were included in the outcome analysis (exercise: n=21, 29.5%; yoga: n=24, 33.8%; and control: n=26, 36.6%). For the coprimary outcomes, the group&#xd7;time interaction for depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) approached but did not reach the Bonferroni-corrected threshold (F4,136=2.71; P=.03; adjusted &#x3b1;=.025); however, planned pairwise comparisons revealed significantly greater improvement in the yoga group compared to the control group at 4-week follow-up (&#x3b2;=-3.67; adjusted P<.001). For the Perceived Stress Scale, the interaction was not significant (P=.29), although a significant main effect of time (P<.001) indicated overall stress reduction across all groups. For secondary outcomes, a significant group&#xd7;time interaction was found for the Cognitive Stress Responses Scale (P=.003), indicating differential trajectories of improvement. The yoga group showed a consistent linear decrease, whereas the exercise group showed immediate but less sustained gains. CONCLUSIONS: Digitally delivered adaptive yoga programs demonstrated superior and sustained improvements in depressive symptoms and Cognitive Stress Responses Scale scores compared with the active cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-care control group. However, the exercise program showed more modest and less sustained effects, warranting further investigation using larger samples.

Adult↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) uses in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS): diagnosis with brain metastasis (BM) - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumors in adults, and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a mainstay of management. However, several diagnostic challenges persist in the SRS pathway, particularly the differentiation of radiation necrosis (RN) from true tumor progression, which conventional MRI and even advanced imaging techniques often cannot reliably resolve. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer the potential to address these diagnostic limitations. This systematic review synthesizes current literature on AI applications for MRI-based diagnostic decision support in BM patients undergoing SRS, with a focus on radiomics and deep learning tools for distinguishing RN from progression, classifying molecular and histologic subtypes, and predicting treatment response. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched using a targeted query combining terms related to AI, brain metastasis, diagnosis or imaging, and SRS. After screening 483 records and applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 18 studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included. Data were extracted on study design, cohort characteristics, imaging modality, AI methodology, validation strategy, and reported diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Among the 18 included studies, AI models demonstrated strong performance across diagnostic tasks in the BM-SRS pathway. The differentiation of RN from true tumor progression was the most extensively studied application, addressed by 14 of 18 studies, with reported AUCs ranging from 0.71 to 0.94. Support vector machines, random-forest ensembles, convolutional neural networks, and transformer-based multimodal architectures were widely used. The literature evolved from single-sequence radiomic classifiers in 2018 to multimodal deep learning frameworks fusing imaging with clinical and genomic data in 2025. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI was the dominant imaging input, and texture-based radiomic features (GLCM, GLSZM, GLDM, and wavelet-derived features) were the most consistently predictive. The highest-performing models reached AUCs of 0.85-0.91 through multimodal integration of imaging with clinical and genomic features, and consistently outperformed expert neuroradiologist read on matched cases. Remaining studies addressed longitudinal segmentation-based detection of local failure and adverse radiation effects, BRAF mutation status in melanoma BM, early Gamma Knife treatment response, and primary tumor histology classification, with more variable performance. CONCLUSION: AI models, particularly those integrating MRI-derived radiomic features with clinical and genomic data, show high accuracy in supporting diagnostic decisions for BM patients treated with SRS. The post-SRS differentiation of radiation necrosis from true tumor progression has reached the greatest level of maturity and is closest to clinical translation, with potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies, personalize surveillance intervals, and rationalize treatment-pathway decisions. Other diagnostic applications, including molecular subtyping and primary tumor histology classification, remain exploratory and require further multicenter validation. Integration of AI tools into multidisciplinary tumor-board workflows, combined with prospective validation and standardized reporting, will be essential to realize the full clinical benefits of AI in SRS for brain metastases.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effect of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL trials: a prespecified pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide reduces clinically important kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to assess the pooled effects of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in prespecified analyses of participant-level data from the diverse populations of the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL randomised placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: Participants with CKD (FLOW) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (SELECT and SOUL) were randomly assigned semaglutide (once-weekly subcutaneous 1&#xb7;0 mg [FLOW], once-weekly subcutaneous 2&#xb7;4 mg [SELECT], or once-daily oral 14 mg [SOUL]) or matching placebo, added to standard of care. The primary outcome in this pooled analysis was time to first occurrence of a kidney composite, defined as onset of persistent 50% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), kidney failure (persistent eGFR <15 mL/min per 1&#xb7;73 m2, or initiation of kidney replacement therapy), kidney-related death, or cardiovascular-related death. Safety was also assessed. FINDINGS: The pooled participants from the trials (N=30&#x2008;787) had a mean follow-up of 39&#xb7;5-47&#xb7;5 months. Among participants assigned to semaglutide, 973 first events of the primary kidney composite occurred compared with 1134 first events for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0&#xb7;84 [95% CI 0&#xb7;77-0&#xb7;91]). First events of a narrower secondary kidney composite (excluding cardiovascular-related death from the primary outcome) were also reduced with semaglutide versus placebo (347 and 416, respectively; 0&#xb7;80 [0&#xb7;69-0&#xb7;92]). Safety outcomes were overall similar between groups, and in line with other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials. Serious adverse events were numberically lower with semaglutide than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Data pooled from three large phase 3 trials suggest that semaglutide reduces the risk of major kidney outcomes in a broad population with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease while having a favourable risk-benefit profile. In people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, with and without diabetes, semaglutide (oral or injected) prevents kidney-related and cardiovascular complications and induces adverse events in line with GLP-1 receptor agonist studies, regardless of baseline characteristics within the cardio-kidney-metabolic spectrum. This was a participant-level analysis conducted in a large database of three randomised controlled trials of similar design and examining the same treatment, but there were some differences in participants' baseline characteristics, and in the dose and route of administration of treatment. This pooled analysis adds evidence for the benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists in general, and semaglutide in particular, in a broad population of people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, suggesting that the benefit of semaglutide might not be explained only by its glycaemic effects, weight-management effects, or both. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n&#x2009;=&#x2009;209, ACCF n&#x2009;=&#x2009;240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70&#x2009;years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5&#x2009;months vs. threshold <&#x2009;12.0&#x2009;months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold <&#x2009;5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45&#x2009;days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of &#x2265;&#x2009;95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3&#x2009;months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30&#x2009;days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

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&#xb7;3 months (95% CI 21&#xb7;5-23&#xb7;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&#xb7;8 months (95% CI 5&#xb7;7-7&#xb7;1) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 4&#xb7;4 months (4&#xb7;1-5&#xb7;5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0&#xb7;52; 95% CI 0&#xb7;41-0&#xb7;66; p<0&#xb7;0001). At a median follow-up of 29&#xb7;7 months (95% CI 27&#xb7;7-31&#xb7;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&#xb7;8 months (14&#xb7;3-19&#xb7;0) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 14&#xb7;0 months (12&#xb7;8-15&#xb7;7) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0&#xb7;79; 0&#xb7;62-1&#xb7;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

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

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long&#x2011;term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

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&#xa0;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&#xa0;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

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗