SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “domain alignment”

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.

220 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

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

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presented in this article was inspired by our earlier report of this trial published in The Oncologist in 2020, which was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections; a majority of the co-authors disagreed with this decision.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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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

AMPLITUDE trial↗

PubMed2026

Adjuvant alectinib versus chemotherapy in resected ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALINA): health-related quality-of-life and safety outcomes from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the global, phase 3, open-label, randomised ALINA trial. We report safety and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes from the ALINA trial. METHODS: Eligible patients aged 18 years or older with resected, ALK-positive, stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC (per the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control Cancer Staging Manual 7th edition) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (1:1) via a block-stratified randomisation method to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy for four 3-week cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and race. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was disease-free survival. Safety was a secondary endpoint and HRQoL was an exploratory endpoint. Safety was assessed by the investigator as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5·0 until 28 days after the last alectinib dose or chemotherapy cycle. HRQoL was assessed via the Short-Form 36-item health survey version 2 (SF-36v2) questionnaire at baseline, every 3 weeks to week 12, then every 12 weeks until disease recurrence, consent withdrawal, death, or week 96. Norm-based scoring was applied; clinically meaningful changes were defined using the SF-36v2 manual. Safety was assessed in the safety-evaluable population and HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03456076) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, 2018, and Dec 8, 2021, 257 patients were assigned to receive alectinib (n=130) or chemotherapy (n=127). 123 (48%) patients were male and 134 (52%) were female; 143 (56%) were Asian. The safety-evaluable population comprised 128 patients who received alectinib and 120 patients who received chemotherapy; median duration of safety follow-up was 24·8 months (IQR 22·0-24·9) in the alectinib group and 3·7 months (IQR 3·7-3·8) in the chemotherapy group. The safety of adjuvant alectinib was generally consistent with its known profile. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (eight [6%] of 128), alanine aminotransferase increased (two [2%] of 128), and blood bilirubin increased (two [2%] of 128) in the alectinib group, and neutrophil count decreased (12 [10%] of 120), neutropenia (ten [8%] of 120), and nausea (five [4%] of 120) in the chemotherapy group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (2%; one each with appendicitis and pneumonitis) of 128 patients in the alectinib group and eight (7%) of 120 patients in the chemotherapy group ( most common were gastrointestinal disorders in three [3%] patients). No deaths due to adverse events were reported in either group. There were fewer discontinuations due to adverse events with alectinib (seven [5%]) versus chemotherapy (15 [13%]). A clinically meaningful difference in improvement from baseline was seen at week 12 for bodily pain, role physical, mental health, social functioning, and vitality SF-36v2 domains with alectinib; improvements in physical and mental HRQoL were maintained over 2 years of active treatment (at week 96, mean Mental Component Summary score: 49·9 [SD 10·4]; mean Physical Component Summary score: 48·8 [SD 7·2]) and reached levels similar to the general population (population norm: 50). INTERPRETATION: For patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC, adjuvant alectinib had a manageable safety profile; HRQoL improved and was maintained over 2 years of active treatment. Together with the disease-free survival benefit seen in ALINA, these data support adjuvant alectinib as an important new standard-of-care for patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Adult↗

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↗