SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “personalized exercise prescription”

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.

238 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepwise treatment intensification is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes, including insulin initiation when non-insulin glucose-lowering medications are insufficient. Guidelines recommend combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin to improve glycaemic efficacy while reducing weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk. COMBINE 4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of IcoSema, a once-weekly combination therapy of basal insulin icodec and semaglutide (a GLP-1-receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: COMBINE 4 was a 40-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3b trial conducted across 97 sites in nine countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8·0%) receiving oral glucose-lowering medications were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio without stratification to IcoSema or once-daily glargine U100. The titration target was 3·9-5·0 mmol/L (70-90 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in bodyweight, both from baseline to week 40, evaluated in all randomly allocated participants. Adverse events were recorded during weeks 0-45. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269107) and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 653 individuals screened between Feb 15 and Aug 6, 2024, 151 did not meet screening criteria and 17 withdrew before initiating treatment; 243 were randomised to IcoSema and 242 to glargine U100. Of the 485 randomly allocated participants, 286 (59%) were male and 199 (41%) were female, and median age was 58 years (range 26-82). For HbA1c, from baseline (9·57% for IcoSema and 9·50% for glargine U100), mean change to week 40 was greater with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (-3·32 vs -2·44 percentage points; estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·88 percentage points [95% CI -1·12 to -0·63]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). From baseline to week 40, mean bodyweight decreased with IcoSema and increased with glargine U100 (-0·79 vs 3·81 kg; ETD -4·61 kg [95% CI -5·46 to -3·75]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). Rate of combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL], confirmed with a blood glucose meter) or severe hypoglycaemia (severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery) was statistically significantly lower with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (0·29 vs 0·59 episodes per person-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·56 [95% CI 0·32 to 0·97]; p=0·04). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events with IcoSema. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly IcoSema demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction and bodyweight change, with lower rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia, versus glargine U100, suggesting that IcoSema might be an effective once-weekly treatment option for insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Beyond Glycaemia: Fear of Hypoglycaemia, Cognition and Functional Mobility After Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomised, Single-Centre Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on psychological, cognitive and functional outcomes of advanced diabetes technologies in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains limited. We evaluated whether initiation of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy was associated with changes in fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, psychological well-being, cognition, frailty-related measures and mobility-related function in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D. METHODS: This prespecified, exploratory secondary analysis was conducted within a single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial including adults aged ≥ 65 years with long-standing T1D. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to initiate AHCL therapy using the MiniMed 780G system or to continue standard diabetes treatment. The secondary outcomes included WHO-5, the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Fried frailty phenotype and performance-based functional measures. No formal sample-size calculation was performed for these secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were randomised and 29 completed 12 months of follow-up and were included in the treatment-effect analyses. In the baseline-adjusted primary analysis, AHCL therapy was associated with a lower HFS-II score than standard treatment (adjusted mean difference -18.9; 95% CI: -32.4 to -5.4; nominal p = 0.008), although this finding did not remain statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.104) or in an exploratory model additionally adjusted for sex (difference -13.6; 95% CI: -32.2 to 5.0; p = 0.145). Diabetes distress, psychological well-being, global cognition and processing speed did not differ between groups. In sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, the between-group differences remained statistically significant for 6-min walk distance (92.6 m; 95% CI: 36.8 to 148.3; p = 0.002) and Timed Up and Go performance (-2.27 s; 95% CI: -4.28 to -0.27; p = 0.028), but not for gait speed (0.27 m/s; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.59; p = 0.099). At 12 months, 12 of 14 AHCL participants were robust and 2 were pre-frail; in the control group, 11 of 15 were robust and 4 were pre-frail. No participant was classified as frail at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, selected cohort, AHCL therapy was associated with a nominally lower fear-of-hypoglycaemia score and better performance on selected mobility-related tests over 12 months. The fear-of-hypoglycaemia finding did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons or additional adjustment for sex. Six-minute walk distance and Timed Up and Go remained statistically significant in the exploratory sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, whereas the gait-speed difference did not. No measurable between-group deterioration in global cognition or processing speed was observed. These exploratory findings require confirmation in larger studies with balanced representation by sex and direct measurement of physical activity. These findings also support a person-centred clinical message: older age alone should not be regarded as a barrier to AHCL when treatment is introduced with individualised education and appropriate ongoing support.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Integrated Telehealth Rehabilitation and Quality of Life in Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Whether integrated rehabilitation strategies spanning intensive care unit (ICU), hospital, and postdischarge phases improve quality of life after acute respiratory failure is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an integrated multicomponent telehealth-based rehabilitation intervention on health-related quality of life at 90 days after hospital discharge among adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial in ICUs of 20 public hospitals in Brazil enrolled adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation between June 2024 and May 2025, with follow-up through September 2025. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent telehealth-based rehabilitation program integrating an ICU telehealth-based rehabilitation intervention focused on ventilator liberation; a ward telehealth-based rehabilitation intervention targeting risk stratification and initiation of individualized rehabilitation plans; and a postdischarge telehealth-based rehabilitation intervention consisting of a 2-month personalized centralized telerehabilitation program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Health-related quality of life at 90 days after hospital discharge, measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) utility score (range, -0.17 [worse than death] to 1 [best health state], with 0 representing death). RESULTS: Among 1916 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [17.3] years; 43.6% female), 1063 were assigned to the intervention and 853 to usual care per local protocols. At 90 days after hospital discharge, mean (SD) EQ-5D-3L utility scores were higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (0.16 [0.31] vs 0.12 [0.28]; adjusted difference, 0.049; 95% CI, 0.0002 to 0.098; P = .04) but did not differ among survivors (0.60 [0.32] vs 0.59 [0.32]; adjusted difference, -0.045; 95% CI, -0.138 to 0.045; P = .34). Compared with usual care, the intervention resulted in lower 90-day all-cause mortality (71.8% [676 of 941] vs 78.3% [584 of 746]; adjusted difference, -7.6%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -0.6%; P = .03) and shorter mean (SD) mechanical ventilation duration (9.9 [10.3] vs 15.5 [15.9] days; adjusted difference, -6.2 days; 95% CI, -8.5 to -3.9; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, an integrated telehealth-based rehabilitation strategy delivered across ICU, hospital, and postdischarge phases improved 90-day health-related quality of life, potentially influenced by reduced mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06343545.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Humans↗