Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Central venous catheter”

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.

297 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of mitapivat in adults with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia (ENERGIZE-T): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The absence of disease-modifying therapies for patients with α-thalassaemia and oral disease-modifying therapies for patients with β-thalassaemia has been a substantial unmet need in these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mitapivat, an oral allosteric activator of pyruvate kinase, in adults with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. METHODS: ENERGIZE-T is a global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, conducted across 19 countries in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and the Middle East. Patients aged 18 years or older with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia were randomly allocated (2:1) with a central interactive response technology system, stratified by geographical region and thalassaemia genotype, to receive 100 mg mitapivat or placebo orally twice a day for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was transfusion reduction response (TRR), defined as a reduction of at least 50% in transfused red blood cell units with a reduction of at least two units in any consecutive 12-week period until week 48 compared with baseline. Efficacy was analysed in the full analysis set, comprising all randomly allocated patients. Type, severity, and relationship of adverse events and serious adverse events were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04770779) and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2021 and May 2, 2023, 305 patients were screened, of whom 258 were randomly allocated (median age 33·5 years [IQR 27·0-44·0]; 136 [53%] female and 122 [47%] male participants). Of 258 patients allocated, 238 (92%) completed the double-blind treatment period. All patients were required to have a safety follow-up approximately 4 weeks after the final dose of study drug, regardless of completion of the double-blind period or continuation into the open-label extension period. In the full analysis set, TRRs occurred in 52 (30%) of 171 patients in the mitapivat group and 11 (13%) of 87 in the placebo group (adjusted difference 18 percentage points [95% CI 8-27]; two-sided p=0·0003). The safety analysis set comprised 172 patients in the mitapivat group (including one patient allocated to the placebo group who received one dose of mitapivat in error) and 85 in the placebo group. Adverse events were reported in 155 (90%) patients treated with mitapivat and 71 (84%) treated with placebo; the most common events with mitapivat were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, initial insomnia, diarrhoea, and fatigue. Serious adverse events were reported in 19 (11%) patients treated with mitapivat and 13 (15%) treated with placebo. Ten (6%) patients who received mitapivat and one (1%) who received placebo discontinued study treatment due to adverse events. No deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Mitapivat significantly reduced the transfusion burden and was generally well tolerated, showing a favourable benefit-risk profile. These findings support mitapivat as the first oral disease-modifying therapy for adults with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia, providing a new treatment option to reduce transfusion burden in this patient population. FUNDING: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Adult↗
PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, a selective orexin 2 receptor agonist for narcolepsy type 1 (Vibrance-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical potential of orexin 2 receptor (OX2R) agonism for improving measures of wakefulness and cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy type 1 has been described in a phase 2 study. Here, we aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, another oral OX2R agonist, in narcolepsy type 1. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, adult participants (aged 18-70 years) with narcolepsy type 1 were recruited from 46 hospitals and private research centres across the USA, Europe, and Australia. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) in blocks of four via an interactive response technology system stratified by region and baseline weekly cataplexy rate (WCR) to receive 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg tablets of alixorexton or placebo once daily for 6 weeks, followed by an optional 7-week open-label extension. Participants had narcolepsy type 1, diagnosed per the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition, and confirmed by overnight polysomnography and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test or cerebrospinal hypocretin-1 concentrations. The sponsor, assessors, investigators, and participants were masked during the randomised double-blind treatment period. Efficacy and safety assessments were conducted in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in mean sleep latency (MSL) on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06358950) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2024, and May 5, 2025, 153 individuals were screened and 92 participants were randomly assigned to receive alixorexton 4 mg (n=23), 6 mg (n=22), 8 mg (n=24), or placebo (n=23). Mean age was 33&#xb7;5 years (SD 12&#xb7;1), 57 (62%) were women, and 35 (38%) were men. At week 6, the observed MSL on the MWT was 2&#xb7;3 min (SD 2&#xb7;7) for placebo, 24&#xb7;0 min (8&#xb7;7) for alixorexton 4 mg, 25&#xb7;9 min (9&#xb7;4) for 6 mg, and 28&#xb7;2 min (11&#xb7;4) for 8 mg. Alixorexton improved MSL on the MWT, with a least-squares mean placebo-corrected change from baseline of 22&#xb7;2 min (95% CI 17&#xb7;2-27&#xb7;2) for alixorexton 4 mg, 24&#xb7;1 min (19&#xb7;0-29&#xb7;1) for 6 mg, and 26&#xb7;0 min (21&#xb7;0-31&#xb7;0) for 8 mg (adjusted p=0&#xb7;0099 for 4 mg, adjusted p<0&#xb7;0001 for 6 mg and 8 mg). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of participants given alixorexton and more frequently than those given placebo up to week 6 were pollakiuria (38 [55%]), insomnia (19 [28%]), salivary hypersecretion (17 [25%]), micturition urgency (ten [14%]), blurred vision (ten [14%]), and hyperhidrosis (five [7%]). INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial, once-daily oral alixorexton provided clinically meaningful improvements at 6 weeks for participants with narcolepsy type 1, including in wakefulness, excessive daytime sleepiness, and cataplexy. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events consistent with the known on-target effects of OX2R agonists. Together, these findings support the further phase 3 evaluation of alixorexton as a potential therapeutic option for people with narcolepsy type 1. FUNDING: Alkermes.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effects of time-restricted eating on markers of glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes (fasting blood glucose of 5.6-6.9 mmol/l or HbA1c of 39-47 mmol/mol [5.7-6.4%]) or type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose &#x2265;7 mmol/l or HbA1c &#x2265;48 mmol/mol [6.5%]). METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 August 2025. Moreover, forward and backward citation searches were performed. Eligible studies were RCTs in adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, lasting &#x2265;2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (&#x2264;12 h eating window) with a non-time-restricted control diet. Studies involving pregnancy, other fasting regimens, or non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Data were pooled as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random-effects generic inverse variance models in Cochrane Review Manager Web, and results are presented as forest plots. The certainty of evidence was defined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology, and risk of bias was estimated by using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Out of 2043 records identified through the database search, as well as 1249 from forward and backward citation searches, ten RCTs including 599 participants were included. The mean length of the studies was 4 months, and the eating windows ranged from 4 to 10 h per day. The pooled meta-analysis showed no overall effect of TRE on HbA1c (-3.33 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.87, 0.20 (-0.30% points; -0.63, 0.02); p=0.06, moderate certainty). Nevertheless, following stratification by subgroups, TRE resulted in a reduction in HbA1c of 0.93 mmol/mol (-1.70, -0.17 [-0.09% points; -0.16, -0.02]; p=0.02) in individuals with prediabetes but not in individuals with type 2 diabetes (-4.68 mmol/mol; -10.08, 0.72 (-0.43% points; -0.92, 0.07); p=0.09). TRE reduced fasting blood glucose in the pooled analysis (-0.30 mmol/l; -0.53, -0.07; p<0.01, moderate certainty) as well as in the subgroup analyses in individuals with prediabetes (-0.14 mmol/l; -0.27, -0.01; p=0.03) and with type 2 diabetes (-0.48 mmol/l; -0.78, -0.17; p<0.01). Moreover, TRE lowered body weight by 1.6 kg (-2.2, -1.0; p<0.001) in the pooled analysis. The evidence was limited by imprecision arising from wide confidence intervals in some of the included studies, which may be due to small sample sizes. Lastly, the effects of TRE on markers of insulin sensitivity, beta cell function and continuous glucose monitoring measurements were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that TRE reduces fasting blood glucose but not HbA1c. The subgroup analyses revealed that TRE improved HbA1c and fasting glucose in individuals with prediabetes and improved fasting glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Future large-scale studies should investigate long-term effects of TRE in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024523591 FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Three authors (JS, A-DT, THA) are employed at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, a public hospital and research institution under the Capital Region of Denmark, partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

The glucagon and GLP-1 receptor dual agonist DD01 for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and steatohepatitis (DD01-DN-02): 12-week results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a major public health problem arising in the context of metabolic syndrome and obesity. DD01 is a liver-targeted GLP-1 receptor and glucagon dual agonist being investigated for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and MASH. The DD01-DN-02 trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DD01 in adults with MASLD or MASH; this initial analysis reports prespecified 12-week outcomes to assess early hepatic effects. METHODS: DD01-DN-02 is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 12 outpatient clinical sites in the USA. Adults aged 18-70 years with obesity or who were overweight (BMI &#x2265;25 kg/m2) were included in the study. Patients with MASLD or MASH underwent liver biopsy and MRI-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and were eligible if liver fat content was 10% or higher with metabolic risk factors, or if the biopsy confirmed MASH with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of at least 4. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous DD01 40 mg or matched placebo over 48 weeks, dose-escalated over 2 weeks, using a centrally administered interactive response technology system. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by an independent statistician. Participants, investigators, study staff, outcome assessors, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants having at least a 30% relative reduction in liver fat by MRI-PDFF at week 12, which was analysed in all randomly assigned participants receiving at least one dose of study drug or placebo. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Missing primary endpoint data were handled using multiple imputation under a missing-at-random assumption. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06410924) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2024, and Jan 30, 2025, 67 eligible participants were enrolled, of whom 33 were randomly assigned to DD01 and 34 to placebo. The mean age of participants was 48&#xb7;4 years (SD 10&#xb7;6), 42 (63%) were female, 25 (37%) were male, 57 (85%) were White, and 52 (78%) participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH. At week 12, 25 (76%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 had a 30% or higher reduction in liver fat versus four (12%) of 34 participants receiving placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 28&#xb7;8 [95% CI 7&#xb7;2-115&#xb7;2]; adjusted relative risk 6&#xb7;3 [95% CI 2&#xb7;5-15&#xb7;9]; p<0&#xb7;0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 28 (85%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 and 23 (68%) of 34 participants receiving placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea (18 [55%] of 33 participants assigned DD01; six [18%] of 34 participants assigned placebo), diarrhoea (nine [27%] of 33; six [18%] of 34), and vomiting (ten [30%] of 33; four [12%] of 34). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in four (12%) of 33 participants in the DD01 group and one (3%) of 34 participants in the placebo group. Two (6%) treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in the DD01 group (abdominal pain and acute cholecystitis) and zero in the placebo group. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified 12-week primary analysis, DD01 produced rapid reductions in liver fat compared with placebo, supporting further evaluation in long-term studies. FUNDING: D&D Pharmatech, Neuraly.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Venetoclax added to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R for newly diagnosed double-hit lymphomas: phase 2 results from ALLIANCE A051701, an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6, known as double-hit lymphoma, is a highly aggressive malignancy with poor outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to study whether the addition of the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax to chemoimmunotherapy in patients with double-hit lymphoma resulted in superior efficacy compared with chemotherapy alone. METHODS: ALLIANCE A051701 is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial in separate cohorts of patients with double-hit lymphoma and patients with double-expressor lymphoma. In this analysis, we report phase 2 results from the double-hit lymphoma cohort. Patients aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed double-hit lymphoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 were recruited from 41 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) either alone (DA-EPOCH-R group) or with venetoclax (DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group) using permuted block randomisation schedule. All patients and investigators were aware of group assignment. DA-EPOCH-R was administered on a 21-day schedule for up to six total cycles. Venetoclax was given as 600 mg by mouth daily on days 4-8 of cycle 1 and on days 1-5 of cycles 2-6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the modified intent-to-treat population inclusive of all eligible patients with centrally confirmed double-hit lymphoma. The safety analysis population consisted of all evaluable patients who received at least one dose of protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03984448) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: 36 patients were randomly assigned to the DA-EPOCH-R group and 37 to the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group between Oct 22, 2019, and Sept 18, 2020. Median age was 65 years (IQR 56-73) and baseline demographic factors were well balanced between groups, with 30 (45%) female and 36 (55%) male patients. Most patients (59 [89%]) were white, two (3%) were Asian, one (2%) was Black or African American, and four (6%) had unknown or unreported ethnicity. The majority of patients had MYC-BCL2 double-hit lymphoma (59 [89%] patients), advanced stage disease (57 [86%] patients), and high-intermediate/high-risk IPI score (42 [64%] patients). Median follow-up was 34&#xb7;7 months (IQR 30&#xb7;1-36&#xb7;8). Median progression-free survival was 28&#xb7;4 months (95% CI 5&#xb7;2-not estimable) in the DA-EPOCH-R group (n=30) and 7&#xb7;7 months (95% CI 4&#xb7;7-NE) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (n=36; hazard ratio [HR] 1&#xb7;13, 95% CI 0&#xb7;53-2&#xb7;37; p=0&#xb7;75). Deaths on treatment occurred in one (3%) patient in the DA-EPOCH-R group (due to dyspnoea; possibly related to treatment) and six (17%) patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (four due to sepsis [three at least possible related and one unrelated], two due to cardiac arrest [at least possibly related]), prompting early closure of the double-hit lymphoma cohort. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse event was febrile neutropenia, occurring in 15 (43%) of 35 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group and 11 (37%) of 30 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R group. The median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The 24-month overall survival estimates were 72% (95% CI 52-85) in the DA-EPOCH-R group compared with 52% (95% CI 33-68) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (HR 2&#xb7;49, 95% CI 1&#xb7;03-6&#xb7;04; p=0&#xb7;038). INTERPRETATION: The addition of venetoclax to DA-EPOCH-R resulted in excess mortality, prompting early study closure. Robust accrual shows that prospective multicentre trials are feasible in double-hit lymphoma, and the outcomes in the DA-EPOCH-R group serve as a benchmark for future studies. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Thymosin-&#x251;1 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-&#x251;1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-&#x3b1;1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-&#x251;1 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-&#x3b1;1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-&#x3b1;1 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-&#x251;1 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-&#x251;1, 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-&#x251;1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I&#xb2; = 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; I&#xb2; 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; I&#xb2; = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I&#xb2; = 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 (I&#xb2; = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin&#x2011;&#x3b1;1 administration for any outcome (P &#x2265; 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-&#x3b1;1 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-&#x251;1 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

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

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

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I&#xb2; = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I&#xb2; = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I&#xb2; = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I&#xb2; = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I&#xb2; = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗