SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Fetal growth restriction”

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.

328 records · Page 19Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Distal versus proximal radial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: comparative outcomes and learning curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to proximal transradial access (pTRA) for neuroangiography, but comparative real-world data and evidence on its early learning curve remain limited. We compared procedural performance and access-site complications between dTRA and pTRA and evaluated the early learning curve of dTRA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 470 diagnostic cerebral angiography procedures, representing 421 unique patients, performed via radial access at a single center between January 2025 and February 2026, including 237 dTRA and 233 pTRA procedures. Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, procedural performance, and clinically assessed access-site events were compared between groups. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was assessed by postoperative bedside pulse examination and confirmed with Doppler ultrasound when clinical findings were uncertain. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of RAO, persistent bleeding or repeated compression, hand edema, and a composite access-site event endpoint. Because repeated procedures occurred in a subset of patients and event counts were limited, first-procedure sensitivity analysis and analyses of infrequent outcomes were interpreted cautiously. The dTRA learning process was assessed in the first 100 dTRA cases performed by a single operator using multivariable regression, cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, segmented trend analysis, and phase-based comparisons. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, including age, male sex, BMI category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use. Compared with pTRA, dTRA was associated with more puncture attempts (3.0 [2.0-4.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0], P < 0.001), longer puncture time (2.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0] min, P = 0.003), lower first-pass success (19.4% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001), and a higher crossover rate (11.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.037). However, dTRA was associated with a lower clinically assessed RAO rate (2.5% vs 7.7%, P = 0.011). On multivariable analysis, pTRA was independently associated with higher odds of RAO (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.26-8.49, P = 0.015) and the composite access-site event endpoint (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.55-6.28, P = 0.001). Similar findings were observed in a sensitivity analysis restricted to the first procedure per patient. In the first 100 dTRA cases, cumulative dTRA experience was independently associated with shorter total procedure time (beta = -0.074 min/case, P = 0.009), while CUSUM and moving-average analyses suggested that the major learning effect occurred within approximately the first 10-15 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-operator cohort, dTRA was associated with lower clinically assessed RAO than pTRA despite greater access difficulty. The early learning effect was mainly reflected in shorter total procedure time. These findings support the feasibility of dTRA but should be interpreted cautiously given the study's observational design and limited anatomical data.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Neurological effects of encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia (NEAT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ataxia telangiectasia is a rare, multisystem disorder with progressive cerebellar neurodegeneration and no approved treatments. The efficacy of corticosteroids, including erythrocyte encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate (eDSP), which have been studied for two decades in this disease, has not yet been proven in randomised trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of eDSP in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia. METHODS: NEAT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, conducted at 20 sites across nine countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and USA). Eligible participants were children aged 6 years or older weighing at least 15 kg, with a genetic diagnosis of ataxia telangiectasia and presence of neurological symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the eDSP or placebo group via an independent interactive web response system and were stratified by age (6-9 years or ≥10 years), sex, and region (USA vs other countries). All participants, investigators, sponsors, and raters were masked to treatment assignments. eDSP was given intravenously every 21-30 days for six doses. All randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and safety populations; the primary and secondary efficacy analyses were conducted in participants aged 6-9 years in the ITT population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in Rescored Modified International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (RmICARS) score between baseline and month 6, and a mixed-model-repeated-measures analysis was used. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06193200, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 24, 2024, and Dec 17, 2025, we screened 125 participants for eligibility, of whom 105 (84%) were randomly assigned to the eDSP group (n=51 [49%]) or the placebo group (n=54 [51%]) and received at least one dose of treatment. The mean age was 8·5 years (SD 1·9) in the eDSP group and 8·6 years (2·3) in the placebo group (overall age range 6-17 years). In the eDSP group, 24 (47%) of 51 participants were girls and 27 (53%) were boys and, in the placebo group, 26 (48%) of 54 were girls and 28 (52%) were boys. Of ITT participants aged 6-9 years, 38 (95%) of 40 in the eDSP group and 41 (95%) of 43 in the placebo group completed the study. Compared with the placebo group, no significant differences were identified in change in RmICARS score from baseline to 6 months in participants aged 6-9 years: least squares mean difference -1·30 (95% CI -2·77 to 0·18; p=0·085). Adverse events were reported in 47 (92%) of 51 participants in the eDSP group and in 50 (93%) of 54 participants in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were vomiting, pyrexia, pruritus, nasopharyngitis, cough, headache, and fatigue. There were no reports of treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths. Safety laboratory parameters did not identify adverse effects on growth, metabolism, bone mineral density, or endocrine function in any of the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved, because the effect of eDSP on neurological symptoms did not reach statistical significance. The favourable safety profile of eDSP, previously described in a large study of children with ataxia telangiectasia, was confirmed in this trial. The eDSP programme, comprising two randomised studies and treating the largest cohort of patients with ataxia telangiectasia to date, underscores the need for rigorously designed trials of sufficient duration to detect sustained clinical benefit. FUNDING: Quince Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗

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; I² = 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; I² = 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; I² = 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; I² = 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; I² = 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; I² = 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↗