SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “adverse”

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.

378 records · Page 21Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effect of Semaglutide on the Inflammatory Biomarker High-Sensitivity CRP in Patients With Established Cardiovascular Disease and Overweight or Obesity in SELECT: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity), among 17 604 patients with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, but not diabetes, randomization to the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide significantly reduced the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) compared with placebo (mean follow-up, 39.8 months). Inflammation, as indicated by plasma hsCRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) level, is implicated as a biomarker predicting cardiovascular risk in obesity and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. SELECT provides a unique opportunity to study the relationship among hsCRP, obesity, weight loss, and MACE outcomes in semaglutide versus placebo groups. METHODS: In this prespecified SELECT substudy, we evaluated whether baseline hsCRP levels predicted MACE risk and examined the relationships between changes in hsCRP levels and time to first MACE, baseline body weight, weight loss, and other clinical measures among treatment groups over time (104, 208 weeks) using multiple approaches, including Cox modeling. RESULTS: Baseline hsCRP level, which was similar in the semaglutide (geometric mean 1.96 mg/L) and placebo (geometric mean 1.91 mg/L) groups, was prognostic of future MACE. The risk of MACE increased across baseline hsCRP level <2, 2-<10, and ≥10 mg/L subgroups, including significant associations with cardiovascular and all-cause death. Semaglutide reduced hsCRP levels (-37.8% [104 weeks]) and risk of MACE across all hsCRP subgroups. Greater reductions in ratio-to-baseline hsCRP with semaglutide were associated with greater weight loss, but preceded major weight loss, evident by 4 and 8 weeks, and occurred among those without weight loss. Semaglutide-associated changes in hsCRP were independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, statin use, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease entry criteria. hsCRP reductions were found to be prognostic of decreased risk of MACE. Modeling suggests decreased inflammation as contributing in part to the benefits seen with semaglutide in SELECT. CONCLUSIONS: In SELECT, hsCRP data at baseline and in response to treatment with semaglutide support inflammation as a potential prognostic factor associated with cardiovascular risk in these generally well-treated patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but not diabetes. These findings suggest that the MACE reduction observed with semaglutide versus placebo in SELECT may have partially involved a decrease in inflammation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03574597.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in Chinese adults with overweight or obesity (STEP 12): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide 2·4 mg is a GLP-1 receptor agonist that reduces bodyweight, and provides other cardiometabolic benefits, among people with a BMI at least 30 kg/m2 or at least 27 kg/m2 and with weight-related comorbidities. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of semaglutide 2·4 mg in adults from mainland China and Taiwan with overweight or obesity according to locally defined, BMI thresholds. METHODS: This completed randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, two-armed, parallel-group, phase 3b trial (STEP 12) was conducted at 19 sites across mainland China and Taiwan. Adults with a BMI of 24-<28 kg/m2 and at least one weight-related comorbidity, or a BMI of 28-<30 kg/m2, with or without type 2 diabetes, were randomly assigned (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention, for 44 weeks. Randomisation was performed by the study sponsor using the Randomisation Trial Supplies Management System. Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight and the proportion of participants achieving at least 5% bodyweight reduction. Safety was analysed descriptively in all participants who received the trial intervention. Missing data at week 44 were imputed with washout multiple imputation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06041217, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2023, and May 7, 2025, of 254 screened participants, 161 (66·5%) of 242 participants were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg and 81 (33·5%) to placebo; 121 (50·0%) participants were female, and 47 (19·4%) participants had type 2 diabetes. Bodyweight reduction was greater with semaglutide versus placebo (-12·1% [SE 0·6] vs -2·2% [0·8]; estimated treatment difference -9·9 percentage points [95% CI -11·8 to -8·0]; p<0·0001), with a greater proportion of participants achieving at least 5% bodyweight reduction (80·5% vs 24·4%; odds ratio [OR] 14·8 [95% CI 7·4 to 29·6]; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported in 141 (87·6%) of 161 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group and 61 (75·3%) of 81 participants in the placebo group, with gastrointestinal disorders being the most common. INTERPRETATION: Semaglutide 2·4 mg provided a superior reduction in bodyweight versus placebo in Chinese adults with overweight or obesity. The safety profile was consistent with the known profile of semaglutide. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Clopidogrel vs Aspirin According to Diabetes Mellitus: A Prespecified Analysis of the SMART-CHOICE 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials support the superior efficacy of clopidogrel compared to aspirin monotherapy after completion of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited evidence is available in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of clopidogrel vs aspirin monotherapy according to the presence of DM. METHODS: This was a prespecified analysis of the SMART-CHOICE 3 trial, which was a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing clopidogrel vs aspirin monotherapy in patients with complex coronary lesions or high-risk clinical characteristics. From August 2020 to July 2023, a total of 5,506 patients who underwent PCI and standard DAPT duration and had complex coronary lesions, DM, or previous myocardial infarction, were randomized to clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy groups. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which was defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Of 5,506 patients, 2,089 had DM (1,039 in the clopidogrel group and 1,050 in the aspirin group). At a median follow-up of 2.3 years (IQR: 1.6-3.0 years), DM patients had a higher risk of MACCE compared to non-DM patients (6.8% vs 4.7%; HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.10-1.87; P = 0.008). Clopidogrel showed a significantly lower risk of MACCE than aspirin in DM patients (4.5% vs 9.1%; HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.86; P = 0.008). There was no significant interaction between DM and antiplatelet monotherapy regarding MACCE (P for interaction = 0.124). The risk of bleeding was comparable between the 2 groups in DM patients (2.9% vs 2.9%; HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.57-1.95; P = 0.855). CONCLUSIONS: Among DM patients who completed the standard duration of DAPT after PCI, clopidogrel monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with aspirin monotherapy, without increased rates of bleeding. There was no significant interaction between DM and antiplatelet monotherapy with respect to MACCE. (SMART-CHOICE 3 [SMart Angioplasty Research Team: CHoice of Optimal Anti-Thrombotic Strategy in Patients Undergoing Implantation of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents 3]; NCT04418479).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Extended Reality Interventions for Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Recovery After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic interventions are important for treating knee pain due to osteoarthritis or after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and extended reality (XR) technology may enhance treatments for these indications. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate XR interventions for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) or for recovery after TKA. METHODS: Databases were searched through May 2023 and updated in December 2025. Eligible trials evaluated XR interventions to treat KOA pain or after TKA. We classified interventions by depth of immersion and clinical mechanism. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to determine the certainty of evidence for prioritized outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed when ≥3 studies evaluated similar comparisons, outcomes, and time points. RESULTS: Eligible trials addressed KOA (k=12) or recovery after TKA (k=9). Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 306 participants, and most studies had a follow-up of ≤3 months. Nineteen studies assessed pain-related functioning and pain intensity, and 5 assessed adverse events (AEs). For KOA, 10 studies examined interactive digital rehabilitation (IDR), and 2 examined virtual reality (VR)-digitally augmented exercise (DAE). IDR for KOA may result in better pain-related functioning (low certainty of evidence [COE]; pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06; prediction interval [PI] -1.72 to 0.55; k=5) and lower pain intensity at 6-8 weeks (low COE; pooled SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.00; PI -1.39 to 0.47; k=4). VR-DAE for KOA (k=2) produced inconsistent results (very low COE). For post-TKA studies, 5 examined IDR, 2 examined VR-DAE, 1 examined VR-distraction, and 1 examined VR-psychoeducation. Post-TKA IDR may result in better pain-related functioning (low [k=4] and moderate COE [k=1]) but little to no difference in pain intensity (low-moderate COE; pooled SMD at 3-4 months -0.12, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.52; PI -1.63 to 1.27; k=3). VR-psychoeducation probably results in lower pain at 4 weeks (moderate COE; k=1), and VR-distraction may result in 6 months (low COE; k=1), whereas VR-DAE produced mixed findings (k=2; very low COE). IDR was not associated with AEs, and VR may not be associated with AEs for KOA (high and low COE), though AE reporting was uncommon (k=5) and evidence was very uncertain for post-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: IDR may augment treatment for KOA and post-TKA recovery, and VR may benefit post-TKA rehabilitation. This review is the first to stratify by level of immersion, clinical mechanism, and follow-up duration and to systematically evaluate AEs. IDR may be ready for integration into KOA care, while use after TKA needs more evidence. Randomized controlled trials with implementation outcomes could determine how XR interventions can be used for KOA, whereas trials evaluating efficacy and AEs are needed before their use for post-TKA.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Astigmatic vector outcomes after FS-LASIK versus SMILE for high myopic astigmatism: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study without cyclotorsion compensation.

PURPOSE: To compare astigmatic correction vector outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, also termed Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction, KLEx) without intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation in patients with high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D), and to clarify procedure-specific correction tendencies under this non-standardized alignment protocol. METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study enrolled 155 eyes (one eye randomly selected per patient) that underwent FS-LASIK (80 eyes) or SMILE/KLEx (75 eyes) for high myopic astigmatism correction from January 2023 to July 2024 in Beijing Fenglian Jiayue Lige Clinic. Intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation was intentionally disabled to isolate inherent procedural astigmatism correction characteristics. Standardized Alpins vectorial analysis was performed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 12-month Alpins correction index (CI). Multivariable propensity score adjustment was applied to mitigate confounding by clinical treatment selection bias. Statistical multiplicity control was implemented for secondary vector and visual outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, refractive, corneal and ocular biometric parameters were balanced between groups after propensity matching. No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, safety index or efficacy index at 3 and 12 months (all P > 0.05). Under the non-cyclotorsion-compensated protocol, significant intergroup differences were identified in the magnitude of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), correction index (CI), and magnitude error (ME) at both follow-up timepoints (all P < 0.0001). Target induced astigmatism (TIA), difference vector (DV), index of success (IOS), and angle error (AE) magnitudes were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05). The vector mean axis of DV differed significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months (Watson-Williams circular test, all P < 0.0001). No reoperations were documented in clinic medical records for either cohort. No standardized dry eye questionnaires, tear film testing or corneal nerve density metrics were collected to quantify dry eye adverse events; only unstructured clinical notes were reviewed for complication screening. CONCLUSIONS: Under surgical alignment without cyclotorsion compensation, FS-LASIK and SMILE/KLEx both yielded acceptable visual and refractive safety/efficacy for high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D) at 1-year follow-up, but demonstrated divergent astigmatism correction tendencies: FS-LASIK exhibited relative astigmatism overcorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.35 ± 0.43 D × 91°, CI > 1), while SMILE/KLEx showed relative undercorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.21 ± 0.53 D × 12°, CI < 1). These correction biases are specific to the study's manual limbal alignment protocol without cyclotorsion tracking and cannot be generalized to modern optimized surgical platforms equipped with automated cyclotorsion compensation. Residual refractive errors across both groups are likely multifactorial, including differential corneal stromal healing responses, divergent femtosecond/excimer laser tissue modification mechanisms, and uncorrected intraoperative ocular cyclotorsion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

[Tafluprost/timolol fixed-dose combination versus tafluprost monotherapy for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a preservative-free tafluprost/timolol maleate fixed-dose combination compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial conducted across 25 centers, including the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients diagnosed with OAG or OHT who required enhanced intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after a 4-week washout period were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1∶1 to receive either tafluprost/timolol or tafluprost once daily for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP (the average of measurements at 8:00, 10:00, and 16:00) at Month 3. Secondary endpoints included IOP changes at individual time points and the proportion of responders achieving predefined IOP reduction thresholds. Safety was assessed via the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was employed for the primary endpoint; superiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was<0 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa). Continuous variables in secondary endpoints were compared using ANCOVA, and responder rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 219 patients were enrolled (tafluprost/timolol group: n=110; tafluprost group: n=109). The primary efficacy analysis set included 215 patients (tafluprost/timolol: n=107; tafluprost: n=108). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The majority of patients were male [127 (59.1%)] with a mean age of (44.80±15.71) years at screening. At Month 3, the mean diurnal IOP reduction from baseline was (6.56±3.44) mmHg in the tafluprost/timolol group and (5.36±2.94) mmHg in the tafluprost group. After adjusting for baseline IOP, the between-group difference was -1.312 mmHg (95%CI: -2.010 to -0.696); as the upper limit was<0 mmHg, tafluprost/timolol demonstrated superior IOP-lowering efficacy to tafluprost. Responder rates for IOP reductions of≥15%,≥25%, and≥30% were significantly higher in the tafluprost/timolol group (P=0.016, 0.028, and 0.032, respectively). The incidence of ocular AEs was 20.0% (22/110) in the tafluprost/timolol group and 26.6% (29/109) in the tafluprost group. The most common AE was conjunctival hyperemia, occurring in 2.7% (3/110) and 8.3% (9/109) of the groups, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy, the tafluprost/timolol combination provides significantly greater IOP reduction in patients with OAG and OHT, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of RIPK1 inhibitor, SAR443820, in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (HIMALAYA): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: RIPK1, a protein regulating inflammatory signalling and cell death, is implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) pathophysiology. SAR443820 is a selective, oral, CNS-penetrant, reversible RIPK1 inhibitor. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of SAR443820 in participants with ALS. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted at 63 clinical sites in 13 countries (Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA). Adults (aged 18-80 years) with a diagnosis of possible ALS, clinically probable ALS, clinically probable laboratory-supported ALS, or clinically definite ALS, in accordance with the revised El Escorial World Federation of Neurology criteria, were randomly assigned (2:1) by use of a stratified block design (blocks of three) to receive either 20 mg SAR443820 orally twice per day or matching placebo in the 24-week double-blind period. Randomisation was done centrally using interactive response technology and stratified by geographical region of trial site, region of ALS onset, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, and use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol. Participants, care providers, investigators, and outcomes assessors were masked to trial intervention. The primary outcome was a change in ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score from baseline to week 24 and was calculated for all participants who had an ALSFRS-R total score available at baseline and at week 24. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants receiving one dose or more of trial intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05237284) and was terminated early. FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2022, and July 17, 2023, 397 participants were screened and 305 randomly assigned to SAR443820 (n=203) or placebo (n=102); six were excluded from the primary analysis due to missing baseline ALSFRS-R values. Mean age was 56·9 years (SD 11·5); 183 (60%) participants were male and 122 (40%) were female. Least squares mean change in ALSFRS-R from baseline to week 24 was -6·73 (95% CI -7·48 to -5·98) for SAR443820 group (n=169) and -6·32 (-7·36 to -5·27) for placebo group (n=87). There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups (least squares mean difference -0·41 [95% CI -1·71 to 0·88]). Participants in the SAR443820 group had higher incidence of adverse events (171 [85%] of 202 vs placebo 80 [78%] of 102) and treatment discontinuations (28 [14%] of 202 vs placebo five [5%] of 102), with elevated hepatic enzymes being the most common cause. Nine deaths occurred in the double-blind period (seven [3%] of 202 in the SAR443820 group and two [2%] of 102 in the placebo group); none was attributed to SAR443820. INTERPRETATION: SAR443820 did not show clinical benefit and was associated with higher hepatic enzyme increase, indicating that further clinical development of SAR443820 in ALS is not warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing.

BACKGROUND: For suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity troponins (hs-cTn) in accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADPs) with 0/1-hour recommended over 0/3-hour ADP. However, implementation of these ADPs, with universal use of hs-cTns, has not been directly compared in randomized trials OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficiency and safety of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour and a 0/3-hour ADP when implemented in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, noninferiority implementation trial compared the safety and efficiency of clinician decision making using these 2 pathways. To prevent incorporation bias, an independent hs-cTnI was used for formal adjudication using the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI). Efficiency was judged by the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours. The safety endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days (adjudicated index or representation type 1 MI, cardiovascular death, and urgent coronary revascularization) for those who were considered not to have ACS and discharged. The noninferiority margin, for absolute difference in sensitivity, between the ESC 0/1-hour and the 0/3-hour ADP was set at 3%, assessed with a 1-sided 97.5% CI. RESULTS: From December 2021 to July 2024, of 13,983 screened 3,543 individual patients with suspected ACS were recruited and consented from 2 major emergency departments in North-West England, with 100% follow-up achieved for all representations to any national hospital. The median age was 60 years (IQR: 49.5-70.5 years), 53% were men, 6.7%, and 7.6% had adjudicated index type 1 MI and MACE within 30 days, respectively. The turnaround time from sample to result for central laboratory hs-cTnT was 81 minutes (IQR: 69-101 minutes). The proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours was relatively low and did not differ substantially (21.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.07). In addition, the 0/1-hour pathway was noninferior for safety, in patients discharged, compared with the 0/3-hour pathway, absolute difference in sensitivity was +4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI: -2.5) in favor of the 0/1-hour pathway. The calculated sensitivities were 93.7% (95% CI: 88.4%-97.1%) vs 89.5% (95% CI: 82.7%-94.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour pathway failed to discharge significantly more patients within 4 hours of presentation compared with the 0/3-hour ADP. In addition, The ESC 0/1-hour was noninferior to the 0/3-hour hs-cTn pathway for safety of discharge, although safety for both pathways was less than that imputed by observational studies. This trial demonstrates that perceived benefits to emergency department efficiency of a reduced sampling interval are mitigated by central laboratory turnaround times as well as system constraints. (Pragmatic Randomised Trial of the ESC 0/1 Versus 0/3 Hour Troponin Pathway [MACROS2]; NCT05322395).

Acute Coronary Syndrome↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

Direct and spillover hospitalisation patterns during climate hazards across regions of different health-system resilience levels in China: a nationwide retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health-system resilience serves as a key contributor in mitigating adverse health impacts during climate hazards. However, quantitative insights into resilience-associated health-care utilisation patterns and targeted adaptation policies remain scarce. We aimed to capture the spatiotemporal health impacts in disaster-exposed counties and their neighbouring counties in China during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards or winter storms; understand the association between health-system resilience metrics and hazard-attributable hospitalisations; and develop evidence-based adaptation policies towards climate extremes. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational analysis of county-level aggregated hospitalisation data, we used a propensity score matching-difference-in-differences framework to assess the spatiotemporal changes of nine types of disease-specific hospitalisations in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards in China. We quantified the relative importance and health gains of health-system metrics during such hazards through random forest approach with interpretable partial dependence plots to derive evidence-based adaptation recommendations. FINDINGS: We included hospitalisation data from Jan 1, 2016 to Dec 31, 2023. In this period, 3241 county-hazard event combinations and 41 747 482 hospitalisations were recorded across 955 Chinese counties. The disaster-exposed regions experienced an initial decline in hospitalisation rates, followed by admission surges after disasters. For example, infectious disease admissions decreased by 11·92% (95% CI -10·53 to -13·31) during the flood-active period but increased by 7·68% (6·46-8·91) after 1-2 weeks of floods. Neighbouring zones were also affected through spillover effects, with infectious disease admissions increasing by 3·18% (1·76-4·61) after 1-2 weeks of the floods. Cardiovascular disease, injuries, infectious, respiratory, and mental disorders were more sensitive across all regions. Particularly for disaster-exposed counties, cardiovascular hospitalisations increased by 14·31% (7·34-21·29) during the tropical cyclone-active period. Notably, compared with low-resilience counties, high-resilience counties were associated with 19·48-30·03% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates during the hazard-active period and 27·07-31·08% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates in post-hazard periods. For instance, during the storm-active period, the increase in respiratory hospitalisations was 7·21% (0·67-13·75) in high-resilience counties versus 12·13% (5·20-19·05) in low-resilience counties. Health workforce (relative importance 14·58% during the hazard-active period and 13·80% during the post-hazard period) and service delivery (14·10% during the hazard-active period and 14·17% during the post-hazard period) were identified as key contributors of health-system resilience. Empirical synergistic effects were observed when combining interventions during the post-hazard period, with the combined effect of service delivery (individual contribution 8%) and workforce (individual contribution 4%) exceeding the sum of their individual contributions (16% reduction in cumulative excess admissions) by 33%. INTERPRETATION: Climate hazards are associated with substantial changes in hospitalisation rates in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions. Health-system resilience is essential in addressing disaster-health challenges. Targeted adaptation interventions should be context-appropriate and threshold-aware, thereby maximising the public health benefits relative to resilience-oriented investments in health systems. FUNDING: Gates Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of fruquintinib versus ramucirumab in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Aim: Fruquintinib (Fruq), a selective VEGFR 1/2/3 inhibitor, showed a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the Phase III FRUTIGA trial for advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Ramucirumab (RAM), an anti-VEGFR2 antibody, demonstrated efficacy in the RAINBOW-Asia trial. This anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) evaluated Fruq plus paclitaxel versus RAM plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for G/GEJ adenocarcinoma in the absence of head-to-head trials. Materials & methods: Data from individual patients in the FRUTIGA study (N = 703) and aggregated data from the RAINBOW-Asia study (N = 440) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were balanced using entropy balancing. The placebo plus paclitaxel (PBO + PTX) groups served as the common comparators. The primary outcome was PFS; secondary outcomes included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also compared as an exploratory outcome using an adjusted indirect risk difference. Sensitivity analyses included restricted mean survival time and simulated treatment comparison. Results: After weighting (effective sample size = 564), baseline covariates were balanced. The anchored MAIC demonstrated that Fruq + PTX significantly improved PFS compared with RAM + PTX (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96; p = 0.0280), corresponding to a 30% reduction in progression risk, with a significant restricted mean survival time benefit of 1.18 months at 20 months (95% CI: 0.08-2.27; p = 0.024). Fruq achieved significantly higher ORR (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.16-2.68; p = 0.008) and DCR (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.33-2.83; p < 0.001). Overall survival was similar (0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; p = 0.8640). Subgroup analyses showed PFS benefits with Fruq in patients with ECOG PS 1, peritoneal metastases and two or fewer metastatic sites. In sensitivity analysis, the simulated treatment comparison also suggested a PFS benefit for Fruq + PTX (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.50; p < 0.0001). For any-grade TEAEs, the indirect comparison showed higher adjusted relative incidences of increased bilirubin with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 12.3%; 95% CI: 2.3-22.4%, p < 0.05) and of hypokalemia (RD: 9.0%; 95% CI: 1.5-16.4%, p < 0.05). For grade ≥3 TEAEs, the adjusted relative incidence of decreased body weight was higher with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 2.9%; 95% CI: 0.6-5.2%, p < 0.05). The adjusted relative incidences of increased AST, ALT and hypocalcemia were numerically lower in the fruquintinib group than in the RAM group. Conclusion: This MAIC indicates that Fruq + PTX may be more effective than RAM + PTX in second-line advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, with potentially improved PFS, ORR and DCR, and similar overall survival. Safety analyses suggested generally comparable safety profiles across the two regimens. Fruq + PTX remains a valuable treatment option, offering important comparative evidence for clinical and health technology assessment decisions. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT07144995.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

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↗

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 34·7 months (IQR 30·1-36·8). Median progression-free survival was 28·4 months (95% CI 5·2-not estimable) in the DA-EPOCH-R group (n=30) and 7·7 months (95% CI 4·7-NE) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (n=36; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·53-2·37; p=0·75). 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 2·49, 95% CI 1·03-6·04; p=0·038). 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

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗