SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “major bleeding”

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.

363 records · Page 21Linked to original sources

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

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

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

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

AMPLITUDE trial↗