SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Postoperative complications”

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.

381 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effect of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL trials: a prespecified pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide reduces clinically important kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to assess the pooled effects of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in prespecified analyses of participant-level data from the diverse populations of the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL randomised placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: Participants with CKD (FLOW) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (SELECT and SOUL) were randomly assigned semaglutide (once-weekly subcutaneous 1·0 mg [FLOW], once-weekly subcutaneous 2·4 mg [SELECT], or once-daily oral 14 mg [SOUL]) or matching placebo, added to standard of care. The primary outcome in this pooled analysis was time to first occurrence of a kidney composite, defined as onset of persistent 50% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), kidney failure (persistent eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or initiation of kidney replacement therapy), kidney-related death, or cardiovascular-related death. Safety was also assessed. FINDINGS: The pooled participants from the trials (N=30 787) had a mean follow-up of 39·5-47·5 months. Among participants assigned to semaglutide, 973 first events of the primary kidney composite occurred compared with 1134 first events for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84 [95% CI 0·77-0·91]). First events of a narrower secondary kidney composite (excluding cardiovascular-related death from the primary outcome) were also reduced with semaglutide versus placebo (347 and 416, respectively; 0·80 [0·69-0·92]). Safety outcomes were overall similar between groups, and in line with other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials. Serious adverse events were numberically lower with semaglutide than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Data pooled from three large phase 3 trials suggest that semaglutide reduces the risk of major kidney outcomes in a broad population with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease while having a favourable risk-benefit profile. In people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, with and without diabetes, semaglutide (oral or injected) prevents kidney-related and cardiovascular complications and induces adverse events in line with GLP-1 receptor agonist studies, regardless of baseline characteristics within the cardio-kidney-metabolic spectrum. This was a participant-level analysis conducted in a large database of three randomised controlled trials of similar design and examining the same treatment, but there were some differences in participants' baseline characteristics, and in the dose and route of administration of treatment. This pooled analysis adds evidence for the benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists in general, and semaglutide in particular, in a broad population of people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, suggesting that the benefit of semaglutide might not be explained only by its glycaemic effects, weight-management effects, or both. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

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

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↗