SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Nicotine metabolite ratio”

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.

478 records · Page 27Linked 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

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↗

PubMed2026

Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (HARMONi): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ivonescimab has shown clinical efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC whose disease progressed after third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. METHODS: HARMONi is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 114 cancer centres and hospitals across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (upper limit: 75 years in Asia) with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV non-squamous EGFR-mutated NSCLC, disease progression after treatment with a third-generation EGFR-TKI, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive voice response system or interactive web response system to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or placebo plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and carboplatin (target area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by brain metastases status at enrolment and geographical region. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent radiology review committee and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06396065), has completed enrolment, and is ongoing for treatment and follow-up. FINDINGS: From Jan 25, 2022, to Oct 1, 2024, 660 individuals were screened for eligibility; of these, 438 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ivonescimab plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy (219 per group). Of enrolled patients, 257 (59%) were female and 181 (41%) were male; 306 (70%) reported race as Asian, and 105 (24%) as White. At a median follow-up of 22·3 months (95% CI 21·5-23·0), 275 progression or death events had occurred in 345 patients (129 events among 172 patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 146 events among 173 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·7-7·1) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·52; 95% CI 0·41-0·66; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 29·7 months (95% CI 27·7-31·0), 262 deaths occurred in 438 patients (122 in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 140 in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median overall survival was 16·8 months (14·3-19·0) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·0 months (12·8-15·7) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0·79; 0·62-1·01). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus the placebo plus chemotherapy group were decreased neutrophil count (42 [19%] of 218 vs 36 [17%] of 218), decreased white blood cell count (28 [13%] vs 24 [11%]), decreased platelet count (27 [12%] vs 14 [6%]), and anaemia (22 [10%] vs 27 [12%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61 (28%) patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 33 (15%) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four patients (disease progression, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and hepatic failure, each in one patient; gastrointestinal haemorrhage and pulmonary embolism in one patient) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and five patients (pneumonitis, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cognitive disorder, and embolic stroke, each in one patient) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on EGFR-TKI therapy. The clinical benefit and lack of new safety signals of ivonescimab with chemotherapy support the potential for the combination as a new treatment option in this patient population. FUNDING: Summit Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-ɑ1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-α1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-ɑ1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-α1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-α1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-ɑ1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-ɑ1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-ɑ1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I² not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I² = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin‑α1 administration for any outcome (P ≥ 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-α1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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↗