SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DNA Copy Number Variations”

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.

532 records · Page 30Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effect of a digitally augmented general health promotion intervention on abstinence from health-risk behaviors among emergency department discharge patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading global cause of death and are driven by modifiable behaviors, such as tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity. Recognizing that emergency department (ED) visits represent a unique opportunity to promote behavior change, this trial evaluated a digitally augmented, theory based general health promotion approach, combining a brief telephone-based intervention with mobile instant messaging support, to help discharged ED patients abstain from health risk behaviors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in a major public hospital ED in Hong Kong. Adults (18-65 years) triaged as semi-urgent or non-urgent and with ≥1 health-risk behavior and smartphone access were randomized to receive a digitally augmented, theory‑based general health‑promotion intervention consisting of a brief telephone‑based AWARD‑model intervention (Ask, Warn, Advise, Refer, and Do-it-again) followed by weekly WhatsApp or WeChat messages for 6 months, or to a control group receiving brief telephone advice only. The primary outcome was self-report abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 6 months; secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants who achieved self-reported abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 12 months and reduction in the number of behaviors at 6 and 12 months. Of the 2,134 screened patients, 572 were enrolled (286 per group). At 6 months, 30.1% of the intervention participants versus 19.9% of the controls achieved self-reported abstinence (RR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.02; P = 0.006). The intervention also significantly increased the likelihood of fewer risky behaviors at 6 (RR = 1.54; P = 0.01) and 12 (RR = 1.48; P = 0.02) months. Physical inactivity showed the greatest improvement at 6 months (31.7% versus 16.2%; P < 0.001). The effects attenuated after cessation of booster messaging. Limitations include reliance on self-reported outcomes, the single-center study design, and loss to follow-up, which may have affected the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: A digitally augmented, theory-based general health promotion strategy delivered at ED discharge through brief telephone intervention and mobile instant messaging support demonstrated short-term benefits in promoting self-reported abstinence and reducing health-risk behaviors at 6 months. However, the absence of a sustained effect at 12 months suggests that extended support or maintenance strategies may be required to maintain these improvements over time. Multicenter trials with longer follow-up are warranted to evaluate long-term effectiveness. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration No: NCT06077565).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

BLIS study: a feasibility randomised controlled trial assessing compliance, acceptability and colonisation with different dosing regimens of the probiotic supplement Streptococcus salivarius K12 (Bactoblis) in adults in England.

OBJECTIVES: Streptococcus salivarius K12 (SsK12) is a bacterium used as a probiotic with some evidence for preventing acute sore throat/tonsillitis, but the optimal dosing strategy is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate two dosing regimens of SsK12 to establish (a) the prevalence and duration of colonisation with SsK12 and (b) the acceptability and feasibility of these regimens. DESIGN: A randomised, non-blinded feasibility trial. SETTING: Primary care in the south of England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ≥2 episodes of sore throat within the 3 years before recruitment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to take SsK12 lozenges once weekly or daily over 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the prevalence and duration of colonisation with SsK12. This was determined by real-time PCR conducted on self-taken whole-mouth swabs provided by participants at baseline and on days 2, 7, 14, 21 and 35. Secondary outcomes were the compliance and acceptability of the two SsK12 dosing regimens, based on questionnaire data. RESULTS: 53 participants were recruited (26 randomised to weekly and 27 to daily dosing) between 26 April and 5 December 2023. All swabs were returned by 65.4% (17/26) and 70.4% (19/27) of the weekly and daily groups respectively. Swabs at all timepoints from participants with PCR positives observed at baseline (two and four from the weekly and daily group, respectively) were excluded. Therefore, swabs from 23 participants in the weekly and 22 in the daily group did not have evidence of baseline colonisation and were included in the microbiology analysis. SsK12 colonisation was found in 59.1% (13/22, 95% CI 38.6% to 79.6%) of samples in both groups on day 2; in 13.6% (3/22, 95% CI 0.0% to 28.0%) and 85.7% (18/21, 95% CI 70.8% to 100.0%) of the weekly and daily groups, respectively, on day 7; in 19.1% (4/21, 95% CI 2.3% to 35.8%) and 59.1% (13/22, 95% CI 38.6% to 79.6%), respectively, on day 14; and in only one participant (weekly group) on days 21 and 35. The dosing regimen was reported as easy to follow by 85.0% (17/20, 95% CI 69.4% to 100.0%) of the weekly and 96.2% (25/26, 95% CI 88.8% to 100.0%) of the daily dosing groups. CONCLUSIONS: SsK12 colonisation was more prevalent with daily dosing; however, colonisation was not maintained when dosing stopped. Both dosing regimens were acceptable to participants. These findings support the use of daily dosing in a future trial to evaluate the efficacy of SsK12 in preventing recurrence of sore throat/tonsillitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04297878.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact of renal dysfunction on immediate versus staged revascularization of non-culprit lesions in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the randomized MULTISTARS AMI trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal dysfunction might affect outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In MULTISTARS AMI, patients with STEMI and MVD were randomized to immediate or staged PCI of non-culprit lesions. In this pre-specified analysis, patients were stratified according to the presence of renal dysfunction at baseline, defined at an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 were excluded from the trial. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. RESULTS: In MULTISTARS AMI, 108 (13%) of 832 patients had renal dysfunction. The primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients with renal dysfunction (19.4% vs. 11.2%, unadjusted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2.94), primarily driven by higher rates of death. Among patients with renal dysfunction, the rates of the primary end point were 14.5% and 24.5% in the immediate and staged PCI groups (unadjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23-1.33). There was no interaction between renal dysfunction and the randomized treatment assignment with respect to the primary end point (adjusted HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.8-2.20, pint 0.82). The occurrence of acute renal insufficiency was statistically similar in patients with renal dysfunction who underwent immediate and staged PCI (10.9% vs. 18.9%, unadjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.22-1.72, pint 0.09). Renal dysfunction at baseline emerged as a strong risk factor for the development of acute renal insufficiency (adjusted HR 5.0, 95% CI 2.30-10.70, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes with immediate compared to staged multivessel PCI did not appear significantly altered by the presence of renal dysfunction at baseline. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗

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

Impacts of climate-driven yield changes on the affordability of healthy diets: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Food security is central to global nutrition improvement and public health goals, and healthy diets represent a higher-level aspiration beyond merely avoiding hunger. Climate change poses an increasing threat to food systems by affecting crop yields and food prices. Although climate change-driven risks to hunger have been widely studied, the extent to which climate change undermines the affordability of healthy diets while accounting for socioeconomic responses and regional inequalities remains insufficiently understood. This study aimed to quantify the effects of climate change on the future affordability of healthy diets under alternative socioeconomic and climate scenarios. METHODS: We developed an integrated modelling framework that explicitly couples multimodel crop-yield projections with an integrated assessment model (Global Change Analysis Model [GCAM]). Yield responses from six global gridded crop models driven by four climate models were integrated into GCAM, allowing endogenous socioeconomic adjustments such as land-use shifts, production reallocation, and price responses to emerge under shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). Diet affordability was then assessed using the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN's Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet framework across three socioeconomic-climate scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP3-6.0). FINDINGS: Under a high-emissions pathway (ie, SSP3-6.0), climate change was projected to render healthy diets unaffordable for a model-mean of 119 million people globally by 2100, even when CO2 fertilisation effects are included, with the upper end of the model ensemble reaching about 1·6 billion people. In contrast, climate-induced affordability losses were found to be negligible under both a low-emissions pathway (ie, SSP1-2.6; -0·3 million) and a medium-emission pathway (SSP2-4.5; +0·2 million). Under a high-emission pathway, model-mean projections indicated that diet costs could increase by up to 12% in the most affected regions by the end of the century. Under medium emissions, cost increases were projected to remain below 4%, whereas under low emissions, affordability changes were projected to be minimum across regions (within approximately 0·5%). Substantial regional disparities emerged, with the largest and most consistent affordability losses concentrated in low-income regions that contributed least to historical greenhouse gas emissions. Under SSP3-6.0, these disparities persisted particularly in regions of Africa and Asia despite projected three-to-five-fold increases in income over the century, with climate-induced disruptions to food systems increasing the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet through mid-century. INTERPRETATION: Climate change is likely to exacerbate global nutritional inequalities by disproportionately increasing the affordability risks of healthy diets in regions that have contributed least to historical greenhouse gas emissions. Under high-warming scenarios, socioeconomic development alone is insufficient to fully offset these risks, highlighting the structural vulnerability of low-income food systems to climate-driven price shocks. These findings suggest that in the absence of targeted interventions, climate change could continue to undermine progress towards equitable and health-oriented nutrition outcomes. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China; National Natural Science Foundation of China; National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies Climate Impacts Group; Future of Life Institute; and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition.

Journal Article↗

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

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

Durvalumab and tremelimumab, with or without lenvatinib, combined with transarterial chemoembolisation in participants with embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-3): a global, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), a standard treatment for embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), induces tumour immune responses. Single tremelimumab regular interval durvalumab (STRIDE) is a standard treatment in advanced HCC. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of STRIDE, with or without lenvatinib, plus TACE, in participants with embolisation-eligible HCC. METHODS: EMERALD-3 is a phase 3, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded study, conducted at 177 medical sites in 21 countries. Eligible participants were 18 years or older (aged ≥21 years in Egypt or Singapore) at screening and had confirmed HCC (by imaging or histopathologically from biopsy specimen, surgery, or both) not amenable to curative surgery, curative ablation, or transplantation but amenable to TACE. Participants had Child-Pugh class A liver function, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable target intrahepatic lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, STRIDE plus TACE, or TACE until each group reached its preplanned enrolment target of 175 participants. After the STRIDE plus TACE group reached its enrolment target, randomisation was adjusted to continue in a 1:1 ratio between the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group and TACE group until approximately 275 participants were enrolled in each of these two groups. Randomisation used a centrally assigned interactive response technology system, stratified by region, baseline tumour burden, and previous palliative embolisation. In the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group, on the first day, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab intravenously, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab plus oral lenvatinib (8 mg for <60 kg bodyweight or 12 mg for ≥60 kg bodyweight); participants then received 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks plus once-daily lenvatinib for up to 36 cycles. In the STRIDE plus TACE group, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab and 1500 mg durvalumab intravenously on the first day, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks. The technique and number of TACE procedures were at the investigators' discretion, with the first procedure administered at least 7 days after the first dose of durvalumab in the two investigation treatment groups and within 7 days of random allocation in the TACE group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE and progression-free survival and overall survival for STRIDE plus TACE versus TACE. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05301842), with enrolment completed. FINDINGS: From March 28, 2022, to Nov 20, 2024, 1124 participants were screened. The full analysis set comprised 760 participants, who were randomly allocated to STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (n=293), STRIDE plus TACE (n=175), or TACE (n=292). 633 (83%) participants were male and 127 (17%) were female; 548 (72%) were Asian. At the first data cutoff (Sept 2, 2025); the overall median follow-up for progression-free survival was 10·0 months (IQR 4·6-17·2); median follow-up for progression-free survival was 11·0 months (IQR 4·8-18·4) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 8·3 months (4·1-15·5) for TACE. Median progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 12·2-16·7) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus 9·8 months (8·0-11·4) for TACE (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·86]; p=0·0007). At the second data cutoff (Feb 23, 2026) and a median follow-up for overall survival of 24·6 months (IQR 16·5-31·5) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 22·9 months (14·9-30·2) for TACE, median overall survival was 39·5 months (95% CI 34·1-not reached) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 34·7 months (28·8-not reached) for TACE (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]; p=0·18). At this data cutoff, median progression-free survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 10·2-15·9) for STRIDE plus TACE and 8·1 months (6·5-10·2) for the first 175 participants randomised to TACE (HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·56-0·91]), with median follow-up of 10·3 months (IQR 4·6-23·7) for STRIDE plus TACE and 7·7 months (3·0-18·5) for the first 175 participants randomly allocated to TACE. The most common adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 were hypertension (34 [12%] of 287) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, post-embolisation syndrome and anaemia (ten [6%] of 175 each) for STRIDE plus TACE, and post-embolisation (17 [6%] of 290) for TACE. 184 (64%) participants receiving STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, 89 (51%) receiving STRIDE plus TACE, and 68 (23%) receiving TACE had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events with an outcome of death during the treatment-emergent period occurred in seven (2%) of 287 participants who received STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (two for myocarditis; and one each for hepatic failure, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, septic shock, cardiac failure, and unknown cause), none of 175 participants who received STRIDE plus TACE, and two (1%) of 290 participants who received TACE (one each for acute myocardial infarction and unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE showed a statistically significant progression-free survival improvement versus TACE. These findings support a STRIDE-based regimen as a potential new treatment option for people with embolisation-eligible HCC; additional follow-up is being conducted for final analysis of overall survival across treatment groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗