SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Needs”

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.

554 records · Page 31Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Performance of AI-Based Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Across Apnea-Hypopnea Index Thresholds: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but remains substantially underdiagnosed. Polysomnography (PSG) is the reference standard, but its cost and limited availability constrain large-scale case identification. AI-based screening tools may support risk stratification and referral prioritization, but their diagnostic accuracy across apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) thresholds remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based OSA screening tools at AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, with emphasis on models using non-PSG-derived inputs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 1, 2016, to May 3, 2026. Eligible studies included adults evaluated for suspected OSA or recruited from population-based cohorts, assessed AI-based models intended or interpretable for OSA screening, risk prediction, or screening-oriented severity classification, used PSG as the reference standard, and reported sufficient data to construct or reconstruct 2×2 contingency tables. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized separately by AHI threshold and input source using bivariate random-effects models, with 95% CIs and prediction intervals (PIs). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 60 studies were included, of which 47 contributed data to the meta-analysis. At AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, pooled sensitivities were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; 95% PI 0.71-0.99), 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89; 95% PI 0.66-0.96), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87; 95% PI 0.61-0.94), respectively; the corresponding specificities were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84; 95% PI 0.30-0.96), 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.85; 95% PI 0.39-0.96), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94; 95% PI 0.55-0.99), respectively. The corresponding areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.943, 0.907, and 0.920. For non-PSG-derived tools, sensitivities were 0.92, 0.85, and 0.81, and specificities were 0.70, 0.74, and 0.85 at the 3 thresholds, respectively. For PSG-derived models, sensitivities were 0.96, 0.90, and 0.85, and specificities were 0.82, 0.88, and 0.96, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested performance variation across selected study and model characteristics, including region, algorithmic framework, data source, and validation method. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based tools showed generally favorable screening performance for OSA across clinically relevant AHI thresholds, although wide PIs suggest variable performance across future comparable populations and settings. By synthesizing diagnostic accuracy across 3 AHI thresholds and distinguishing non-PSG-derived from PSG-derived models, this review extends previous broad or modality-specific reviews and offers a clinically interpretable, pathway-specific basis for linking model performance to intended use. The findings may clarify potential roles for non-PSG-derived tools in front-end screening and referral prioritization and for PSG-derived models in reduced-channel assessment and sleep-laboratory workflow support. Given substantial heterogeneity, limited external validation, and low or very low certainty of evidence, prospective validation is needed before routine implementation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Patients with Exposure Therapy Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (TETRO): Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disabling mental disorder, characterized by obsessions, compulsions, and substantial morbidity. Approximately 50% of adults with OCD fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes from first-line treatments, such as exposure therapy with response prevention (ERP), with or without medication. This leads to chronic social, educational, and occupational impairment. While invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation are available for severe, treatment-refractory cases, a need remains for less invasive alternatives. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive intervention, shows promise in reducing OCD symptoms. Unlike in depression, rTMS is not yet reimbursed for OCD in the Dutch healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low-frequency (1Hz) rTMS targeting the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA) compared to sham rTMS as an adjuvant treatment to ERP in adults with OCD with inadequate response to first-line treatment. METHODS: A total of 250 adults with OCD will be enrolled in this multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to ERP combined with either active or sham 1Hz rTMS over the pre-SMA. Treatment is administered 4 times weekly for at least 5 weeks (20 rTMS-ERP sessions), with optional extension of 1 to 2 weeks, up to 28 rTMS-ERP sessions. Clinical assessments occur at baseline, weekly during treatment, posttreatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Participants undergo pre- and posttreatment (functional) (MRI) scans, including a symptom provocation task. Blood sampling takes place pre- and posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome is OCD severity at posttreatment, as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Secondary outcomes include functional improvement, quality of life, and societal costs. Pretreatment symptom profiles, genotype, and brain network topology will be analyzed as predictors of response and relapse risk. Pre-to-post treatment change in blood-based and magnetic resonance (MR)-based neuroplasticity markers will help explore differential mechanisms between ERP alone and combined rTMS-ERP. We expect that the verum rTMS protocol will be cost-effective compared to sham-rTMS. RESULTS: Recruitment started in April 2022, and as of February 2026, 201 participants have been enrolled. Posttreatment assessments are projected to be completed in December 2026, with final one-year follow-up evaluations anticipated by the end of 2027. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first adequately powered randomized controlled trial examining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and mechanism of action of rTMS for OCD as adjuvant therapy to ERP. In case of efficacy and/or cost-effectiveness, it will pave the way for rTMS as insured health care for adults with OCD in the Netherlands, and possibly other European countries. Furthermore, this trial will provide insight into the mechanisms of treatment response to intensive ERP, with and without adjunctive rTMS, as well as potential side effects, individual variability, and long-term outcomes in adults with OCD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Manual, digital, and AI tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte scoring: a secondary analysis of the APHINITY randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are prognostic in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, but their role in the context of dual HER2 blockade remains undefined. We evaluated manual, digital, and artificial intelligence (AI)-based sTIL quantification, together with AI-derived spatial metrics, for prognostic and treatment-benefit stratification using tumour samples from the phase 3 APHINITY trial. METHODS: In the APHINITY trial, 4805 patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab or chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with placebo. Median follow-up was 74·1 months (IQR 68·3-75·4). We analysed 4262 haematoxylin and eosin-stained images using manual assessment, an automated digital approach, AI-based lymphocyte quantification (AI percentage lymphocytes), and two AI-derived spatial features (AI-TIL and immune hotspot). Interobserver reproducibility was assessed in 262 randomly chosen tumour samples scored independently by five pathologists. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess associations between TIL levels and invasive disease-free survival (primary outcome in APHINITY), distant recurrence-free interval, and overall survival. The heterogeneity of pertuzumab benefit was evaluated using subgroup analyses, subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analyses, and nested Cox models with treatment-by-biomarker interaction terms. FINDINGS: Manual scoring showed high interobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient 0·84 [95% CI 0·79-0·88]). Concordance between manual and automated methods was modest. AI-based scoring (AI percentage lymphocytes) reclassified 120 (11·6%) of 1035 node-positive tumours from immune-low (by manual scoring) to immune-high; this subgroup of patients showed greater separation of 5-year invasive disease-free survival curves between pertuzumab and placebo groups compared with patients whose tumours were concordantly classified as immune-low by both manual and AI-based approaches. Higher levels of TILs were associated with improved invasive disease-free survival for all sTIL measurement approaches and spatial measurements (hazard ratios [HRs] 0·41-0·93). Pertuzumab was associated with improved invasive disease-free survival at higher sTIL levels across all measurement approaches (HRs 0·36-0·48), but was not associated with higher values of spatial measures. The largest 6-year absolute improvements with pertuzumab were observed in patients with node-positive disease whose tumours scored in the highest level of immune infiltration of manual sTIL scoring (≥70·0%; mean absolute improvement 12·1 percentage points [SD 2·8]). In nested prognostic and predictive models, AI-based immune hotspot scores provided the most consistent additional information when combined with any sTIL measurement (all p<0·010). INTERPRETATION: Standardised manual sTIL scoring was reproducible, and digital and AI-based methods showed consistent prognostic stratification and potential for treatment-benefit stratification despite only modest correlation between platforms. AI spatial metrics provided complementary information beyond sTIL density and could support more scalable immune assessment. Future studies are needed to validate these approaches in independent cohorts and to clarify their clinical utility for stratifying contemporary HER2-directed therapies. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of mitapivat in adults with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia (ENERGIZE-T): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The absence of disease-modifying therapies for patients with α-thalassaemia and oral disease-modifying therapies for patients with β-thalassaemia has been a substantial unmet need in these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mitapivat, an oral allosteric activator of pyruvate kinase, in adults with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. METHODS: ENERGIZE-T is a global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, conducted across 19 countries in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and the Middle East. Patients aged 18 years or older with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia were randomly allocated (2:1) with a central interactive response technology system, stratified by geographical region and thalassaemia genotype, to receive 100 mg mitapivat or placebo orally twice a day for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was transfusion reduction response (TRR), defined as a reduction of at least 50% in transfused red blood cell units with a reduction of at least two units in any consecutive 12-week period until week 48 compared with baseline. Efficacy was analysed in the full analysis set, comprising all randomly allocated patients. Type, severity, and relationship of adverse events and serious adverse events were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04770779) and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2021 and May 2, 2023, 305 patients were screened, of whom 258 were randomly allocated (median age 33·5 years [IQR 27·0-44·0]; 136 [53%] female and 122 [47%] male participants). Of 258 patients allocated, 238 (92%) completed the double-blind treatment period. All patients were required to have a safety follow-up approximately 4 weeks after the final dose of study drug, regardless of completion of the double-blind period or continuation into the open-label extension period. In the full analysis set, TRRs occurred in 52 (30%) of 171 patients in the mitapivat group and 11 (13%) of 87 in the placebo group (adjusted difference 18 percentage points [95% CI 8-27]; two-sided p=0·0003). The safety analysis set comprised 172 patients in the mitapivat group (including one patient allocated to the placebo group who received one dose of mitapivat in error) and 85 in the placebo group. Adverse events were reported in 155 (90%) patients treated with mitapivat and 71 (84%) treated with placebo; the most common events with mitapivat were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, initial insomnia, diarrhoea, and fatigue. Serious adverse events were reported in 19 (11%) patients treated with mitapivat and 13 (15%) treated with placebo. Ten (6%) patients who received mitapivat and one (1%) who received placebo discontinued study treatment due to adverse events. No deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Mitapivat significantly reduced the transfusion burden and was generally well tolerated, showing a favourable benefit-risk profile. These findings support mitapivat as the first oral disease-modifying therapy for adults with transfusion-dependent α-thalassaemia or β-thalassaemia, providing a new treatment option to reduce transfusion burden in this patient population. FUNDING: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Effects of six weeks of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation with and without creatine monohydrate on cognitive function and markers of health in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) supplementation has been reported to increase brain creatine content more effectively than creatine monohydrate (CrM). However, the effects on cognitive function are unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this proof-of-concept exploratory clinical trial was to determine whether GAA supplementation with and without CrM affects cognitive function and/or markers of health. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, and counterbalanced manner, 58 healthy and active adults (33 females, 35.5 ± 14 years, 76.2 ± 14 kg) ingested a PLA (PLA, 2 × 6 g/d maltodextrin), GAA (2 × 1 g/d) + PLA (2 × 5 g/d), or GAA (2 × 1 g/d) + CrM (2 × 5 g/d) for six weeks. The participants donated fasting blood samples and completed a battery of tests and questionnaires assessing various aspects of function, mood, stress, sleep quality, and markers of health at baseline and after six weeks of supplementation. Data were analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM) multivariate and univariate with repeated measures, and mean changes from baseline with 95% confidence intervals, and Chi-squared analysis, and considered significant when the probability of error was 0.05 or less, and approaching significance (p > 0.05-p < 0.10). RESULTS: GAA supplementation tended to improve overall reaction time (-241.8 ms [-533, 50], p = 0.10) while significant interaction effects were observed in overall reaction time (p = 0.031-330 ms [-629, -31]) and YES reaction time (-290 ms [-484, -96], p = 0.004) while recalled correct reaction time (-178 ms [-374, 21], p = 0.078) and recalled correct YES (7.4 % [-1, 15.8], p = 0.084) approached significance compared to PLA. Limited to no effects were observed on the Delayed Picture Recognition Task Test, Digit Vigilance Task Test, Corsi Block Task Test, or Stroop Color-Word Task Test. The amount of time engaged in moderate physical activity was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the GAA group compared to PLA. Participants in the GAA group reported a lower frequency of controlling irritations (p = 0.036), and feeling like difficulties are mounting (p = 0.053) on the Perceived Stress Scale. Some positive and potentially undesirable effects were observed in sleep quality assessments. The quality of life assessment revealed that participants in the GAA group reported less frequent feelings of being worn out (p = 0.068) and that their health was excellent (p = 0.092) while those in the GAA + CrM group reported more frequent limitations when bending, kneeling, or stooping (p = 0.053), more often feeling full of life (p = 0.081), and less frequency in feeling downhearted and depressed (p = 0.066). No clinically meaningful changes were observed in blood markers or self-reported side effects among the groups. CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with GAA (2 g/d) and the combination of CrM (10 g/d + GAA 2 g/d) for six weeks improved delayed verbal episodic recognition memory and retrieval speed and some measures of perceived stress, sleep quality, and quality of life. However, most cognitive tests were not affected, particularly when comparing the GAA to the PLA group; there were some inconsistencies in the findings, and several differences only approached significance. Additional research is needed before conclusions can be drawn. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN68542582.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Neurological effects of encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia (NEAT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ataxia telangiectasia is a rare, multisystem disorder with progressive cerebellar neurodegeneration and no approved treatments. The efficacy of corticosteroids, including erythrocyte encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate (eDSP), which have been studied for two decades in this disease, has not yet been proven in randomised trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of eDSP in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia. METHODS: NEAT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, conducted at 20 sites across nine countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and USA). Eligible participants were children aged 6 years or older weighing at least 15 kg, with a genetic diagnosis of ataxia telangiectasia and presence of neurological symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the eDSP or placebo group via an independent interactive web response system and were stratified by age (6-9 years or ≥10 years), sex, and region (USA vs other countries). All participants, investigators, sponsors, and raters were masked to treatment assignments. eDSP was given intravenously every 21-30 days for six doses. All randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and safety populations; the primary and secondary efficacy analyses were conducted in participants aged 6-9 years in the ITT population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in Rescored Modified International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (RmICARS) score between baseline and month 6, and a mixed-model-repeated-measures analysis was used. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06193200, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 24, 2024, and Dec 17, 2025, we screened 125 participants for eligibility, of whom 105 (84%) were randomly assigned to the eDSP group (n=51 [49%]) or the placebo group (n=54 [51%]) and received at least one dose of treatment. The mean age was 8·5 years (SD 1·9) in the eDSP group and 8·6 years (2·3) in the placebo group (overall age range 6-17 years). In the eDSP group, 24 (47%) of 51 participants were girls and 27 (53%) were boys and, in the placebo group, 26 (48%) of 54 were girls and 28 (52%) were boys. Of ITT participants aged 6-9 years, 38 (95%) of 40 in the eDSP group and 41 (95%) of 43 in the placebo group completed the study. Compared with the placebo group, no significant differences were identified in change in RmICARS score from baseline to 6 months in participants aged 6-9 years: least squares mean difference -1·30 (95% CI -2·77 to 0·18; p=0·085). Adverse events were reported in 47 (92%) of 51 participants in the eDSP group and in 50 (93%) of 54 participants in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were vomiting, pyrexia, pruritus, nasopharyngitis, cough, headache, and fatigue. There were no reports of treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths. Safety laboratory parameters did not identify adverse effects on growth, metabolism, bone mineral density, or endocrine function in any of the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved, because the effect of eDSP on neurological symptoms did not reach statistical significance. The favourable safety profile of eDSP, previously described in a large study of children with ataxia telangiectasia, was confirmed in this trial. The eDSP programme, comprising two randomised studies and treating the largest cohort of patients with ataxia telangiectasia to date, underscores the need for rigorously designed trials of sufficient duration to detect sustained clinical benefit. FUNDING: Quince Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

High-dose radiotherapy in patients with high-risk prostate cancers treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (GETUG AFU 18): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, the role of dose-escalated radiotherapy in combination with long-term androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) is controversial, without any demonstrated benefit on cancer-specific or overall survival. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a 10 Gy dose increase, from 70 Gy to 80 Gy, on progression-free survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with high-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen of 20 ng/mL or more, Gleason score of at least 8, or clinical stage T3-T4, from 25 centres in France. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation, stratified by centre and previous pelvic lymph node dissection, to receive prostate-targeted dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (80 Gy; 2 Gy per fraction for 8 weeks) or standard-dose external beam radiotherapy (70 Gy; 2 Gy per fraction for 7 weeks), combined with long-term ADT. Neither the participants nor the investigators were masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was 5-year progression-free survival defined as the time from randomisation to first biochemical (defined as prostate-specific antigen >nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or clinical (ie, local, regional, or metastatic) disease progression, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, with 197 events required. 5-year progression-free survival was the prespecified endpoint, and 10-year progression-free survival was additionally reported (post hoc) in view of the low number of events at 5 years. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967863, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 24, 2013, 505 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled; 250 were assigned to receive dose-escalated radiotherapy (80 Gy) and 255 to receive standard dose radiotherapy (70 Gy). All participants were male and ethnicity data were not collected. At a median follow-up of 9·5 years (IQR 8·5-10·3), 5-year progression-free survival was 91·4% (95% CI 87·0-94·4) in the dose-escalation group versus 88·1% (83·2-91·6) in the control group, and 10-year progression-free survival was 83·6% (77·8-88·0) versus 72·2% (65·3-78·0; stratified HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·40-0·78, p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events assessed at 6 months (acute toxicity) were observed in 60 (24%) of patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 (25%) in the control group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were sexual disorders (28 [11%] in the dose-escalation group vs 20 [8%] in the control group) and bladder or urethra disorders (12 [5%] vs 19 [8%]). Adverse events assessed at 5 years (late toxicity) occurred in 118 (70%) of 168 in the dose-escalation group and 122 (73%) of 168 in the control group; grade 3 or worse late toxicities occurred in 19 (8%) participants in the dose-escalated radiotherapy group versus 17 (7%) participants in the control group. The most common late grade 3 adverse event was bladder or urethra disorders (seven [4%] vs three [2%], respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in nine (4%) patients in the dose escalation group and nine (4%) in the control group; none were considered to be treatment related. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, radiotherapy at a total dose of 80 Gy, in combination with long-term ADT, improved progression-free survival and could be a potential option in this situation. However, given the low number of events, further research is needed to consolidate and confirm the benefit in dose-escalation in prostate cancer-specific survival and overall survival. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca.

Aged↗

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

Adolescent health across Asia Pacific, 2000-23: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.

BACKGROUND: The Asia Pacific region is home to more than half of the world's 1·93 billion adolescents (aged 10-24 years). Addressing adolescent health in this region is of global importance, but to date a systematic analysis of key contributors to disease in adolescents has not been done, which is a barrier to responsive action. This systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2023 aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of adolescent health across the Asia Pacific region, at both the subregional and national levels, encompassing burden of disease, mortality, and prevalence of adolescent risk factors. METHODS: As part of GBD 2023, we obtained estimates for cause-specific mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and risk factor prevalence by sex for adolescents aged 10-24 years and 5-year age groups (10-14 years, 15-19 years, and 20-24 years) across 44 countries and territories (hereafter referred to collectively as Asia Pacific), grouped by seven UN subregions, from 2000 to 2023. We extracted GBD 2023 population counts and estimates of number and rate (per 100 000 population) for mortality and disease burden (DALYs). Risk prevalence estimates were obtained directly from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and binge drinking estimates were sourced from WHO. Estimates are reported with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) where possible. UIs were estimated by running 250 draws of the posterior distribution, ordering the draws, and selecting the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles for each metric. FINDINGS: In 2023, in adolescents across Asia Pacific, there were 637 496 deaths and a total disease burden of 115·8 million DALYs, representing 34·1% of global adolescent deaths and 40·6% of the global adolescent burden of disease. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs; particularly mental disorders) were the leading causes of disease burden and mortality (64·8% of DALYs and 43·9% of deaths). Unintentional and transport injuries were also leading causes of death (14·7% of deaths due to transport injury and 13·3% of deaths due to unintentional injury) and leading causes of disease burden particularly among males in south-eastern Asia. In Melanesia, Micronesia, and some parts of south-eastern Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste), respiratory infections and tuberculosis remained important contributors. Southern Asia had the largest reduction (1·5% per year) in all-cause DALYs over the study period, and Australia and New Zealand (0·2% per year) had the smallest, with females in Australia and New Zealand showing a slight increase contrary to regional trends. Eastern Asia had the largest reduction (2·8% per year) in all-cause mortality rate and Melanesia (0·8% per year) the smallest. Risk factors generally had between-subregion and within-subregion variation; however, some regional trends stood out, with overweight and obesity increasing in all countries across the region, and binge drinking increasing in more countries than not. In 2023, prevalence of smoking in males exceeded that in females in every country, from 40% difference in Timor-Leste to less than 1% difference in Australia. Anaemia prevalence is decreasing in all countries, but female prevalence was higher and reducing at a slower rate than in males. Bullying prevalence was slightly higher in Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia combined, Australia and New Zealand, and eastern Asia compared with southern and south-eastern Asian subregions. INTERPRETATION: Several patterns were consistent across the region: the dominance of mental disorders and NCDs, the universal rise in overweight and obesity (particularly high in Oceanic countries but increasing rapidly in south and south-eastern Asia), and persistent sex-specific challenges across subregions: unintentional injuries and smoking in males, and anaemia in females. Actions to tackle shared risk factors (while accounting for context-specific local health profiles, workforce deficits, cultural factors, and health system capacity) should not be forgone due to local variation. Future research could focus on subnational variation, intersecting inequalities, and multi-sectoral interventions targeting shared risk factors. Priority actions should include regional investment in adolescent mental health services and obesity prevention, targeted injury reduction strategies for high-risk populations, and sex-specific approaches to smoking cessation and anaemia reduction, delivered through local health systems with the capacity and cultural responsiveness to meet local needs. FUNDING: Gates Foundation and Australian Government.

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

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

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

AMPLITUDE trial↗

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↗

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↗