SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Self Efficacy”

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.

574 records · Page 32Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Three-Arm Randomized Trial of Enoxaparin Duration and Rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious but preventable complication after bariatric surgery, most of them after hospital discharge. The optimal regimen and duration of post-discharge prophylaxis, particularly the role of direct oral anticoagulants, remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To estimate 30-day VTE and bleeding event rates in high-risk patients undergoing one-anastomosis gastric bypass who received 15-day enoxaparin, 30-day enoxaparin, or 30-day rivaroxaban prophylaxis, and to perform exploratory comparisons among the regimens. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, three-arm clinical trial, high-risk adults undergoing laparoscopic OAGB were randomized before discharge (1:1:1) to enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously twice daily for 15 days, enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily for 30 days, or rivaroxaban 10 mg orally once daily for 30 days, after standardized in-hospital enoxaparin and early ambulation. Participants underwent clinical assessment and duplex ultrasonography of the lower-limb and porto-mesenteric veins on postoperative days 15 and 30. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed VTE within 30 days. Bleeding was classified as International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Because the expected event rate was low and no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was prespecified, comparisons were interpreted as exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were randomized to 15-day enoxaparin (n = 97), 30-day enoxaparin (n = 97), or 30-day rivaroxaban (n = 94). One symptomatic lower-limb deep vein thrombosis occurred in the 15-day enoxaparin group (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.03%-5.6%); no VTE events occurred in the 30-day enoxaparin group (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.7%) or the rivaroxaban group (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.8%). Total bleeding occurred in 4/97 patients (4.1%) in each enoxaparin group and 8/94 patients (8.5%) in the rivaroxaban group. The absolute difference in total bleeding between rivaroxaban and 30-day enoxaparin was 4.4% points (95% CI, - 2.9 to 12.2), indicating substantial imprecision. No porto-mesenteric venous thrombosis was detected. CONCLUSION: Only one VTE event occurred, precluding reliable conclusions regarding comparative efficacy or prophylaxis duration. Bleeding estimates were also imprecise and do not establish comparative safety or equivalence between rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The trial adds descriptive event-rate data from a standardized OAGB pathway, but larger multicenter studies with prespecified comparative hypotheses and assessment of adherence, oral tolerance, and drug exposure are required. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Combined Effects of Nicorandil and Enhanced External Counterpulsation on Coronary Microcirculation and Exercise Capacity in Patients With Coronary Slow Flow Phenomenon: A Randomized, Controlled, 3-Arm Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the combined efficacy and safety of combined nicorandil and enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy compared with respective monotherapies in patients with coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, 3-arm clinical trial, 309 patients with angiographically defined CSFP based on corrected TIMI frame count were assigned (1:1:1) to the Nicorandil group (N group, n = 103), the EECP group (E group, n = 103), or the Combined therapy group (N+E group, n = 103). The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07534410). IMR and CFR were measured to characterize coronary microvascular physiological status and treatment response. The primary endpoint was corrected TFC at 6 months. Key secondary endpoints included invasive physiological indices (IMR and CFR), Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, peak oxygen uptake via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and the 12-month rate of re-hospitalization due to recurrent angina. FINDINGS: At 6 months, the N+E group demonstrated superior improvement in coronary hemodynamics compared to the N and E monotherapy groups, with significantly lower TFC (30.4 ± 3.5 vs 38.2 ± 3.8 and 37.5 ± 4.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and IMR (21.2 ± 2.8 vs 28.4 ± 3.2 and 27.6 ± 3.5, respectively; P < 0.001). Clinical symptoms and functional capacity showed the most substantial gains in the N+E group, with significantly higher Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores (87.5 ± 8.8) and 6MWT distances (506.8 ± 41.8 m) compared to monotherapy groups (all P < 0.001). Furthermore, peak oxygen uptake in the N+E group increased to 23.5 ± 2.6 mL/kg/min, significantly outperforming the N and E groups (P < 0.001). During the 12-month follow-up, the observed rate of re-hospitalization due to recurrent angina was lower in the N+E group (5.8%) than in the N group (17.5%, P = 0.017), although this clinical outcome should be interpreted cautiously because the trial was powered primarily for physiological endpoints. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse reactions among the 3 groups (P = 0.954). IMPLICATIONS: For patients with CSFP, the combination of Nicorandil and EECP improved coronary microvascular function, anginal symptoms, and objective exercise tolerance more effectively than either active monotherapy. The lower observed rate of angina-related re-hospitalization suggests a potential clinical benefit, but this finding should be considered exploratory and requires confirmation in trials adequately powered for clinical outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Design, rationale, and baseline patient characteristics for the Sickle Cell Disease and CardiovAscular Risk-Red cell Exchange (SCD-CARRE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite wide utilization of automated red blood cell exchange (RBCX) transfusion in adult patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), no consensus or quality efficacy data exist on its use. The Sickle Cell Disease and CardiovAscular Risk- Red cell Exchange (SCD-CARRE) trial tests the hypothesis that an automated chronic RBCX transfusion strategy reduces acute health care encounters and death while improving quality of life and end-organ function (cardiac, pulmonary and renal) in participants with SCD that are at high risk of death. METHODS: Adult patients with SCD with elevated tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRV) and/or chronic kidney disease were considered to be at high risk of death and were randomly assigned to RBCX plus standard of care vs standard of care alone. Participants assigned to RBCX received 12 months of exchange transfusions to maintain target pretransfusion hemoglobin S% < 30%, post-transfusion hemoglobin S% < 20%, and post-transfusion hemoglobin concentration ≥10 g/dL. All study participants were managed according to NHLBI/ASH/ATS Expert Panel guidelines. The primary endpoint was the number of SCD acute health care encounters or death over 13 months. Secondary endpoints included measures of cardiovascular and renal function, exercise capacity, patient reported outcomes (all collected at baseline, and months 4, 8, and 12), and transfusion-related adverse events (collected monthly). RESULTS: Between 2020 and 2025, the SCD-CARRE trial randomized 173 participants at 23 sites across 3 countries. Enrolled participants had mean (SD) age of 45.8 (11.8) years and 54% were female. At baseline, participants had average TRV of 2.8 (0.5) m/s such that 45.9% had a TRV between 2.5 to 2.9 m/sec and 28.1% had a TRV ≥ 3.0 m/sec. The median (Q1, Q3) eGFR in this cohort was 60 (36, 110) mL/min/1.73 m2. The median (Q1, Q3) 6-minute walk test distance was 375 meters (309, 439), the median daily steps were 3,728 (2,187, 5,821), and participants experienced a median (Q1, Q3) of 2 (1, 5) pain episodes in the year prior to randomization. The trial results are pending. CONCLUSIONS: The SCD-CARRE trial successfully enrolled a cohort of n = 173 adults with SCD. This study highlights a rationale to evaluate the effect of automated chronic RBCX transfusion strategy plus standard of care as compared to standard of care alone in SCD patients at high risk of death with a focus on patient centered outcomes, preservation of cardiovascular function, end-organ complications and death. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04084080, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04084080.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Azacitidine-Venetoclax or Induction Chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy has long been a key component of curative therapy for fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), despite its frequently severe side effects and substantial health care utilization. For patients who are ineligible for induction chemotherapy, hypomethylating therapy plus venetoclax is the standard treatment owing to its efficacy and side-effect profile. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, previously untreated adults with AML who were eligible for induction chemotherapy to receive either azacitidine plus venetoclax or induction chemotherapy. Patients with core binding factor fusions, mutations in the gene encoding FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), or mutations in the gene encoding nucleophosmin-1 (NPM1; unless the patient was ≥60 years of age) were excluded. The primary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients underwent randomization, with 86 patients assigned to each group. The median age of the patients was 64 years. A total of 72% of the patients had adverse-risk disease according to the European LeukemiaNet 2022 classification. At a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median event-free survival was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.4 to 24.4) in the azacitidine-venetoclax group, as compared with 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 10.1) in the induction chemotherapy group, corresponding to a hazard ratio for event or death of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.84; P = 0.002 by the stratified log-rank test). Infection of grade 3 or higher occurred in 28% of the patients (95% CI, 19 to 39) receiving azacitidine-venetoclax and in 41% of those (95% CI, 30 to 52) receiving induction chemotherapy; hemorrhage of grade 3 or higher occurred in 2% (95% CI, 0.3 to 8) and 12% (95% CI, 6 to 20), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2, randomized trial, azacitidine-venetoclax therapy led to significantly longer event-free survival than induction chemotherapy among induction-eligible patients with AML. (Funded by AbbVie and others; PARADIGM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04801797.).

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Telmisartan-based monotherapy and combination regimens for blood pressure control in adults with hypertension: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and certainty of evidence for telmisartan-based antihypertensive regimens in adults with hypertension. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to 2026. Eligible studies enrolled adults with hypertension and compared telmisartan monotherapy or telmisartan-containing combinations with placebo, usual care, non-telmisartan antihypertensive agents, or alternative telmisartan-based regimens. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using random-effects models, with additional subgroup analyses conducted by comparator type. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-five included reports (24 unique trials, since two reports present secondary outcomes from the same underlying trial) involving 6,521 participants were included, spanning placebo-controlled, usual-care-controlled, active-comparator, and telmisartan-combination-versus-telmisartan-monotherapy designs. Telmisartan-based therapy significantly reduced office systolic blood pressure (MD - 6.39 mm Hg; 95% CI - 7.86 to - 4.93; low certainty) and office diastolic blood pressure (MD - 4.88 mm Hg; 95% CI - 6.67 to - 3.09; low certainty), although the magnitude of effect was comparator-dependent. Based on only two trials, 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (MD - 7.16 mm Hg; 95% CI - 10.61 to - 3.72) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (MD - 4.42 mm Hg; 95% CI - 6.36 to - 2.48) were reduced with moderate certainty. Telmisartan-based regimens improved blood pressure response (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.16; moderate certainty) but not blood pressure control achievement (RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.24; very low certainty). Overall adverse events, dizziness, and headache were comparable (very low to low certainty), while edema was less frequent with telmisartan-based therapy (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.73; moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Telmisartan-based regimens, particularly fixed-dose and multidrug combinations, effectively reduce office and ambulatory blood pressure and improve blood pressure response, with broadly comparable short-term safety and less edema. These effect sizes are comparator-dependent, and certainty of evidence for absolute blood pressure control achievement and for major adverse events is very low; heterogeneity, limited long-term data, and a predominance of Asian-population trials warrant cautious interpretation pending larger, higher-quality, and more geographically diverse confirmatory studies.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Valproate vs levetiracetam in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset typically in adolescence and a chronic course requiring long-term antiseizure medications (ASMs). Valproate (VPA) is the most effective treatment for seizure control in JME but use is limited by metabolic, cognitive, and teratogenic adverse effects (AEs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is an alternative ASM when VPA is contraindicated or not tolerated. Comparisons of the efficacy and long-term tolerability of VPA and LEV remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2026 for studies in JME patients comparing LEV and VPA, and included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were seizure remission and ASM failure or treatment discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included, memory impairment, weight gain or obesity, dizziness, and overall AEs. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 1,009 patients were included. VPA was associated with higher pooled seizure remission rates compared with LEV (344 of 574 vs. 169 of 390; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 88.4%) limits confidence in this finding. VPA was associated with a lower risk of drug failure or treatment discontinuation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). VPA was also associated with a higher risk of memory impairment (RR 5.37, 95% CI 2.05-14.04; I2 = 74.5%) and weight gain or obesity (RR 6.40, 95% CI 3.64-11.26; I2 = 35.9%). No significant differences were observed between treatments regarding dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.37; I2 = 21.2%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: VPA was associated with higher seizure remission rates and lower treatment discontinuation compared with LEV; however, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity, the predominance of observational studies, and the serious risk of bias identified in most included studies VPA also demonstrated lower rates of treatment discontinuation, despite a higher burden of cognitive impairment and weight gain. No relevant differences were observed regarding dizziness. Large-scale randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to define the comparative risk-benefit profiles of LEV and VPA in JME.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Systemic biomarkers of treatment response to methotrexate in people with painful knee osteoarthritis: A biological substudy of the PROMOTE randomised controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Stratification of therapeutic responses may help identify efficacious therapies for osteoarthritis (OA). In the PROMOTE randomised trial, participants with elevated baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) showed greater pain reduction after methotrexate treatment. We set out to interrogate a broader panel of serum/plasma inflammatory response markers relevant to methotrexate actions as potential biomarkers of therapeutic effect. Our objectives were to: (i) characterize changes in these systemic markers during methotrexate treatment; determine whether (ii) baseline levels or (iii) changes in any marker during treatment were associated with treatment response; and (iv) compare these findings with the more established clinical inflammatory marker, hs-CRP. DESIGN: Plasma/serum samples from participants in PROMOTE's biological substudy were analysed for 35 inflammatory markers at baseline (pre-treatment) and at 6-months (post-treatment), by MesoScale V-plex multiplex assay. Those with paired biological and clinical data at both baseline and 6-months were included in the substudy analysis set. Relationships between markers and overall data structure were assessed by Pearson correlation and Principal Component analysis. Associations between markers (baseline levels or change over time) and change in average knee pain severity in past week (numerical rating scale, NRS) were evaluated by univariable linear regression, adjusting for baseline age, sex, and body mass index. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression with bootstrap resampling enabled marker selection. Benjamini-Hochberg correction adjusted for multiple testing (Padj). RESULTS: 87 participants with paired blood marker and clinical data were eligible for substudy analysis. 18/35 markers were quantifiable and analysed. Systemic IL-8 and TNF-α levels decreased (Padj=0.015, 0.048 respectively) while IL-15 increased (Padj=0.033) with methotrexate treatment over 6-months. Analysing within this active treatment randomised arm, higher baseline IFN-γ was associated with greater reduction in NRS pain change (0.66 [0.01, 1.31], P=0.047), as was decreasing TNF-α over 6-months (2.25 [0.00, 4.5], P=0.049). LASSO identified higher IFN-γ, lower plasma IL-15 and IL-16, and younger age as the most important baseline predictors of pain improvement. hs-CRP was highly selected by LASSO for treatment response in both arms. In a secondary univariate treatment arm-by-biomarker interaction analysis, of the 19 markers, only hs-CRP showed consistent effects in adjusted models (at baseline, coeffic. 2.34 [0.53, 4.15], P=0.001; change over 6-months, (0.36 [0.06, 0.66], P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Blood measurement of IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-15 and IL-16 as well as hs-CRP could act as potential markers to stratify the treatment response by average knee pain to methotrexate in knee osteoarthritis.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR and Concurrent TP53 Mutations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Combination therapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its clinical benefit-risk profile remains a focus of ongoing debate. Identifying patients most likely to derive benefit from such regimens remains an unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy with osimertinib monotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 17 sites in China. Between March 25, 2021, and July 11, 2024, a total of 294 eligible patients with treatment-naive, stage IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 and EGFR-sensitizing mutations were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy (pemetrexed and carboplatin every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy of osimertinib plus pemetrexed; n = 146) or osimertinib monotherapy (n = 148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Among 294 enrolled patients, the median age was 57 years (range, 26-79 years), and 159 (54.1%) were female. The data cutoff date was November 11, 2025. At a median follow-up of 25.1 months for the osimertinib-chemotherapy group and 26.1 months for the osimertinib monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib plus chemotherapy than with osimertinib monotherapy (34.0 vs 15.6 months; difference, 18.4 months [95% CI, 9.9-22.3]; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.60]; P < .001). This benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups, including those with brain metastases and L858R mutations. The overall survival data remained immature (30.6% maturity); however, a trend toward overall survival benefit with combination therapy was observed. The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was higher in the combination group, with no new safety signal identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. These findings provided a clinical rationale for individualized combination strategies in the management of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04695925.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Chronic diseases related to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure are the leading causes of death among formerly homeless adults living in permanent supportive housing (PSH) in the US. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a brief, smoke-free home intervention in promoting voluntary smoke-free home adoption among PSH residents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, data collection occurred from January 11, 2022, to March 31, 2025. Participants were residents aged 18 years or older who smoked cigarettes at home in 40 multiunit PSH sites in the San Francisco Bay area, randomized to intervention or waiting list control clusters, and housing staff who worked at the study sites. INTERVENTION: Residents in intervention sites received one-on-one in-person coaching from research staff on adopting a smoke-free home; waiting list control site residents received no interventions during the study but were offered the intervention once the intervention group completed follow-up. Staff in both intervention and control sites received training on providing brief tobacco cessation coaching. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were smoke-free home adoption for at least 90 days and 7-day carbon monoxide-verified point prevalence abstinence (PPA; expired carbon monoxide level ≤5 ppm) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were any adoption (≥1 day) of a smoke-free home in the past 90 days among residents and changes in Smoking Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (S-KAP) scores among staff. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 400 residents (mean [SD] age, 54.5 [10.7] years; 251 [63.1%] male), 191 in the intervention and 209 in the control cluster. At 6 months, 13 residents (6.8%) in the intervention and 10 (4.8%) in the control group adopted a smoke-free home for at least 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% CI, 0.69-3.07). Few residents achieved 7-day PPA, though more intervention residents (12 [6.3%]) achieved it compared with controls (2 [1.0%]) (OR, 6.94; 95% CI, 1.69-28.45). Intervention residents had greater odds than control residents of any smoke-free home adoption of at least 1 day (121 [63.4%] vs 77 [36.8%]; adjusted OR, 3.83 [95% CI, 2.63-5.57]). Among staff, mean (SD) S-KAP scores increased at 6 months vs baseline for beliefs (by 0.21 [0.55] points) and practices (by 0.24 [0.61] points) pertaining to providing cessation treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, the brief intervention did not result in a significant increase in smoke-free home adoption for at least 90 days, though more residents in the intervention than the control group attempted adoption for at least 1 day. These findings support the scalability of this approach to reduce smoking in PSH, but more intensive interventions may be needed to sustain intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04855357.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C and Mortality and Organ Dysfunction in Severe Burn Injury: The VICTORY Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Severe burn injury triggers systemic inflammation that can lead to multiple organ dysfunctions and death. High-dose intravenous vitamin C has been proposed to mitigate these effects, but strong evidence in patients with burn injury is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high-dose intravenous vitamin C in patients with severe burn injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial conducted across 24 burn centers in North, Central, and South America; Europe; and Asia. Adults (≥18 years) with deep second- and/or third-degree burns covering 20% or more of total body surface area and requiring skin grafting were enrolled between August 18, 2020, and September 12, 2025. Final follow-up was completed in March 2026. The trial was stopped early after the first prespecified interim analysis for futility/harm. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours) or matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 28-day mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (defined as dependence on mechanical ventilation, kidney replacement therapy, or vasopressor/inotrope support at day 28). The main secondary outcome was time to discharge alive from hospital within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 238 patients enrolled (mean age, 48.9 [SD, 19.1] years; 79% male; mean total body surface area, 37.0% [SD, 14.6%]), 120 were assigned to vitamin C and 118 to placebo. The primary composite outcome occurred in 49 patients (40.8%) in the vitamin C group and 35 patients (29.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 1.28 [95% CI, 0.99-1.65]; P = .06), crossing the prespecified futility/harm threshold and prompting early trial termination. Time to discharge alive from hospital within 90 days was not improved (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62-1.16]; P = .31). Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher in the vitamin C group (15.0% vs 7.6%; adjusted RR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.32-2.90]; P = .001), as was hospital mortality (23.3% vs 16.1%; adjusted RR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.03-2.00]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe burn injury, high-dose intravenous vitamin C did not reduce 28-day mortality and persistent organ dysfunction and is possibly harmful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04138394.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Extended Reality Interventions for Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Recovery After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic interventions are important for treating knee pain due to osteoarthritis or after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and extended reality (XR) technology may enhance treatments for these indications. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate XR interventions for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) or for recovery after TKA. METHODS: Databases were searched through May 2023 and updated in December 2025. Eligible trials evaluated XR interventions to treat KOA pain or after TKA. We classified interventions by depth of immersion and clinical mechanism. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to determine the certainty of evidence for prioritized outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed when ≥3 studies evaluated similar comparisons, outcomes, and time points. RESULTS: Eligible trials addressed KOA (k=12) or recovery after TKA (k=9). Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 306 participants, and most studies had a follow-up of ≤3 months. Nineteen studies assessed pain-related functioning and pain intensity, and 5 assessed adverse events (AEs). For KOA, 10 studies examined interactive digital rehabilitation (IDR), and 2 examined virtual reality (VR)-digitally augmented exercise (DAE). IDR for KOA may result in better pain-related functioning (low certainty of evidence [COE]; pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06; prediction interval [PI] -1.72 to 0.55; k=5) and lower pain intensity at 6-8 weeks (low COE; pooled SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.00; PI -1.39 to 0.47; k=4). VR-DAE for KOA (k=2) produced inconsistent results (very low COE). For post-TKA studies, 5 examined IDR, 2 examined VR-DAE, 1 examined VR-distraction, and 1 examined VR-psychoeducation. Post-TKA IDR may result in better pain-related functioning (low [k=4] and moderate COE [k=1]) but little to no difference in pain intensity (low-moderate COE; pooled SMD at 3-4 months -0.12, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.52; PI -1.63 to 1.27; k=3). VR-psychoeducation probably results in lower pain at 4 weeks (moderate COE; k=1), and VR-distraction may result in 6 months (low COE; k=1), whereas VR-DAE produced mixed findings (k=2; very low COE). IDR was not associated with AEs, and VR may not be associated with AEs for KOA (high and low COE), though AE reporting was uncommon (k=5) and evidence was very uncertain for post-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: IDR may augment treatment for KOA and post-TKA recovery, and VR may benefit post-TKA rehabilitation. This review is the first to stratify by level of immersion, clinical mechanism, and follow-up duration and to systematically evaluate AEs. IDR may be ready for integration into KOA care, while use after TKA needs more evidence. Randomized controlled trials with implementation outcomes could determine how XR interventions can be used for KOA, whereas trials evaluating efficacy and AEs are needed before their use for post-TKA.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of fruquintinib versus ramucirumab in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Aim: Fruquintinib (Fruq), a selective VEGFR 1/2/3 inhibitor, showed a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the Phase III FRUTIGA trial for advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Ramucirumab (RAM), an anti-VEGFR2 antibody, demonstrated efficacy in the RAINBOW-Asia trial. This anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) evaluated Fruq plus paclitaxel versus RAM plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for G/GEJ adenocarcinoma in the absence of head-to-head trials. Materials & methods: Data from individual patients in the FRUTIGA study (N = 703) and aggregated data from the RAINBOW-Asia study (N = 440) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were balanced using entropy balancing. The placebo plus paclitaxel (PBO + PTX) groups served as the common comparators. The primary outcome was PFS; secondary outcomes included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also compared as an exploratory outcome using an adjusted indirect risk difference. Sensitivity analyses included restricted mean survival time and simulated treatment comparison. Results: After weighting (effective sample size = 564), baseline covariates were balanced. The anchored MAIC demonstrated that Fruq + PTX significantly improved PFS compared with RAM + PTX (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96; p = 0.0280), corresponding to a 30% reduction in progression risk, with a significant restricted mean survival time benefit of 1.18 months at 20 months (95% CI: 0.08-2.27; p = 0.024). Fruq achieved significantly higher ORR (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.16-2.68; p = 0.008) and DCR (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.33-2.83; p < 0.001). Overall survival was similar (0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; p = 0.8640). Subgroup analyses showed PFS benefits with Fruq in patients with ECOG PS 1, peritoneal metastases and two or fewer metastatic sites. In sensitivity analysis, the simulated treatment comparison also suggested a PFS benefit for Fruq + PTX (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.50; p < 0.0001). For any-grade TEAEs, the indirect comparison showed higher adjusted relative incidences of increased bilirubin with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 12.3%; 95% CI: 2.3-22.4%, p < 0.05) and of hypokalemia (RD: 9.0%; 95% CI: 1.5-16.4%, p < 0.05). For grade ≥3 TEAEs, the adjusted relative incidence of decreased body weight was higher with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 2.9%; 95% CI: 0.6-5.2%, p < 0.05). The adjusted relative incidences of increased AST, ALT and hypocalcemia were numerically lower in the fruquintinib group than in the RAM group. Conclusion: This MAIC indicates that Fruq + PTX may be more effective than RAM + PTX in second-line advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, with potentially improved PFS, ORR and DCR, and similar overall survival. Safety analyses suggested generally comparable safety profiles across the two regimens. Fruq + PTX remains a valuable treatment option, offering important comparative evidence for clinical and health technology assessment decisions. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT07144995.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

The glucagon and GLP-1 receptor dual agonist DD01 for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and steatohepatitis (DD01-DN-02): 12-week results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a major public health problem arising in the context of metabolic syndrome and obesity. DD01 is a liver-targeted GLP-1 receptor and glucagon dual agonist being investigated for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and MASH. The DD01-DN-02 trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DD01 in adults with MASLD or MASH; this initial analysis reports prespecified 12-week outcomes to assess early hepatic effects. METHODS: DD01-DN-02 is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 12 outpatient clinical sites in the USA. Adults aged 18-70 years with obesity or who were overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) were included in the study. Patients with MASLD or MASH underwent liver biopsy and MRI-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and were eligible if liver fat content was 10% or higher with metabolic risk factors, or if the biopsy confirmed MASH with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of at least 4. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous DD01 40 mg or matched placebo over 48 weeks, dose-escalated over 2 weeks, using a centrally administered interactive response technology system. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by an independent statistician. Participants, investigators, study staff, outcome assessors, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants having at least a 30% relative reduction in liver fat by MRI-PDFF at week 12, which was analysed in all randomly assigned participants receiving at least one dose of study drug or placebo. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Missing primary endpoint data were handled using multiple imputation under a missing-at-random assumption. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06410924) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2024, and Jan 30, 2025, 67 eligible participants were enrolled, of whom 33 were randomly assigned to DD01 and 34 to placebo. The mean age of participants was 48·4 years (SD 10·6), 42 (63%) were female, 25 (37%) were male, 57 (85%) were White, and 52 (78%) participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH. At week 12, 25 (76%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 had a 30% or higher reduction in liver fat versus four (12%) of 34 participants receiving placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 28·8 [95% CI 7·2-115·2]; adjusted relative risk 6·3 [95% CI 2·5-15·9]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 28 (85%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 and 23 (68%) of 34 participants receiving placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea (18 [55%] of 33 participants assigned DD01; six [18%] of 34 participants assigned placebo), diarrhoea (nine [27%] of 33; six [18%] of 34), and vomiting (ten [30%] of 33; four [12%] of 34). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in four (12%) of 33 participants in the DD01 group and one (3%) of 34 participants in the placebo group. Two (6%) treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in the DD01 group (abdominal pain and acute cholecystitis) and zero in the placebo group. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified 12-week primary analysis, DD01 produced rapid reductions in liver fat compared with placebo, supporting further evaluation in long-term studies. FUNDING: D&D Pharmatech, Neuraly.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Venetoclax added to dose-adjusted EPOCH-R for newly diagnosed double-hit lymphomas: phase 2 results from ALLIANCE A051701, an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6, known as double-hit lymphoma, is a highly aggressive malignancy with poor outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to study whether the addition of the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax to chemoimmunotherapy in patients with double-hit lymphoma resulted in superior efficacy compared with chemotherapy alone. METHODS: ALLIANCE A051701 is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2-3 trial in separate cohorts of patients with double-hit lymphoma and patients with double-expressor lymphoma. In this analysis, we report phase 2 results from the double-hit lymphoma cohort. Patients aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed double-hit lymphoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 were recruited from 41 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) either alone (DA-EPOCH-R group) or with venetoclax (DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group) using permuted block randomisation schedule. All patients and investigators were aware of group assignment. DA-EPOCH-R was administered on a 21-day schedule for up to six total cycles. Venetoclax was given as 600 mg by mouth daily on days 4-8 of cycle 1 and on days 1-5 of cycles 2-6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the modified intent-to-treat population inclusive of all eligible patients with centrally confirmed double-hit lymphoma. The safety analysis population consisted of all evaluable patients who received at least one dose of protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03984448) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: 36 patients were randomly assigned to the DA-EPOCH-R group and 37 to the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group between Oct 22, 2019, and Sept 18, 2020. Median age was 65 years (IQR 56-73) and baseline demographic factors were well balanced between groups, with 30 (45%) female and 36 (55%) male patients. Most patients (59 [89%]) were white, two (3%) were Asian, one (2%) was Black or African American, and four (6%) had unknown or unreported ethnicity. The majority of patients had MYC-BCL2 double-hit lymphoma (59 [89%] patients), advanced stage disease (57 [86%] patients), and high-intermediate/high-risk IPI score (42 [64%] patients). Median follow-up was 34·7 months (IQR 30·1-36·8). Median progression-free survival was 28·4 months (95% CI 5·2-not estimable) in the DA-EPOCH-R group (n=30) and 7·7 months (95% CI 4·7-NE) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (n=36; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·53-2·37; p=0·75). Deaths on treatment occurred in one (3%) patient in the DA-EPOCH-R group (due to dyspnoea; possibly related to treatment) and six (17%) patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (four due to sepsis [three at least possible related and one unrelated], two due to cardiac arrest [at least possibly related]), prompting early closure of the double-hit lymphoma cohort. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse event was febrile neutropenia, occurring in 15 (43%) of 35 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group and 11 (37%) of 30 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R group. The median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The 24-month overall survival estimates were 72% (95% CI 52-85) in the DA-EPOCH-R group compared with 52% (95% CI 33-68) in the DA-EPOCH-R plus venetoclax group (HR 2·49, 95% CI 1·03-6·04; p=0·038). INTERPRETATION: The addition of venetoclax to DA-EPOCH-R resulted in excess mortality, prompting early study closure. Robust accrual shows that prospective multicentre trials are feasible in double-hit lymphoma, and the outcomes in the DA-EPOCH-R group serve as a benchmark for future studies. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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↗