SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Myocardial Ischemia”

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.

66 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Antegrade dissection and re-entry vs retrograde strategy in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the ADRENALINE randomized study.

RATIONALE: While antegrade wiring (AW) is the most common initial strategy for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), difficult CTO lesions frequently require either antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) or a retrograde strategy. Comparative data between ADR and the retrograde approach remain limited. DESIGN: The Antegrade Dissection vs Retrograde re-ENtry And Load of Interventionalist Effort (ADRENALINE) is a prospective, multicenter randomized study with a superiority design. It is planned to enroll 121 patients with difficult coronary CTO (J-CTO score ≥2) referred for CTO-PCI in accordance with the hybrid algorithm. Subjects undergoing successful AW will be included in the observational arm. Patients with failed or unattempted AW will be randomized 1:1 to ADR or retrograde CTO crossing strategy (n = 74). All patients will undergo pre- and postprocedural laboratory testing (including cardiac troponin T and creatine kinase-MB), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for late gadolinium enhancement, and health status assessment by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the Rose Dyspnea Scale. The co-primary endpoints are total procedure time and successful guidewire crossing. Additionally, the relationship between different recanalization strategies and stress among interventional cardiologists will be explored. CONCLUSION: ADRENALINE is the first randomized study of ADR vs retrograde strategy for difficult CTO PCI, assessing procedural outcomes, CMR-detected myocardial infarction, and 3-month quality of life. ENROLMENT STATUS: The first patient was enrolled on July 29, 2025. As of June 14, 2026, 45 patients (26 randomized, 19 observational) of the planned 121 patients have been enrolled. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: Identifier, NCT06878729.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Future promise, current clinical ambiguity: a systematic review of machine learning algorithm outputs predicting risk of cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the outputs of machine learning algorithms designed to predict risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) address known deficiencies of the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and improve risk estimates. METHODS: For this critical review, Medline, Embase and IEEE were searched from inception to 1 January 2025. Included were studies describing machine learning algorithms designed to specifically compare output of cardiovascular risk assessment with the FRS. Commentaries, letters, unpublished work or non-peer-reviewed papers were excluded.Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers screened titles and abstracts independently, then populated a purpose-built data extraction form. A subsequent qualitative thematic analysis focused on algorithms' strengths, added value, potential harms, unintended consequences and equity implications.The main outcome assessed was whether, among healthy adults, the algorithm improved CVD risk prediction relative to the FRS. RESULTS: Of 707 studies retrieved, 29 met inclusion criteria. 23 reported improved predictive ability relative to the FRS. Most datasets and/or medical records used included sociodemographic predictors of CVD not included among FRS inputs. Some added costly diagnostic tests like CT angiography to FRS screening indicators. When they were defined, inputs and outcomes such as hypertension or myocardial infarction did not always adhere to FRS values. Statistical significance was generally taken as a proxy for clinical significance. Some algorithms overestimated the number at risk compared with the FRS without discussing whether that larger proportion might be at risk of overdiagnosis rather than CVD, while a few decreased the proportion found to be at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Use of artificial intelligence to improve accuracy of risk assessment for CVD demonstrates the technological capacity to merge known sociodemographic predictors with biologic variables and examine non-linear interactions among these. Still needed to achieve patient benefit is clinical insight, adherence to screening principles and cost-benefit assessment of inputs selected.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Imaging‑based models for predicting cerebrovascular complications of carotid stenosis.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To systematically review and critically appraise multivariable prognostic models developed for adults (≥ 18 years) with carotid stenosis in which imaging biomarkers (e.g. plaque characteristics derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or ultrasound) constitute the core predictors. The primary focus is to evaluate the predictive performance of these models for cerebrovascular complications - specifically ipsilateral ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) - which are the clinical outcomes to be predicted. Where feasible, we will summarise and compare the models' discrimination (C‑statistic/area under the curve (AUC)) and calibration (calibration‑in‑the‑large, calibration slope, observed‑to‑expected ratio) across studies, and assess their potential for clinical application and external validation. For the purpose of defining symptomatic carotid stenosis as an eligibility criterion and subgroup variable, we will include studies that also considered retinal ischaemia (e.g. retinal embolism, amaurosis fugax) as a qualifying event. Secondary objectives To describe the combinations of imaging markers, modelling techniques, sample sizes, and variable‑selection strategies used in the development of the included models To evaluate the performance of these models for additional secondary clinical outcomes: plaque progression or regression, incident high‑risk imaging features, and the transition from asymptomatic to symptomatic disease To explore whether predictive performance differs according to imaging modality (MRI versus CT versus contrast‑enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)) or technical protocol (e.g. 3 T versus 1.5 T, spectral CT versus conventional CT) For studies that report both cerebrovascular and broader cardiovascular outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, etc.), we will only extract the performance metrics relating to cerebrovascular events for the primary analysis. Performance metrics for cardiovascular outcomes will be considered exploratory and will not form part of the main synthesis.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based Practice Competencies Among US Registered Dietitians.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of absolute and relative effect estimates, and determining effect size and certainty of evidence corresponding to effect estimates, represent fundamental evidence-based practice competencies that promote informed clinical decision-making. While research has been conducted in the medical profession, based on our literature review there is no published research on these competencies in the nutrition and dietetics profession. METHODS: Among registered dietitians, our main objectives were to assess (1) their understanding and perceived usefulness of three absolute and two relative effect estimate approaches to determine effect size, (2) their perceived usefulness of certainty of evidence, and (3) factors influencing their understanding and perceived usefulness. We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional survey by recruiting dietitians from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (United States). Participants received effect estimates based on hypothetical dietary interventions vs. usual diet for reducing myocardial infarction risk. RESULTS: Of the 11,050 dietitians who received the survey link, 210 participated, and only completers (n = 114) were included in our analysis. Participants demonstrated a similar understanding of the relative (27.6%) and absolute (27.5%) effect estimates, with Risk Difference being the best understood approach and Number Needed to Treat being the least (30.7% vs. 24.6% correct responses). While perceived usefulness scores were similar between five approaches, they were highest when data was presented as Relative Risk [mean (SD): 4.82 (1.50)]. Dietitians rated the usefulness of certainty of evidence favorably [mean (SD): 5.07 (1.83), on a 7-point scale], and no factors were associated with correct understanding. CONCLUSION: Dietitians may have limited understanding of effect size thresholds presented in our survey, a finding mostly consistent with surveys of other health professionals. To optimize informed decision-making between dietitians and clients, dietetic programs and continuing education platforms should consider additional training on effect estimate approaches (relative and absolute), and determining effect sizes and certainty of evidence for effect estimates.

Clinical nutrition↗

PubMed2026

Rationale, design, and experiences from the vanguard phase of the bariatric surgery for the reduction of cardiovascular events (BRAVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with obesity, but adequately powered randomized trials (RCTs) are lacking. The Bariatric Surgery for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events (BRAVE) trial was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: BRAVE is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, open-label RCT with blinded endpoint adjudication comparing MBS vs guideline-based medical weight management (MWM) in adults with obesity and high-risk cardiovascular disease (CVD). Eligible participants have a body-mass index ≥35 kg/m² or ≥30 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes or age >55 years, and prior myocardial infarction (MI), coronary intervention, heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF) with elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease. Participants are randomized 1:1 to MBS (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch) or MWM, which includes dietary, behavioral, and pharmacologic therapies. The primary outcome is the composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke, HF events, coronary revascularization, AF hospitalization, and renal events. A vanguard phase of 200 participants was implemented to optimize recruitment and logistics. RESULTS: As of October 2025, 2,514 individuals have been screened from 17 centers in Canada, Brazil, Italy and Spain, with 444 entered MBS work-up, and 200 have been randomized. The randomized cohort (mean age 59.8 years; 37% female; mean BMI 44.0 kg m⁻²) has high burden of hypertension (82%), diabetes (45%), coronary artery disease (44%), HF (39%), and AF (48%). Recruitment barriers were identified and addressed through targeted education and enhanced patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: BRAVE is the first large RCT evaluating whether MBS safely reduces major cardiovascular events compared with medical therapy in high-risk patients with obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05531474.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Machine learning vs. traditional methods for predicting postoperative cardiac complications after non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate prediction of peri-operative cardiac complications is critical to optimise pre-operative decision-making. Traditional risk prediction scores, such as the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, show only modest discrimination. Machine learning can model complex, non-linear relationships but their predictive performance compared with traditional scores remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was postoperative adverse cardiac events following non-cardiac surgery. Prediction models were assessed relative to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. As many studies evaluated multiple versions of each model type, the highest performing ('best version') and lowest performing ('worst version') results were analysed. Models were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluating 54 models and 927,113 patients were included. Machine learning approaches generally outperformed traditional risk scores. Automated machine learning ranked highest (SUCRA 96.6) showed the greatest improvement in the best version analysis (mean difference (MD) 0.28 (95%CrI 0.16-0.40)) and remained superior in the sensitivity analysis (MD 0.30 (95%CrI 0.14-0.45)). Gradient boosting models showed superior performance over the Revised Cardiac Risk Index across analysis (best version: MD 0.20 (95%CrI 0.14-0.26), worst version: MD 0.18 (95%CrI 0.12-0.25), SUCRA 82.4). The Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest score outperformed the Revised Cardiac Risk Index in the best version analysis (MD 0.16 (95%CrI 0.01-0.32)). Between-study heterogeneity was low. None of the included studies externally validated their machine learning models and only six were judged to be at low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most machine learning models showed better discrimination than traditional risk scores, with automated machine learning and gradient boosting models ranking highest. However, study quality, calibration reporting and absence of external validation limit immediate clinical adoption. Prospective, multicentre evaluation is required before integration of these models into peri-operative practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Sex Differences in Postoperative Recovery and Mortality After High-Risk Cardiac Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Post Hoc Analysis of the SUSTAIN-CSX Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sex-related differences after cardiac surgery remain controversial because women often present with higher baseline risk and complexity than men. We performed a post hoc propensity score-matched analysis of the SUSTAIN-CSX (Sodium Selenite Administration in Cardiac Surgery) trial to evaluate sex differences in mortality, postoperative complications, and recovery after high-risk cardiac surgery. METHODS: Of 1394 trial participants, 1386 had complete data. Women were matched 1:1 to men using nearest-neighbor propensity score matching based on age and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II), with exact matching on surgical category, yielding 327 female-male pairs. Prespecified sensitivity analyses adjusted for frailty, baseline hemoglobin, renal disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous myocardial infarction, preoperative medications, and baseline creatinine. RESULTS: In the primary matched analysis, 180-day survival did not differ between women and men (log-rank P=0.086; unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.80 [95% CI, 0.91-3.55]; P=0.091). In descriptive matched comparisons, women had numerically longer intensive care unit stay (median, 3 days [quartile 1, quartile 3 (Q1, Q3)=1, 6 days] versus 2 days [Q1, Q3=1, 5 days]) and hospital stay (median, 10 days [Q1, Q3=7, 18 days] versus 9 days [Q1, Q3=6, 16 days]; P=0.292), whereas major postoperative complications were similar. In adjusted sensitivity analyses accounting for the matched design and residual imbalance, female sex remained associated with longer intensive care unit stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.8 [95% CI, 1.2-2.9]; P=0.009) and hospital stay (adjusted IRR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.0-1.9]; P=0.031). Mortality sensitivity analyses were model-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched cohort of high-risk cardiac surgery patients, women showed a longer postoperative recovery trajectory in adjusted analyses, whereas mortality findings were sensitive to model specification and should be interpreted cautiously. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02002247.

Aged↗

PubMed2026

Colchicine to prevent cardiovascular events in thoracic surgery patients with or without coronary artery disease: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory post hoc secondary analysis of the Colchicine for the Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation (COP-AF) randomised controlled trial evaluated the association between coronary artery disease (CAD) and postoperative ischaemic outcomes after non-cardiac thoracic surgery and assessed whether colchicine had differential effects by CAD status. METHODS: Patients were randomised to colchicine 0.5 mg or placebo two times per day for 10 days. Follow-up was 14 days. The primary outcome was myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). A key secondary outcome was the composite of death, MINS and stroke. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between CAD and outcomes, with interaction terms to explore whether colchicine had differential effects by CAD status. RESULTS: Of 3209 patients enrolled, 331 (10.3%) had CAD. MINS occurred in 29.3% (n=97) and 18.2% (n=523) of patients with and without CAD, adjusted HR (aHR) 1.53 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.92; p<0.001). For colchicine versus placebo, the HR for MINS was 0.82 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) in CAD versus 0.91 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.08) in non-CAD patients (p for interaction=0.61). Death, stroke or MINS occurred in 30.2% (n=100) vs 18.6% (n=535), respectively (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; p<0.001). Colchicine HRs were 0.77 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.14) vs 0.91 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; p for interaction=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CAD undergoing thoracic surgery had a higher risk of MINS and other ischaemic outcomes than non-CAD patients. There was no evidence that the effect of colchicine differed between patients with and without CAD; however, these analyses were limited by sample size and do not exclude modest differences between subgroups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ultrashort vs Standard-Duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing PCI: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ultrashort (≤1-month) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by antiplatelet monotherapy remain uncertain in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ultrashort vs standard-duration DAPT in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials until February 15, 2026. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical event (NACE). Prespecified subgroup analyses examined by ethnicity (East Asian vs non-East Asian) and abbreviation strategy (intensive: ≤1-week DAPT or clopidogrel/aspirin monotherapy vs moderate: ≥2-week DAPT, followed by ticagrelor/prasugrel monotherapy). RESULTS: Across 10 trials (n = 29,232), ultrashort DAPT did not increase MACCE risk (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.93-1.20; P = 0.38; I2 = 24%), with higher MACCE risk observed in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) but not non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS), and significantly reduced major bleeding (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.35-0.64; P < 0.00001; I2 = 44%), resulting in a net clinical benefit (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02; I2 = 61%). Bleeding reduction was more pronounced in East Asians (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.49; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) than non-East Asians (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43-0.93; P = 0.02; I2 = 44%), with a significant interaction (P = 0.02). The abbreviation strategy significantly modified outcomes (P for interaction = 0.003): intensive abbreviation raised MACCE risk (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.11-1.69; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%), while moderate abbreviation had no statistically significant difference (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85-1.08; P = 0.47; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, ultrashort DAPT reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic events overall, although a signal of increased MACCE was observed in STEMI but not in NSTE-ACS. Bleeding reduction was greater in East Asians, while ≤1-week DAPT or clopidogrel/aspirin monotherapy may increase ischemic risk.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of Semaglutide on the Inflammatory Biomarker High-Sensitivity CRP in Patients With Established Cardiovascular Disease and Overweight or Obesity in SELECT: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity), among 17 604 patients with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, but not diabetes, randomization to the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide significantly reduced the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) compared with placebo (mean follow-up, 39.8 months). Inflammation, as indicated by plasma hsCRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) level, is implicated as a biomarker predicting cardiovascular risk in obesity and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. SELECT provides a unique opportunity to study the relationship among hsCRP, obesity, weight loss, and MACE outcomes in semaglutide versus placebo groups. METHODS: In this prespecified SELECT substudy, we evaluated whether baseline hsCRP levels predicted MACE risk and examined the relationships between changes in hsCRP levels and time to first MACE, baseline body weight, weight loss, and other clinical measures among treatment groups over time (104, 208 weeks) using multiple approaches, including Cox modeling. RESULTS: Baseline hsCRP level, which was similar in the semaglutide (geometric mean 1.96 mg/L) and placebo (geometric mean 1.91 mg/L) groups, was prognostic of future MACE. The risk of MACE increased across baseline hsCRP level <2, 2-<10, and ≥10 mg/L subgroups, including significant associations with cardiovascular and all-cause death. Semaglutide reduced hsCRP levels (-37.8% [104 weeks]) and risk of MACE across all hsCRP subgroups. Greater reductions in ratio-to-baseline hsCRP with semaglutide were associated with greater weight loss, but preceded major weight loss, evident by 4 and 8 weeks, and occurred among those without weight loss. Semaglutide-associated changes in hsCRP were independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, statin use, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease entry criteria. hsCRP reductions were found to be prognostic of decreased risk of MACE. Modeling suggests decreased inflammation as contributing in part to the benefits seen with semaglutide in SELECT. CONCLUSIONS: In SELECT, hsCRP data at baseline and in response to treatment with semaglutide support inflammation as a potential prognostic factor associated with cardiovascular risk in these generally well-treated patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but not diabetes. These findings suggest that the MACE reduction observed with semaglutide versus placebo in SELECT may have partially involved a decrease in inflammation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03574597.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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↗