SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Histone modifications”

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.

94 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Astigmatic vector outcomes after FS-LASIK versus SMILE for high myopic astigmatism: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study without cyclotorsion compensation.

PURPOSE: To compare astigmatic correction vector outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, also termed Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction, KLEx) without intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation in patients with high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D), and to clarify procedure-specific correction tendencies under this non-standardized alignment protocol. METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study enrolled 155 eyes (one eye randomly selected per patient) that underwent FS-LASIK (80 eyes) or SMILE/KLEx (75 eyes) for high myopic astigmatism correction from January 2023 to July 2024 in Beijing Fenglian Jiayue Lige Clinic. Intraoperative cyclotorsion compensation was intentionally disabled to isolate inherent procedural astigmatism correction characteristics. Standardized Alpins vectorial analysis was performed at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 12-month Alpins correction index (CI). Multivariable propensity score adjustment was applied to mitigate confounding by clinical treatment selection bias. Statistical multiplicity control was implemented for secondary vector and visual outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, refractive, corneal and ocular biometric parameters were balanced between groups after propensity matching. No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, safety index or efficacy index at 3 and 12 months (all P > 0.05). Under the non-cyclotorsion-compensated protocol, significant intergroup differences were identified in the magnitude of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), correction index (CI), and magnitude error (ME) at both follow-up timepoints (all P < 0.0001). Target induced astigmatism (TIA), difference vector (DV), index of success (IOS), and angle error (AE) magnitudes were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05). The vector mean axis of DV differed significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months (Watson-Williams circular test, all P < 0.0001). No reoperations were documented in clinic medical records for either cohort. No standardized dry eye questionnaires, tear film testing or corneal nerve density metrics were collected to quantify dry eye adverse events; only unstructured clinical notes were reviewed for complication screening. CONCLUSIONS: Under surgical alignment without cyclotorsion compensation, FS-LASIK and SMILE/KLEx both yielded acceptable visual and refractive safety/efficacy for high myopic astigmatism (- 2.00 to - 3.75 D) at 1-year follow-up, but demonstrated divergent astigmatism correction tendencies: FS-LASIK exhibited relative astigmatism overcorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.35 ± 0.43 D × 91°, CI > 1), while SMILE/KLEx showed relative undercorrection (vector mean DV: - 0.21 ± 0.53 D × 12°, CI < 1). These correction biases are specific to the study's manual limbal alignment protocol without cyclotorsion tracking and cannot be generalized to modern optimized surgical platforms equipped with automated cyclotorsion compensation. Residual refractive errors across both groups are likely multifactorial, including differential corneal stromal healing responses, divergent femtosecond/excimer laser tissue modification mechanisms, and uncorrected intraoperative ocular cyclotorsion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A Multimethod Evaluation to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of HPVVaxFacts, a Tailored Mobile Web App, for Parents With Unvaccinated Children: Pilot 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve provider-parent communication on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to reduce concerns, and increase intention and uptake. HPVVaxFacts (233 Analytics) is a novel, mobile web app delivering tailored education based on the Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action, addressing parental concerns preclinic visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HPVVaxFacts among parents of adolescents aged 9-17 years. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial in 2 urban Tennessee clinics from June to September 2023 comparing 2 groups: tailored education via HPVVaxFacts mobile web app (intervention, n=27), and nutrition education (attention control, n=30). Eligible parents had or were caregivers to a child aged 9 to 17 years unvaccinated against HPV, had a mobile phone, had an upcoming clinic visit, and spoke English. The recruitment strategy was patient intake software-Phreesia (Phreesia, Inc) and eClinicalWorks (eClinicalWorks). Although unblinded, parents could deduce their study arm assignment. Providers were blinded. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HPV vaccine knowledge, concerns, intentions, and vaccination rates) were assessed using multimethod evaluation. Parents were assessed at baseline and immediately post intervention via surveys. Vaccination rates were assessed at 12 months post intervention via electronic health records. Nineteen parent interviews were conducted up to 9 months post intervention. A clinic staff consultation (n=6) was 1 month post intervention. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled parents, most were female (52/57, 91%), non-Hispanic White (44/57, 77%), had ≤US $80,000 household income (32/57, 56%), and had some college or less (27/57, 47%). In total, 81% (29/36) of parents viewed HPVVaxFacts. Post intervention, HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the intervention group compared to the attention control group (48% vs 17%; difference 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-0.46; P=.01). Parents in the HPVVaxFacts arm demonstrated a greater reduction in knowledge (ie, knowledge increase; mean change: -0.6 vs 0.1) and concern scores (mean change: -3.4 vs -1.4) than those in the nutrition education arm. However, between-arm differences were not statistically significant (P=.13 and P=.14, respectively). The majority found the study protocol and HPVVaxFacts acceptable. Benefits of HPVVaxFacts include confirming their decision to vaccinate, supporting parent-child discussion on the vaccine, and answering questions preclinic visit or offering questions for the provider. Study protocol delivery and mobile web app instructions were suggested areas for improvement. Barriers for HPVVaxFacts use include content in English only and digital format. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests HPVVaxFacts was feasible and acceptable among parents to provide previsit, tailored information on HPV vaccination. Outcomes offer a positive trajectory but need more exploration. Next steps include a well-powered efficacy trial to determine the impact of HPVVaxFacts on initiation vaccine rates and parental hesitancy factors, as well as to explore an interaction, effect modification, and mediation among different variables.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70 years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5 months vs. threshold < 12.0 months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold ≥ 50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold < 5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold ≥ 75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45 days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of ≥ 95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3 months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

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↗