SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Randomised controlled trial”

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.

1,522 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effects of time-restricted eating on markers of glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes (fasting blood glucose of 5.6-6.9 mmol/l or HbA1c of 39-47 mmol/mol [5.7-6.4%]) or type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose ≥7 mmol/l or HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%]). METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 August 2025. Moreover, forward and backward citation searches were performed. Eligible studies were RCTs in adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, lasting ≥2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (≤12 h eating window) with a non-time-restricted control diet. Studies involving pregnancy, other fasting regimens, or non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Data were pooled as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random-effects generic inverse variance models in Cochrane Review Manager Web, and results are presented as forest plots. The certainty of evidence was defined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology, and risk of bias was estimated by using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Out of 2043 records identified through the database search, as well as 1249 from forward and backward citation searches, ten RCTs including 599 participants were included. The mean length of the studies was 4 months, and the eating windows ranged from 4 to 10 h per day. The pooled meta-analysis showed no overall effect of TRE on HbA1c (-3.33 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.87, 0.20 (-0.30% points; -0.63, 0.02); p=0.06, moderate certainty). Nevertheless, following stratification by subgroups, TRE resulted in a reduction in HbA1c of 0.93 mmol/mol (-1.70, -0.17 [-0.09% points; -0.16, -0.02]; p=0.02) in individuals with prediabetes but not in individuals with type 2 diabetes (-4.68 mmol/mol; -10.08, 0.72 (-0.43% points; -0.92, 0.07); p=0.09). TRE reduced fasting blood glucose in the pooled analysis (-0.30 mmol/l; -0.53, -0.07; p<0.01, moderate certainty) as well as in the subgroup analyses in individuals with prediabetes (-0.14 mmol/l; -0.27, -0.01; p=0.03) and with type 2 diabetes (-0.48 mmol/l; -0.78, -0.17; p<0.01). Moreover, TRE lowered body weight by 1.6 kg (-2.2, -1.0; p<0.001) in the pooled analysis. The evidence was limited by imprecision arising from wide confidence intervals in some of the included studies, which may be due to small sample sizes. Lastly, the effects of TRE on markers of insulin sensitivity, beta cell function and continuous glucose monitoring measurements were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that TRE reduces fasting blood glucose but not HbA1c. The subgroup analyses revealed that TRE improved HbA1c and fasting glucose in individuals with prediabetes and improved fasting glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Future large-scale studies should investigate long-term effects of TRE in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024523591 FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Three authors (JS, A-DT, THA) are employed at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, a public hospital and research institution under the Capital Region of Denmark, partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

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

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Beyond Glycaemia: Fear of Hypoglycaemia, Cognition and Functional Mobility After Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomised, Single-Centre Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on psychological, cognitive and functional outcomes of advanced diabetes technologies in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains limited. We evaluated whether initiation of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy was associated with changes in fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, psychological well-being, cognition, frailty-related measures and mobility-related function in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D. METHODS: This prespecified, exploratory secondary analysis was conducted within a single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial including adults aged ≥ 65 years with long-standing T1D. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to initiate AHCL therapy using the MiniMed 780G system or to continue standard diabetes treatment. The secondary outcomes included WHO-5, the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Fried frailty phenotype and performance-based functional measures. No formal sample-size calculation was performed for these secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were randomised and 29 completed 12 months of follow-up and were included in the treatment-effect analyses. In the baseline-adjusted primary analysis, AHCL therapy was associated with a lower HFS-II score than standard treatment (adjusted mean difference -18.9; 95% CI: -32.4 to -5.4; nominal p = 0.008), although this finding did not remain statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.104) or in an exploratory model additionally adjusted for sex (difference -13.6; 95% CI: -32.2 to 5.0; p = 0.145). Diabetes distress, psychological well-being, global cognition and processing speed did not differ between groups. In sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, the between-group differences remained statistically significant for 6-min walk distance (92.6 m; 95% CI: 36.8 to 148.3; p = 0.002) and Timed Up and Go performance (-2.27 s; 95% CI: -4.28 to -0.27; p = 0.028), but not for gait speed (0.27 m/s; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.59; p = 0.099). At 12 months, 12 of 14 AHCL participants were robust and 2 were pre-frail; in the control group, 11 of 15 were robust and 4 were pre-frail. No participant was classified as frail at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, selected cohort, AHCL therapy was associated with a nominally lower fear-of-hypoglycaemia score and better performance on selected mobility-related tests over 12 months. The fear-of-hypoglycaemia finding did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons or additional adjustment for sex. Six-minute walk distance and Timed Up and Go remained statistically significant in the exploratory sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, whereas the gait-speed difference did not. No measurable between-group deterioration in global cognition or processing speed was observed. These exploratory findings require confirmation in larger studies with balanced representation by sex and direct measurement of physical activity. These findings also support a person-centred clinical message: older age alone should not be regarded as a barrier to AHCL when treatment is introduced with individualised education and appropriate ongoing support.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Mendelian randomisation for rheumatology: beyond hype-what it's good for, what it can't do, and how to read it critically.

Mendelian randomisation (MR) has become abundant in the literature, with variation in quality and frequent overinterpretation of causality. This creates a problem for clinical readers, reviewers, and editors: some MR studies can sharpen causal thinking, prioritise drug targets, and challenge misleading observational claims, whereas others are little more than automated exposure-outcome scans with causal claims disproportionate to the evidence. MR can strengthen causal inference when randomised trials are impractical and conventional observational studies are vulnerable to confounding, reverse causation, or selection bias. In rheumatology, credible MR can contribute to questions about disease aetiology, modifiable risk factors, therapeutic target validation, adverse-effect anticipation, and phenotype validation. However, its interpretation depends on whether the exposure is plausibly instrumentable, whether the genetic instruments are biologically defensible, whether assumptions are interrogated in ways appropriate to the design, and whether findings are triangulated with clinical, observational, experimental, and mechanistic evidence. Instead of recapitulating all methodological issues of MR, this review aims to help rheumatologists distinguish robust MR from weak or overinterpreted analyses quickly. We provide an accessible framework for reading and triaging MR studies in rheumatology. Papers that use poorly justified instruments, treat medication use as drug-target evidence, interpret genetic liability as diagnosis, rely on mechanical sensitivity analyses, ignore prior evidence or ask no clinically meaningful question can often be passed over by readers. The goal is not to discourage MR in rheumatology, but to raise the standard; useful MR should clarify causal reasoning rather than simply generate another statistically significant association.

Journal Article↗

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

A New Highly Concentrated Insulin Aspart AT278 (500 U/mL) Demonstrates Ultra-Rapid Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties in Type 2 Diabetes Regardless of BMI.

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of a novel U500 insulin aspart formulation (AT278 [500 U/mL]; AT278-U500) compared with standard concentration insulin aspart (InsAsp [100 U/mL]; InsAsp-U100) and U500 human regular insulin (HumIns [500 IU/mL]; HumIns-U500). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-centre, randomised, double-blind crossover 12-h euglycaemic clamp study was conducted in 41 overweight and obese people with type 2 diabetes (BMI 25.0-38.7 kg/m2) receiving a single subcutaneous dose (0.5 U/kg) of AT278-U500 and InsAsp-U100. HumIns-U500 was consecutively studied open label in a 24-h clamp. RESULTS: AT278-U500 exhibited a significantly faster insulin absorption than InsAsp-U100 and HumIns-U500 (t Early50%Cmax: 9 min vs. 35 min vs. 55 min), leading to a significantly higher glucose-lowering effect within the first hour (AUCGIR,0-60min) compared with both InsAsp-U100 (treatment ratio 2.02 [95% CI 1.64; 2.50]) and HumIns-U500 (3.91 [2.89; 5.27]). When divided by median BMI (29.7 kg/m2), AUCGIR,0-60min was significantly higher with AT278-U500 in both the low-BMI and high-BMI subgroup compared to InsAsp-U100. Linear regression showed a significant inverse relationship between BMI and AUCGIR,0-60min for InsAsp-U100 (slope -0.142, p < 0.0001), whereas AT278-U500 showed no such relationship. Overall insulin exposure was similar for AT278-U500 and InsAsp-U100, while overall glucose-lowering effect was comparable across all three treatments. CONCLUSIONS: AT278-U500 maintains its ultra-rapid onset characteristics independent of BMI, representing the first ultra-rapid U500 option for prandial dosing in insulin-resistant people with type 2 diabetes requiring high-dose therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05754424.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2026

Effect of a pharmacist-led mHealth app on adherence, quality of life, and glycaemic control in diabetes: A multicentre RCT.

AIMS: To evaluate whether CareAide®, a pharmacist-driven mHealth application, improves medication adherence, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and glycaemic control in diabetes mellitus using structural equation modelling. METHODS: Pre-specified secondary analysis of the type 2 diabetes mellitus cohort from a 6-month multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial (N = 663) across three Malaysian hospitals. Adherence was assessed by MMAS-8 (subjective) and Proportion of Days Covered (PDC; pharmacy-verified). HRQoL was measured by AQoL-6D and EQ-5D-5 L. Structural equation modelling (SEM), Necessary Condition Analysis, and Importance-Performance Map Analysis (cIPMA) were applied. RESULTS: CareAide® produced large adherence gains (MMAS-8: 7.31 vs 5.55, d = 1.64; PDC ≥ 80%: 81.6% vs 33.0%; both p < 0.001). Early 3-month adherence was the strongest predictor of sustained 6-month adherence in both models (β std = 0.567 and 0.688; p < 0.001). AQoL-6D utility improved significantly (0.669 vs 0.618; d = 0.353, p < 0.001), driven by coping (d = 0.447) and relationships (d = 0.254) domains. HRQoL did not mediate adherence; gains were a direct independent benefit. The intervention effect on HbA1c was not statistically significant in the PDC-based SEM model (β =  - 0.333, p = 0.065); a group difference was, however, supported by baseline-adjusted ANCOVA (β =  - 0.41%, p = 0.002), and the complete-case comparison was non-significant (p = 0.153), so glycaemic findings warrant cautious interpretation. cIPMA identified the intervention as the primary optimisation target. CONCLUSIONS: CareAide® significantly improves medication adherence and psychosocial quality of life. Evidence for glycaemic benefit came from baseline-adjusted analysis (ANCOVA), though findings should be interpreted with caution given incomplete HbA1c data at one site. The first three months are the most critical period for pharmacist support. In this dataset, PDC appeared more sensitive than MMAS-8 to the HbA1c signal within 6 months, but this finding requires confirmation in longer studies with more complete HbA1c data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06068309.

Aged↗

PubMed2026

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

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

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life following pulp therapy or extraction in paediatric patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision between pulp therapy and extraction for compromised teeth in paediatric patients remains a topic of debate. While both approaches address the associated pain, their long-term impact on children's well-being remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to analyse and compare the impact of pulp therapy and extraction on OHRQoL in paediatric patients. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in multiple electronic databases. Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the RoB 2 tool for randomised controlled trials, ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising a total of 1367 participants met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that pulp therapy was associated with superior OHRQoL outcomes compared to extraction. Children who underwent pulp therapy reported lower anxiety, better emotional well-being, and higher parental satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity among the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSION: Pulp therapy may offer better OHRQoL outcomes than extractions in paediatric patients by preserving function, reducing anxiety, and minimising long-term complications. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously since the available evidence was limited and of low to very low certainty. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are required.

Children↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and Safety of Elagolix Versus Dienogest for Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Endometriosis Pain: A Phase III, Multicentric, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Non-Inferiority Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of elagolix with dienogest in women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase III study. SETTING: Nineteen clinical centres across India. STUDY POPULATION: Women (18-49 years) diagnosed with endometriosis and experiencing moderate-to-severe pain. METHODS: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive oral elagolix (150 mg once daily) or dienogest (2 mg once daily) for 24 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in endometriosis-related pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]) from baseline to Day 85. Secondary outcomes included changes in NRS (Day 169), dysmenorrhoea, non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPP) scores (Days 85 and 169), rescue medication use, patient global impression of change (PGIC), adverse events and bone mineral density. RESULTS: Of 340 patients screened, 230 were randomised (115 per group). At Day 85, both arms showed similar reductions in NRS pain scores with a treatment difference of 0.04 (95% CI: -0.3, 0.37) [p = 0.9747] demonstrating non-inferiority as upper 95% CI was below pre-specified margin of 1.5. At Day 169, both arms showed comparable improvements in overall pain, dysmenorrhoea and NMPP from baseline (p = 0.9372, p = 0.8884, and p = 0.9616, respectively). Rescue medication use and PGIC were comparable between treatment arms. Adverse event incidence was similar (elagolix: 14.8%; dienogest: 19.1%), with no serious TEAEs or discontinuations. No significant bone mineral density changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Elagolix demonstrated non-inferiority to dienogest with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, supporting its use in managing endometriosis-associated pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: CTRI/2023/01/049292.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 2.0 mg as an Add-On to Dose-Reduced Insulin Glargine versus Dose-Titrated Insulin Glargine in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Overweight (SUSTAIN OPTIMIZE).

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) management with basal insulin can lead to hypoglycaemia and weight gain. SUSTAIN OPTIMIZE compared once-weekly semaglutide 2.0 mg as add-on to dose-reduced insulin glargine (Sema+IGlarreduced) versus dose-titrated IGlar (IGlartitrated) on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight (BW), daily insulin dose, and participant satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SUSTAIN OPTIMIZE was a 40-week, phase 3b, open-label, randomised study. Adults with T2D, overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2), and treatment with basal insulin ≤ 40 units/day were randomised 1:1 into Sema+IGlarreduced or IGlartitrated. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c using a non-inferiority approach. Secondary endpoints assessed superiority of Sema+IGlarreduced versus IGlartitrated in reducing HbA1c, BW, daily insulin dose, and improving Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) scores. RESULTS: Overall, 573 participants were randomised. Sema+IGlarreduced achieved both non-inferiority and superiority versus IGlartitrated in HbA1c reduction (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -0.74%; 95% confidence interval [CI95]: -0.90, -0.59) and superiority in BW change (ETD: -8.5 kg; CI95: -9.5, -7.4), relative daily insulin dose change (ETD: -121.9%; CI95: -143.1, -100.6), and DTSQc scores (ETD: 2.6; CI95: 1.6, 3.5) (p < 0.0001 for all endpoints). No new safety concerns were identified. Severe hypoglycaemia was reduced (rate ratio: 0.45; CI95: 0.23, 0.87; p = 0.02), while gastrointestinal events were higher for Sema+IGlarreduced (310 vs. 32 events). CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.0 mg as add-on to dose-reduced IGlar achieved superior reductions in HbA1c, BW, and daily insulin dose in people with T2D and overweight, while reducing their risk for severe hypoglycaemia compared to dose-titrated IGlar alone.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

The analgesic efficacy of intrathecal morphine compared to peripheral regional analgesia in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following elective total hip arthroplasty, pain continues to be a significant problem. Intrathecal morphine or peripheral regional analgesia, that is local infiltration analgesia or peripheral nerve block, are common analgesic modalities, but it is still not known which is superior. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: The following electronic databases were searched from inception to 24 March 2026: CENTRAL; Ovid Embase; Ovid MEDLINE; Scopus; and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared intrathecal morphine to peripheral regional analgesia in patients scheduled for elective total hip arthroplasty under general or spinal anaesthesia. RESULTS: Eight trials and 471 patients were included. The peripheral regional analgesia was peripheral nerve block in six trials and local infiltration analgesia in two trials. No difference was demonstrated between intrathecal morphine and peripheral regional analgesia in regard to the first coprimary outcome, the pain score at rest at 24 h. The quality of evidence was moderate. Intrathecal morphine was found to be superior to peripheral regional analgesia with respect to the second coprimary outcome, the cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h. Mean difference (95% CI) was 11.38 mg (4.31-18.45; P  = 0.002, I2  = 81%). The quality of evidence was low. Intrathecal morphine was revealed to be superior to peripheral regional analgesia at 8-12 h for the pain score at rest, 1.24 (0.60-1.88); P  = 0.0001, I2  = 68%; pain score on movement, 1.15 (0.12-2.17), P  = 0.03, I2  = 65%; but the rate of in hospital pruritus was reduced with peripheral regional analgesia, 0.31 (0.17-0.58), P  = 0.0002, I2  = 0%. No differences in functional status were shown. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between intrathecal morphine and peripheral regional analgesia in regard to pain score at rest at 24 h. Intrathecal morphine may lead to a favourable effect on some but not all analgesic indices compared to peripheral regional analgesia in elective total hip arthroplasty. The quality of evidence for these positive effects was low. Intrathecal morphine reduced the systemic opioid consumption, but is not in itself an opioid free strategy. This notion is supported by the increased incidence of in hospital pruritus with intrathecal morphine. The quality of evidence for this was high. In view of the quality of evidence, high quality randomised controlled trials are required to substantiate these results.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact of real-time respiratory function monitoring on neonatal mask ventilation training: a multicentre simulation-based crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether visibility of respiratory function monitor (RFM) feedback improves mask ventilation performance and influences subsequent ventilation performance during neonatal resuscitation training. DESIGN: multicentre randomised crossover simulation study. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals involved in neonatal resuscitation training across participating centres. INTERVENTION: Participants performed positive pressure ventilation (PPV) on both term and premature manikins under two conditions: with visible RFM feedback and with the display masked. The order of feedback visibility was randomised. Each participant completed ventilation assessments in both conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were expired tidal volume (Vte) and mask leak (%). The proportion of breaths within the target Vte range (4-8 mL/kg) was calculated as a performance indicator. Secondary outcomes included variability in Vte and mask leak to assess ventilation stability between conditions. RESULTS: Visible RFM feedback was associated with lower mask leak and improved ventilation stability in the preterm manikin and with tidal volumes entering the target range in the term manikin. Participants initially ventilated with visible feedback maintained performance after feedback removal, suggesting a carry-over learning effect. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre crossover simulation study, visible RFM feedback was associated with changes in mask ventilation performance and evidence of a carry-over learning effect following feedback removal. Real-time visibility of respiratory parameters may strengthen neonatal resuscitation training.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Optimising Exercise Prescription: A Meta-Analysis Examining the Dose Response of Exercise Duration on Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following HIIT and MICT.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is often promoted as a time-efficient alternative to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, yet the duration of HIIT sessions varies considerably across studies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterise the dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and the improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness for HIIT and MICT. METHODS: A dose-response meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing exercise duration in HIIT and MICT, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335590). Effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). Secondary outcomes included blood pressure, lipid profiles, glucose metabolism markers and body composition measures. A one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the relationship between exercise duration and adaptations. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar; eligibility criteria for selecting studies were randomised controlled trials in humans, published in English and exercise interventions lasting at least 4 weeks. RESULTS: We identified 69 randomised controlled trials (2387 participants). High-intensity interval training elicited greater improvements in VO2max than MICT (d = 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.49, p < 0.001). High-intensity interval training demonstrated a non-linear dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and VO2max, with 80% of maximal effect (changes in VO2max = 3.45 mL/kg/min) achieved with only ~11 min/session (95% confidence interval 9.5-40.2). Moderate-intensity interval training showed a linear dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and VO2max, requiring ~52 min/session to achieve 80% of the maximal observed effect (95% confidence interval 30.4-55.8). The dose-response relationship was consistent across populations. High-intensity interval training and MICT had comparable effects in improving cardiometabolic risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity interval training demonstrated a non-linear dose response, with 80% of maximal effect on VO2max in ~11 min/session, whilst MICT required four to five times longer to reach similar responses. The different types of training had comparable effects on cardiometabolic risk factors.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Serum Copeptin Rises After Tolvaptan for Hyponatraemia, but Does Not Predict Risk of Rapid Sodium Rise: Pre-Specified Secondary Analysis of the TVFR Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Hyponatraemia is a common electrolyte disorder often driven by excess arginine vasopressin (AVP). Copeptin is a stable surrogate marker co-secreted with AVP. It is unclear whether treatment of hyponatraemia with tolvaptan, an AVP-V2 receptor antagonist, impacts copeptin. We aimed to assess the effects of tolvaptan on serum copeptin, compared to fluid restriction. DESIGN: Pre-specified secondary analysis of an open-label randomised trial comparing tolvaptan or fluid restriction for 3 days. PATIENTS: Hospitalised patients with plasma sodium (pNa) 115-130 mmol/L at a single-centre tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. MEASUREMENTS: Copeptin measured at baseline and completion (Day 4, or discharge if sooner). RESULTS: Copeptin results were available in 45/54 participants, randomised to tolvaptan (n = 25) or FR (n = 20). Mean baseline copeptin was 10.4 pmol/L. pNa increased in both groups, significantly more with tolvaptan as previously reported. Copeptin remained stable after FR, but significantly increased after tolvaptan (mean adjusted difference between groups over 3 days 8.4 pmol/L, 95% CI 2.1-14.6, p = 0.01). Baseline copeptin did not predict rapid sodium rise. The rise in copeptin after tolvaptan may represent an exaggerated response to osmolality rise in these patients ('reset osmostat'), or feedback mechanisms from AVP blockade. CONCLUSION: Tolvaptan increased serum copeptin compared to fluid restriction. Further research is required to determine if there is clinical utility for measuring copeptin in hyponatraemia before it is adopted into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619001683123.

Humans↗