SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Redox balance”

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.

112 records · Page 7Linked 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

[Tafluprost/timolol fixed-dose combination versus tafluprost monotherapy for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a preservative-free tafluprost/timolol maleate fixed-dose combination compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial conducted across 25 centers, including the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients diagnosed with OAG or OHT who required enhanced intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after a 4-week washout period were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1∶1 to receive either tafluprost/timolol or tafluprost once daily for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP (the average of measurements at 8:00, 10:00, and 16:00) at Month 3. Secondary endpoints included IOP changes at individual time points and the proportion of responders achieving predefined IOP reduction thresholds. Safety was assessed via the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was employed for the primary endpoint; superiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was<0 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa). Continuous variables in secondary endpoints were compared using ANCOVA, and responder rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 219 patients were enrolled (tafluprost/timolol group: n=110; tafluprost group: n=109). The primary efficacy analysis set included 215 patients (tafluprost/timolol: n=107; tafluprost: n=108). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The majority of patients were male [127 (59.1%)] with a mean age of (44.80±15.71) years at screening. At Month 3, the mean diurnal IOP reduction from baseline was (6.56±3.44) mmHg in the tafluprost/timolol group and (5.36±2.94) mmHg in the tafluprost group. After adjusting for baseline IOP, the between-group difference was -1.312 mmHg (95%CI: -2.010 to -0.696); as the upper limit was<0 mmHg, tafluprost/timolol demonstrated superior IOP-lowering efficacy to tafluprost. Responder rates for IOP reductions of≥15%,≥25%, and≥30% were significantly higher in the tafluprost/timolol group (P=0.016, 0.028, and 0.032, respectively). The incidence of ocular AEs was 20.0% (22/110) in the tafluprost/timolol group and 26.6% (29/109) in the tafluprost group. The most common AE was conjunctival hyperemia, occurring in 2.7% (3/110) and 8.3% (9/109) of the groups, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy, the tafluprost/timolol combination provides significantly greater IOP reduction in patients with OAG and OHT, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

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

Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to mental health services in England (the ODDESSI Trial): a multisite cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Open Dialogue is a person-centred, transdiagnostic model of mental health care that emphasises continuity, therapeutic relationships, and collaboration with the service user's social network. Open Dialogue is a service-wide approach to care involving network meetings with the service user, members of their social network, and usually two practitioners who support the network throughout the duration of care. In this cluster-randomised trial, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to community mental health services in England. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel two-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled superiority trial was conducted in mental health services in five National Health Service trusts in London and the South of England. Clusters were defined at the level of primary care practices within service catchment areas. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older presenting in crisis to mental health services and registered with a practice within trial clusters. Randomisation was done at the cluster level (1:1), stratified by catchment area, and balanced on average general practice (GP) list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). The chief investigator, senior statistician, and assessors of the primary outcome were masked in the study. Participants either received Open Dialogue or treatment as usual, which refers to the functional team model currently implemented throughout English mental health services. The primary outcome was time (days) to first relapse following initial recovery from the index crisis censored at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Participant-reported secondary outcomes were EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale, Social Provisions Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, measured at five timepoints over 2 years, and clinical measures were extracted from electronic health records. People with relevant lived experience were involved in the design and execution of the study. Fidelity to the model of care in Open Dialogue and treatment as usual, and adherence to the delivery of Open Dialogue, were measured prior to each site starting participant recruitment, then every 6 months thereafter until the final participant follow-up in that site. The trial was retrospectively registered (ISRCTN52653325) and is complete. FINDINGS: 185 general practices associated with six mental health Trusts across England were identified for screening. 105 practices were excluded, and 80 were included in cluster formation, forming 32 clusters that were randomly assigned (16 to treatment as usual and 16 to the Open Dialogue intervention). One mental health trust (two clusters) withdrew, resulting in five mental health trusts (30 clusters) participating in the trial. Between June 25, 2019, and Dec 9, 2021, 494 participants (266 [54%] female gender, 221 [45%] male gender, 341 [69%] White British) with a mean age of 38·1 years (SD 13·4) provided consent for study inclusion (223 in the treatment as usual group and 271 in the Open Dialogue group). Of these, 174 (78%) in the treatment as usual group and 225 (83%) in the Open Dialogue group recovered and had data enabling relapse determination; there was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of time to relapse following initial recovery (marginal hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·67-1·32]). For secondary outcomes, Open Dialogue was associated with significantly lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to crisis care or secondary mental health services, and with improvements in self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with services. There were no significant differences in social network quality or size. There were 386 serious adverse events (281 in the treatment as usual group and 105 in the Open Dialogue group); 376 (97%) were deemed to be unrelated to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Open Dialogue did not reduce time to first relapse compared with treatment as usual, the primary outcome, but it reduced acute inpatient bed use, improved service user reported outcomes and experience, and there were no significant safety concerns. Further investigation is required to determine whether Open Dialogue can enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of crisis care and continuing care in community mental health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Humans↗