SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)”

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.

129 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65 years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3 mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p = 0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0 min; p < 0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores ≥ 4 at 30 min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ifebemtinib is a potent oral focal adhesion kinase inhibitor. Preclinical evidence supports combining ifebemtinib with the KRASG12C inhibitor garsorasib. This study aimed to evaluate this combination in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 1b/2 study had a phase 1b component to establish the recommended phase 2 dose and a phase 2 multitumour expansion component. In phase 1b, the safety and tolerability of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib was assessed using a 3 + 3 design in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed, and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as ifebemtinib 100 mg orally once daily plus garsorasib 600 mg orally twice daily. Here, we report the results of the cohort of previously treated KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer from phase 2 expansion. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer harbouring the KRASG12C mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 or 1, and had disease progression after previous irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy, were recruited from seven of nine participating tertiary hospitals in China. On the basis of the recommended phase 2 dose, phase 2 comprised a single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib and an open-label, randomised study in which patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ifebemtinib plus garsorasib or garsorasib alone, by use of centralised computer-generated block randomisation with no stratification. Investigators were masked to the block size. The primary efficacy endpoint of phase 2 was investigator-assessed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1), assessed in the safety analysis set in the single-arm study and in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population) in the randomised study. At least six objective responses (safety analysis set) were required in the single-arm study to proceed to the randomised study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06166836 and NCT05379946, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2023 and Dec 13, 2024, 51 patients were enrolled in phase 2 (15 in the single-arm study and 36 in the randomised study). In the single-arm study, the median age was 53 years (IQR 39 to 63), nine (60%) patients were female, six (40%) were male, and all were Asian. In the randomised study, the median age was 51 years (IQR 42 to 59) in the combination group and 63 years (IQR 54 to 66) in the monotherapy group, 24 (67%) were female, 12 (33%) were male, and all patients were Asian. In the single-arm part, the confirmed objective response rate was 46·7% (95% CI 21·3 to 73·4). Seven patients had partial responses, triggering progression to the randomised study. In the randomised study, the confirmed objective response rate was 38·9% (95% CI 17·3 to 64·3) with the combination therapy versus 16·7% (95% CI 3·6 to 41·4) with garsorasib alone (between-group difference 22·2%, 95% CI -7·7 to 49·1; one-sided p=0·068). In the single-arm study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (27%) of 15 patients, and in the randomised study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six (33%) of 18 patients in the combination group and five (28%) of 18 in the garsorasib group. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least two patients were diarrhoea (six [18%]), proteinuria (two [6%]), and intestinal obstruction (two [6%]) in patients treated with combination therapy (combined), and increased alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyltransferase (two [11%] each) in patients treated with garsorasib alone. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (30%) patients in the combination group and in four (22%) patients in the monotherapy group. One patient in the garsorasib monotherapy group died due to the underlying malignancy within 30 days after completing study treatment, which was reported as a serious adverse event. The death was assessed by the investigators as not related to garsorasib. No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported across all cohorts. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ifebemtinib and garsorasib showed promising anticancer activity and manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the improvement in response rate did not reach statistical significance in the randomised study, these findings support further evaluation of ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in this population. FUNDING: InxMed, InventisBio, National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Jian Bing Ling Yan + X Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, and the Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗