Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Arm”

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.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

147 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
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↗
PubMed2026

APOL1 kidney disease: a critical narrative review of molecular mechanisms, clinical heterogeneity, and the emerging therapeutic landscape.

BACKGROUND: The G1 and G2 variants of the APOL1 gene represent significant genetic risk factors for APOL1 kidney disease and contribute substantially to the excess burden of renal disease observed in individuals of African ancestry. Importantly, both variants exhibit incomplete penetrance, with only approximately 15-20% of high-risk genotype carriers ultimately developing overt nephropathy. OBJECTIVE: To provide a critically appraised, clinically oriented narrative synthesis of APOL1 kidney disease that (i) assigns an explicit certainty rating to each major mechanistic and clinical claim, (ii) identifies where published estimates diverge, where associations remain contested, and where conclusions have been overstated in the secondary literature, and (iii) aligns terminology, testing guidance and therapeutic expectations with the conclusions of the 2025 KDIGO Controversies Conference and with clinical trial data available to August 2026. METHODS: This literature narrative review was performed using a literature search of PubMed and Scopus focusing on APOL1-related nephropathy. Mainly studies published from 2010 to 2026 were considered; however, some selected historical papers from 2005 to 2010 were used for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and history. Used search terms were "APOL1," "APOL1 risk variants," "chronic kidney disease," AMPLITUDE trial, MZE829, HORIZON trial, "focal segmental glomerulosclerosis," "HIV-associated nephropathy," "podocyte injury," "inaxaplin," "VX-147," KDIGO 2025, and "antisense oligonucleotides." Trial status and topline results for agents in development were additionally verified against ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and sponsor disclosures. The literature search was last updated on 10 August 2026. The inclusion criteria of the study were peer-reviewed original articles, genome-wide association studies, randomised controlled trials, translational studies, mechanistic investigations, and high-quality review articles published in the English language. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts without peer review, duplicate papers, non-English publications with unreliable translation, and case reports with no relevance to the underlying mechanisms. More attention was paid to studies focusing on molecular pathogenesis of APOL1 nephropathy, second-hit pathophysiology, genotypes/phenotypes, and new therapies (e.g. inhibitors such as Inaxaplin). The review method and design have been prepared according to SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) criteria. Among eligible articles, priority was given to studies with larger sample sizes, more recent publication dates, higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, and direct clinical or mechanistic relevance to APOL1-associated nephropathy; where multiple studies addressed the same question, the most methodologically rigorous and most recent source was preferentially cited. To move beyond description, each principal claim carried forward into this review was assigned a qualitative certainty rating (high, moderate, low or very low) on the basis of study design, consistency across independent cohorts, directness of the evidence to human disease, and precision of the estimate. These ratings, together with the study design that would be required to resolve each remaining uncertainty, are presented in Table 5. This grading represents a structured judgement by the authors and is not a formal GRADE assessment. RESULTS: Pathogenic actions of APOL1 risk alleles depend on toxic gain-of-function activities that result from the disruption of ion channels. Mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammasome activation play roles as secondary downstream modulators of podocyte damage. The existence of incomplete penetrance and lack of symptoms in people with high-risk alleles highlights the need for secondary triggers, including environmental, infectious, and inflammatory factors, for disease onset and progression. High-risk APOL1 genotypes increase the likelihood of rapidly progressing kidney diseases like FSGS, which amplify susceptibility in HIVAN when accompanied by secondary causes like HIV infection. Management is mainly through renin-angiotensin antagonists, but recent treatments include antisense oligonucleotides, immunomodulators, and small molecule inhibitors like inaxaplin. Although promising, inaxaplin (VX-147) showed a ~47% reduction in urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) in Phase 2a trial; however, these findings are based on a relatively small sample size, an open-label study design, and short-term follow-up, and therefore require confirmation in ongoing Phase 3 studies. As this is a narrative review rather than a primary study, no new patient-level data are reported. Across the studies synthesised, high-risk APOL1 genotypes were consistently associated with podocyte injury and with a faster decline in kidney function than low-risk genotypes; however, the magnitude of this association varied substantially with how cohorts were ascertained. The association is robust and reproducible for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, HIV-associated nephropathy, and hypertension-attributed kidney failure, and remains inconsistent for diabetic kidney disease. Therapeutic development has accelerated, but the supporting clinical evidence remains early phase. Inaxaplin (VX-147) reduced the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio by approximately 47.6% at week 13 in a 16-participant, single-group, open-label Phase 2a study, and is now being evaluated in the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 AMPLITUDE trial (NCT05312879), whose pre-specified week 48 interim analysis is anticipated in early 2027. MZE829, an orally administered APOL1 inhibitor, produced a mean 35.6% reduction in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks in the Phase 2 HORIZON study; because HORIZON was a small, open-label, single-arm basket study (15 participants enrolled, 12 evaluable) whose primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, this reduction is neither placebo adjusted nor the result of a formal test of efficacy. To date, no APOL1-targeted agent has demonstrated benefit on a hard kidney endpoint. CONCLUSION: APOL1 is the clearest current example of a genetically defined, mechanism-targetable kidney disease, but its evidence base is uneven. The genetic association is firmly established; whereas much of the mechanistic literature derives from overexpression systems, several downstream pathways remain contested, and every APOL1-targeted therapy is so far supported only by short-term, surrogate-endpoint data. The principal unresolved issues are the determinants of incomplete penetrance, the absence of a validated progression biomarker and of any model reproducing the common slowly progressive phenotype, and the long-term efficacy and safety of APOL1-directed therapy. Genotype-guided risk stratification is therefore best regarded as clinically reasonable but not yet proven, and routine population-level screening is not currently supported.

AMPLITUDE trial↗
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↗