SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Clinical Trials as Topic”

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.

1,546 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Descemet Stripping Only in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Topical Ripasudil and Directions for Future Innovation.

PURPOSE: To review history of Descemet stripping only (DSO) in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, describe the results of a clinical trial of topical ripasudil after DSO (K-321-201 study), and discuss future directions. METHODS: A 1-year, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial of two doses of K-321 (ripasudil) administered for 12 weeks after DSO surgery in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy was performed. The primary endpoint, central corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) at 12 weeks after surgery, was determined by an independent reading center that was masked to study group assignment. Duration of corneal edema, need for medical or surgical rescue therapy, corneal thickness, and central ECD throughout the entire study period were also examined. Adverse events and exploratory endpoints were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects were enrolled (21 in the QID group, 22 in the BID, and in the placebo group). Over 95% of subjects completed the trial. The QID group had a higher central ECD 12 weeks after DSO than the placebo group (531 ± 312 cells/mm2 vs 228 ± 298 cells/mm2, P = .0065). Corneal edema cleared in 17/21 (81.0%) of the QID group at 12 weeks, compared with 2/22 (9.1%) of the placebo group (P < .0001). Rescue was required in 2/21 (9.5%) subjects in the QID group and 6/22 (27.3%) subjects in the placebo group (P = .0092). Adverse events were mild and did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical K-321 given QID improves DSO outcomes, as demonstrated by a higher ECD, more rapid resolution of corneal edema, and reduced failure rate. The medication was well-tolerated.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive 0.015% Triamcinolone Acetonide Topical Spray With Lokivetmab Versus Lokivetmab Monotherapy as 'Reactive Therapy' for Canine Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomised, Single-Blinded, Controlled Preliminary Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lokivetmab is considered an effective systemic therapy for dogs with atopic dermatitis (AD); however, utilisation of lokivetmab with adjunctive topical anti-inflammatory glucocorticoids has not been investigated in canine AD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of lokivetmab and 0.015% triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) spray in dogs with AD. ANIMALS: Twenty dogs with nonseasonal AD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a randomised, single-blinded (investigators only) 4-week controlled trial. Dogs were randomised to receive lokivetmab monotherapy or lokivetmab-TCA spray per manufacturer instructions. Clinical assessments included the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index, 4th iteration (CADESI-04), CADESI-04E (i.e., extracted erythema grade alone) and the 10-grade pruritus Visual Analog Scale (PVAS10) at Day (D)0, D14 and D28. Complete blood count and serum biochemical analysis were performed on D0 and D28. RESULTS: The median CADESI-04 and CADESI-04E scores in the lokivetmab-TCA group were significantly reduced on D14 (p < 0.05 for both) and D28 (p < 0.01 for both) compared to baseline; there were no significant differences in lesional scores at any time point for the lokivetmab monotherapy group. Lokivetmab-TCA significantly reduced CADESI-04E values compared to the lokivetmab monotherapy group on D28 (p = 0.04). Both interventions significantly reduced PVAS10 scores on D14 and D28 compared to D0 (p < 0.05 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Topical application of TCA spray may be a useful and safe adjunctive therapy for systemic lokivetmab to alleviate pruritus and clinical lesions in the initial management of canine AD patients.

Animals↗

PubMed2026

Heterogeneity in Teriflunomide Treatment Arms: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Regression of Randomised Multiple Sclerosis Trials.

BACKGROUND: Teriflunomide is widely used as an active comparator in Phase 3 randomised trials for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Temporal changes in disease activity within teriflunomide-treated cohorts have not been systematically examined. OBJECTIVES: To assess temporal trends in relapse and disability outcomes across teriflunomide arms of Phase 3 multiple sclerosis (MS) trials and identify predictors of between-trial heterogeneity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of Phase 3 randomised controlled trials including a teriflunomide arm. PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to October 2025. Annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 12- and 24-week confirmed disability worsening (CDW) were extracted together with baseline characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twelve teriflunomide cohorts from eight trials involving 4,900 adults with RMS were included. ARR ranged from 0.11 to 0.37 with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). Trial start year was inversely associated with ARR and explained a large proportion of between-study variability in exploratory meta-regression analyses. Confirmed disability worsening outcomes also showed substantial heterogeneity with a weaker trend toward lower event rates in more recent trials. CONCLUSION: Teriflunomide-treated trial populations have shifted toward lower relapse activity over time, and trial start year was the principal predictor of between-trial heterogeneity in ARR in exploratory analyses. These findings most plausibly reflect evolving recruitment and diagnostic practices rather than changes in drug efficacy. Accounting for these temporal dynamics is essential when interpreting outcomes from RMS trial using teriflunomide as comparator.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of EVA71 vaccine in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Enterovirus 71 (EV-A71) is a principal cause of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD), potentially leading to severe neurological complications in children. Inactivated EV-A71 vaccines have been introduced. This study compares the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of EV-A71 vaccines versus placebo in pediatric populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol, RCTs involving EV-A71 in children were identified via PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers performed screening, extraction, and RoB assessments (RoB 2.0). RESULTS: Five phase III RCTs involving 36,659 children were included. EV-A71 vaccination significantly increased seropositivity across follow-up periods, including early (RR 5.8), medium-term (RR 3.09), and long-term (RR 2.95) response. Seroconversion was significantly higher in the vaccinated group (pooled RR 13.04, 95% CI 2.80-60.61; p < 0.001). Geometric mean titers, analyzed using the ratio of means approach, were significantly higher in the vaccinated group during early and medium-term follow-up. Vaccine efficacy against EV-A71-associated HFMD exceeded 98% (pooled RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.09; p = 0.0028; I2 = 50%). Solicited local and systemic adverse events were mild and comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Inactivated EV-A71 vaccines robust immunogenicity, high clinical efficacy, and an acceptable safety profile in children. Future studies should explore long-term protection, booster schedules, and multivalent formulations against non-EV-A71 serotypes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A translational framework for early-phase inner-ear gene therapy: clinical trial design, regulatory strategy, and ethical considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hereditary hearing loss has historically been approached as a diagnostic category rather than a therapeutically modifiable disease. Recent advances in molecular genetics, cochlear gene delivery, and first-in-human clinical trials are changing that. This review summarizes contemporary progress in the genetics of hearing loss, with emphasis on emerging gene-based therapies, clinical trial design, regulatory and ethical considerations, and practical implications for otolaryngologists as biologic treatment enters clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Early clinical trials targeting OTOF -related DFNB9 deafness have demonstrated satisfactory safety profiles and meaningful auditory recovery, establishing the first proof-of-concept for cochlear gene therapy in humans, culminating in the April 2026 FDA approval of Otarmeni. Genetic diagnoses are increasingly informing prognosis, cochlear implant counseling, and therapeutic candidacy. Preclinical research continues to expand toward recessive, dominant, and syndromic hearing loss using gene replacement, antisense, RNA interference, and genome-editing strategies. Substantial challenges remain, including heterogeneous outcome measures, uncertain long-term efficacy, regulatory complexity, and inequitable global access. SUMMARY: The genetics of hearing loss is transitioning from a diagnostic modality to an interventional one. Widespread clinical impact will require advances in vector engineering, equitable implementation, multidisciplinary counseling, and integration with established rehabilitation pathways. For otolaryngologists, genetic literacy is becoming essential to contemporary hearing care.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Virtual Reality Education for Hospitalized Pediatric Patients Improves Intrinsic Motivation: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.

Hospitalized children experience educational disruption and reduced motivation during prolonged admissions. Despite the availability of in-hospital schools, many cannot participate due to illness severity or isolation precautions. This pragmatic, randomized crossover trial evaluated whether bedside virtual reality (VR) lessons improve intrinsic motivation among inpatients aged 5 to 25 years unable to attend the hospital school. Participants completed both VR-based educational sessions and standard of care (SOC) conditions on consecutive days. The primary outcome was intrinsic motivation, with secondary outcomes including educational self-efficacy, well-being, self-esteem, and parental experience. Of 156 enrolled patients, 100 were analyzed (mean age 11.5 [SD = 4.1 years]; 43.9% female). Intrinsic motivation scores were higher in the VR condition than SOC (P = .0048), and parental satisfaction was also greater (P = .0008). Bedside VR education represents a feasible, acceptable, and scalable adjunct to inpatient learning, supporting intrinsic motivation and caregiver satisfaction during hospitalization.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05725395, date first registered November 22, 2022.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Patient-reported outcomes in pediatric regional anesthesia trials: current use and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the current use and limitations of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in pediatric regional anesthesia research. Despite the increasing emphasis on patient-centered outcomes, existing pediatric outcome assessment frameworks may inadequately capture the pain experience and interference with daily living. RECENT FINDINGS: Across 17 identified randomized controlled trials and 15 ongoing studies, PROM use remains highly variable, with consistent reliance on observational pain scales such as the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scale and limited incorporation of standardized, longitudinal health-related quality-of-life measures. SUMMARY: Current pediatric PROM frameworks remain fragmented, limiting comprehensive evaluation of recovery. Greater standardization and incorporation of developmentally appropriate, longitudinal outcome measures are needed to better align clinical research with meaningful patient-centered endpoints and to improve assessment of functional and psychosocial recovery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycaemic control in hospitalised and perioperative adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

We evaluated whether closed-loop insulin delivery improves glycaemic control in hospitalised and perioperative adults. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 29 June 2026 for randomised controlled trials comparing closed-loop or automated insulin delivery with usual care or conventional insulin therapy. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted; risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Seven trials involving 375 analysed participants were included. Closed-loop insulin delivery increased time in target glucose range by 23.91 percentage points (95% CI 19.40 to 28.43; I2 = 0%) and reduced mean glucose by 1.79 mmol/L (95% CI 1.06 to 2.53 lower; I2 = 36.3%); certainty was moderate for both outcomes. Two trials involving 69 participants reported compatible participant-level data for clinically significant hyperglycaemia, and both estimates favoured closed-loop insulin delivery, although the evidence was exploratory and imprecise. No severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in either group, precluding reliable estimation of comparative safety. Closed-loop insulin delivery may improve glycaemic process measures, but larger pragmatic trials are needed to establish clinical benefits, safety, and implementation feasibility.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Timing of OMERACT core domain measurement in gout clinical trials: a systematic review of randomised trials.

AIMS: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative has endorsed core domain sets for gout trials. The aims of this study were to evaluate the time points and frequencies at which the gout core domains are measured in existing gout urate-lowering therapy and gout flare trials, and whether all collected measurements were reported. METHODS: Urate-lowering therapy (n = 29) and gout flare randomised clinical trials (n = 14) from 2005 were identified from a prior systematic review of core domain reporting. Data were extracted for the time points and frequencies at which each core domain was measured, as well as whether all collected measurements were reported. RESULTS: In urate-lowering therapy trials, the core domains were measured at seven different frequencies. Serum urate and gout flares were most commonly measured monthly, and tophus burden was most commonly measured three monthly. Reporting of all collected measurements varied, from 24/29 (83%) trials for serum urate to 0/2 (0%) trials for activity limitation. In gout flare trials, core domains were measured at nine different frequencies. Pain, joint tenderness and joint swelling were most commonly measured monthly. Reporting of all collected measurements varied, from 13/14 (93%) trials for pain to 3/8 (37.5%) trials for joint tenderness. CONCLUSION: In both urate-lowering therapy and gout flare trials, there is substantial variability in when the core domains are measured, and reporting of collected measurements is inconsistent. This work provides the foundation for a consensus process to establish standardised time points and frequencies for measuring the OMERACT-endorsed gout core domains.

Gout↗

PubMed2026

Interventions with a significant mortality difference in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and comparison with Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has a high mortality rate. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) Guidelines are the worldwide reference for clinicians in management of ARDS. Mortality represents one of the most important outcomes in intensive care practice and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) the highest level of evidence. We compared Guidelines recommendations with RCT results to highlight differences and find potential new therapeutic opportunities. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all RCTs reporting a statistically significant mortality difference in ARDS and a subsequent comparison with ESICM and ATS Guidelines recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 33 RCTs and 23 interventions with mortality difference in ARDS patients. Seven interventions relate to invasive ventilation strategies, two to noninvasive ventilation strategies, one to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 12 to drugs and one to nutritional support. In 25/33 (76%) RCTs the intervention was associated with mortality reduction and in 8/33 with mortality increase (24%). Multicenter studies were 24/33 (73%) while blinding was adopted in 19/33 (58%) studies. Guidelines recommendations supported by RCTs with mortality impact include: the use of low tidal volume ventilation, prone positioning, venovenous ECMO, steroids and the avoidance of high frequency oscillatory ventilation. Eight of the interventions identified were not mentioned by Guidelines but demonstrated reduced mortality, and five further interventions demonstrated increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights potential gaps between RCTs results and Guidelines that could be used to plan future research or highlight topics to be discussed in future Guidelines.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole for stress-ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Stress-related mucosal damage (SRMD) is common in critically ill patients, and pharmacologic prophylaxis remains essential. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole for stress-ulcer prophylaxis in ICU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted per PRISMA-2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched for studies comparing pantoprazole with placebo in adult and pediatric ICU patients. The primary outcome was clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding; secondary outcomes included mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and Clostridioides difficile infection. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n ≈ 9127; pantoprazole = 4575; placebo = 4552) were included. Pantoprazole significantly reduced clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.94; p = 0.03) without affecting overall mortality (RR ≈ 0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.05]; p = 0.68). Infection rates were similar between groups (VAP: RR = 0.99; p = 0.78; C. difficile: RR = 1.11; p = 0.73). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole effectively reduces clinically important GI bleeding without increasing infection or overall mortality.

Pantoprazole↗

PubMed2026

Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the (1) timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatology, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to publication, and (3) factors associated with publication delays. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 for Phase 3, superiority, parallel-design RCTs that evaluated any treatment for a rheumatologic illness or a rheumatologic treatment for COVID-19 and reported clinical primary efficacy outcome. Outcomes of interest were time to publication after trial completion and publication delay of >2 years after trial completion. RESULTS: 448 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Median time from completion to publication was 549 days and 65.9 % RCTs were published within 2 years of completion. Compared with RCTs on rheumatologic diseases, RCTs on COVID-19 were published sooner (253 vs. 549 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.49, 95 % CI 2.07 to 43.61). Compared with RCTs completed before March 1, 2020, RCTs completed after March 1, 2020, were published sooner (327 vs. 724 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.40, 95 % CI 5.14 to 17.21). Time from RCT completion to submission accounted for most (67 %) of the time to publication. CONCLUSIONS: Publication delay continues to be an important concern in dissemination of clinical research. Most of the delays in publication were attributable to delays in submission to journals after trial completion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The Potential Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Clinical Trials.

Despite currently available treatment options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), some patients fail to achieve adequate disease control. Emerging evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may represent a promising therapeutic option. This systematic review and meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized clinical trial. Eligible studies evaluated patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated with MSCs derived from human umbilical cord blood, autologous adipose tissue, and allogeneic bone marrow. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to December 2025. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% and ≥75% improvement from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and safety outcomes. The meta-analysis included 236 participants. The pooled EASI-50 response rate at week 12 was 46.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.36% to 61.72%). EASI-75 response rates were 17.41% (95% CI: 5.56% to 43.03%) at week 12 and 23.97% (95% CI: 16.48% to 33.50%) at week 16. The pooled incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 26.86% (95% CI: 19.56% to 35.68%), with infections and infestations 7.97% (95% CI: 4.11% to 14.88%) and gastrointestinal disorders 3.52% (95% CI: 1.33% to 9.01%) being the most frequently reported. MSC-based therapy shows early promise as a potential treatment for moderate-to-severe AD, offering a possible alternative to traditional therapies. However, the current evidence is largely based on small clinical trials, underscoring the necessity for large-scale RCTs to establish the efficacy and safety of MSC-based therapy in broader patient populations.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for Nocturnal GERD Symptoms and Associated Sleep Disturbances: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

GOALS: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in relieving nocturnal reflux symptoms and sleep disturbances. BACKGROUND: Nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly associated with sleep disturbances. The benefits of PPI therapy for GERD-related nocturnal reflux and sleep disturbance remain unclear. STUDY: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception to March 1, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with GERD and sleep disturbances that compared any PPI to placebo or an alternative therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing relief from nighttime heartburn. Secondary outcomes included relief from GERD-related sleep disturbances, changes in subjective sleep quality, work productivity, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 1495 patients met the inclusion criteria. Three placebo-controlled trials consistently showed that PPI therapy improved nighttime heartburn relief and GERD-related sleep disturbances compared with placebo. Subjective sleep quality and sleep-related daytime functioning also generally improved with PPI therapy. However, the findings were more heterogeneous across trials because of differences in study populations, comparators, and outcome measures. Across the placebo-controlled studies, TEAEs were generally similar between the PPI and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: PPI therapy was associated with improvement in nighttime heartburn and reflux-related sleep disturbances, especially in patients with reflux-driven nocturnal symptoms. The available evidence also suggests potential improvement in subjective sleep quality and sleep-related daytime functioning.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a subcategory of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), used to modulate brain plasticity and improve post-stroke recovery. Neuronavigation is used to improve the accuracy of stimulation with the aim of achieving a superior clinical outcome than with conventional targeting. The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of navigated rTMS in subacute and chronic stroke patients in comparison to sham stimulation. We conducted a systematic-review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL. Trials employing neuronavigated rTMS were included of these five types; high and low frequency rTMS, intermittent and continuous theta-burst stimulation (TBS) and Hebbian-type stimulation. 13 RCTs were included after a screening of 1900 studies. 606 patients receiving either active (n = 360) or sham stimulation (n = 246) were assessed. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) favored rTMS over sham SMD = 0.4 (95 %CI: 0.11-0.69), with moderate heterogeneity I2 = 55 %. Among stimulation modalities, continuous TBS showed the largest pooled effect. rTMS was also associated with significant improvements in disability-related outcomes, SMD = 0.61 (95 % CI 0.14-1.08). Navigated rTMS is associated with modest but significant improvements in motor and disability outcomes in subacute and chronic stroke. Large comparative trials are required to clarify the potential added value over conventional targeting approaches.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in substance use disorders is safe and tolerable: A Systematic review of 141 clinical trials including 4299 participants.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation intervention investigated as a treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) and its co-occurring disorders. As the number of rTMS SUD clinical trials increase, the safety and tolerability profile should be assessed. In this systematic review, we investigate adverse events (AEs) of rTMS in individuals with SUD and factors that may influence their occurrence. METHODS: We performed a systematic PubMed search to identify all controlled trials of rTMS in SUD published up to January 2025. Eligible studies were assessed, and safety information was extracted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 141 clinical trials with 4299 participants were included in their active arms. rTMS trials recruited participants who were engaged in active substance use, were in the pre-treatment phase, in early recovery, or in sustained recovery. Twenty-two studies explicitly reported no AEs. Sixty-nine studies reported only mild AEs, while only six studies reported moderate AEs. Thirty-five studies did not report safety-outcomes/AEs. As expected, participants reported mild and temporary AEs such as headaches, pain or discomfort under the coil, or dizziness. Only nine studies reported serious AEs (7 studies in active TMS and 2 in sham TMS). Importantly, no seizures attributable to active rTMS were reported in these SUD samples. CONCLUSION: Overall, rTMS in SUD samples is safe and well-tolerated regardless of recovery stage and substance. Most reported side effects were mild, self-limiting, and tolerable. However, AE reporting was incomplete, as 35 of 141 trials reported no safety data, limiting conclusions to reported outcomes. This evidence supports the safety of rTMS as a potential stand-alone or adjunctive treatment for SUD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Treatment for Migraine Prevention in Adults: Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee and the American Headache Society.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (SR) provides updated evidence-based conclusions regarding the use of pharmacologic migraine prevention in adults to inform a new joint American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society practice guideline. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel conducted an SR following the 2017 AAN Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. Randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacologic preventive treatments for adults with episodic or chronic migraine were included. Searches encompassed MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception through June 6, 2024. Studies were screened in duplicate, with dual independent risk-of-bias assessment. Outcomes included change in monthly headache days, ≥50% responder rate, and validated patient-reported quality of life (QOL) measures. Raw mean differences, standardized mean differences, and risk ratios were calculated. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process was used to classify certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 217 studies met inclusion criteria. For episodic migraine, high-confidence evidence showed that galcanezumab and erenumab are more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. Moderate-confidence evidence supported benefit from atogepant, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, propranolol, topiramate, and valproate. Several additional oral agents including amitriptyline, bisoprolol, flunarizine, fluoxetine, levetiracetam, metoprolol, nifedipine, pizotifen, and telmisartan had low-confidence evidence suggesting possible benefit. For chronic migraine, high-confidence evidence supported reductions in headache frequency with fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Moderate-confidence evidence supported benefit from atogepant, eptinezumab, erenumab, topiramate and valproate. Across both episodic and chronic migraine populations, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, rimegepant, atogepant, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated improvements in patient-reported QOL outcomes on validated instruments. Evidence comparing active treatments was limited and generally of low or very low confidence, restricting conclusions about comparative effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This SR provides a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on pharmacologic migraine prevention in adults. High- and moderate-confidence findings confirm the efficacy of several established and newer preventive therapies and demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes across multiple validated measures. These conclusions informed the development of evidence-based recommendations, presented in a companion publication, to guide clinicians in selecting preventive medications for adults with episodic and chronic migraine.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Phase 2 (and phase 1 dose expansion, which we label phase 2 for the purposes of this study) cancer trials are the first direct tests of a new drug's efficacy. Because efficacy evidence is lacking, the therapeutic status of drug administration during ethical review is uncertain. We compared the efficacy and safety of cancer monotherapies in phase 2 with phase 3, where clinical equipoise underwrites a therapeutic status for drug administration. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov for phase 2 and 3 investigational monotherapy drug trials in six solid malignancies, with primary completion dates 2015-2020, inclusive. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction. Effects were estimated using an inverse-variance weighted random-effects model meta-analysis of proportions using the R package meta. We analyzed 130 phase 2 and 52 phase 3 trial arms, enrolling 6665 and 18,694 patients. The pooled objective response rate was 7% (95% CI 5%-11%) in phase 2 versus 24% in phase 3 (95% CI 17%-31%; p < 0.0001). The median PFS and OS were shorter in phase 2 compared to phase 3 (3.23 vs. 5.43 months, p < 0.0001; 9.46 vs. 14.44 months, p = 0.0001). The pooled rate of drug-related grade 3-4 adverse events was 30% (95% CI 23%-37%) in phase 2 and 25% (95% CI 19%-32%) in phase 3. Monotherapies delivered in phase 2 cancer trials present diminished risk-benefit compared with phase 3 and align with historic estimates for phase 1. Though there may be exceptions, risks for drug administration in phase 2 should generally be justified by appeals to research rather than therapeutic value.

Humans↗