PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “risk and benefit”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Review of regulatory requirements for benefit-risk assessment for medical devices: uncovering existing methodologies.

INTRODUCTION: A positive benefit-risk profile is a prerequisite for the market approval of medical devices. However, regulations are often criticized for providing limited information on benefit-risk assessment (BRA) despite growing expectations for quantitative methods. A clearer understanding of regulatory requirements, existing methodologies, and unresolved issues is needed. AREAS COVERED: Relevant regulatory documents referencing BRA for medical devices were systematically identified, with a primary focus on the European regulation followed by screening to extract BRA‑related requirements and any explicitly or implicitly described methods. The findings were analyzed and consolidated by BRA context, type, objective, methodological description, and implementation, thereby establishing a basis for the BRA methodological landscape. EXPERT OPINION: BRA is not a single concept, but a set of context‑dependent assessments across lifecycle of a medical device. BRA within clinical evaluation framed into BRAs of risk management holds a pivotal role and is supported by the most detailed methodological guidance, although BRAs in other contexts are important. A structured overview of existing BRA requirements clarifies their treatment across regulatory documents. By differentiating BRA contexts, types, objectives, and required methodological detail, the analysis supports a more transparent understanding of BRA and helps identify priorities for methodological refinement and interface clarification.

Risk Assessment

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&#xa0;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&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001). The median PFS and OS were shorter in phase 2 compared to phase 3 (3.23 vs. 5.43&#x2009;months, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001; 9.46 vs. 14.44&#x2009;months, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;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

Timing of carbetocin administration in vaginal deliveries: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of administering carbetocin before vs. after placental delivery in preventing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in low-risk vaginal deliveries. METHODS: The randomized controlled trial was conducted at Kartal City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. A total of 160 primiparous women with uncomplicated pregnancies who underwent vaginal delivery were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100&#x202f;&#x3bc;g of carbetocin either before or after placental delivery. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPH. Secondary outcomes included the need for additional uterotonics, manual removal of the placenta with consequent antibiotic administration, blood transfusions, maternal adverse events, and changes in hemoglobin levels at baseline and 24&#x202f;h postpartum. RESULTS: The incidence of PPH was significantly lower in the carbetocin-before group than in the carbetocin-after group (p=0.015). The carbetocin-before group had a significantly lower mean hemoglobin drop compared to the carbetocin-after group (p<0.001). The need for additional uterotonics was significantly higher in the carbetocin-after group (p<0.001). Manual placenta removal and the need for antibiotics were more frequent in the carbetocin-before group (p=0.017). No significant differences in adverse maternal events were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administering carbetocin before placental delivery significantly reduces the incidence of PPH, blood loss, and the need for additional uterotonics. However, the increased rate of manual placenta removal necessitates individualized risk-benefit assessment; pre-placental administration may be most advantageous in women at elevated risk for PPH, in whom the hemorrhagic benefit outweighs the risks associated with manual extraction.

Humans

Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR and Concurrent TP53 Mutations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Combination therapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its clinical benefit-risk profile remains a focus of ongoing debate. Identifying patients most likely to derive benefit from such regimens remains an unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy with osimertinib monotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 17 sites in China. Between March 25, 2021, and July 11, 2024, a total of 294 eligible patients with treatment-naive, stage IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 and EGFR-sensitizing mutations were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy (pemetrexed and carboplatin every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy of osimertinib plus pemetrexed; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;146) or osimertinib monotherapy (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Among 294 enrolled patients, the median age was 57 years (range, 26-79 years), and 159 (54.1%) were female. The data cutoff date was November 11, 2025. At a median follow-up of 25.1 months for the osimertinib-chemotherapy group and 26.1 months for the osimertinib monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib plus chemotherapy than with osimertinib monotherapy (34.0 vs 15.6 months; difference, 18.4 months [95% CI, 9.9-22.3]; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.60]; P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001). This benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups, including those with brain metastases and L858R mutations. The overall survival data remained immature (30.6% maturity); however, a trend toward overall survival benefit with combination therapy was observed. The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was higher in the combination group, with no new safety signal identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. These findings provided a clinical rationale for individualized combination strategies in the management of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04695925.

Adult

Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs). RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6&#xa0;h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7&#xa0;h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference&#xa0;-&#xa0;7.6&#xa0;h; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6&#xa0;units; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.

Humans

Insights from expert panels on the EU clinical evaluation consultation procedure.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) under the EU Medical Device Regulation aims to strengthen and harmonize the assessment of high-risk medical devices. This review summarizes early insights from expert panels to support improved clinical evaluation practices. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This review analyses 34 expert panel opinions derived from 281 CECP submissions between April 2021 and December 2025. Statements from opinions were systematically extracted, de-duplicated, and grouped into thematic categories, with independent review and validation. The analysis focuses on common challenges found during the consultation procedure of the expert panels on the content of the clinical assessment in relation to clinical evidence, benefit-risk assessment, intended purpose alignment, and post-market clinical follow-up planning. RESULTS: Expert panel findings highlight recurrent issues in the sufficiency, consistency, and transparency of clinical evidence, underscoring the need for improved standardization and clearer guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening documentation quality and alignment across stakeholders will enhance the robustness, efficiency, and predictability of conformity assessments for high-risk medical devices.

Humans

Finerenone According to Frailty in Heart Failure: A Prespecified Analysis of the FINEARTS-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with frailty are often perceived to have a less favorable benefit-risk profile for novel therapies and therefore may be less likely to receive these. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of finerenone, compared with placebo, according to frailty status in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial, the Finerenone Trial to Investigate Efficacy and Safety Superior to Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure (FINEARTS-HF), conducted across 653 sites in 37 countries. Patients with HF with New York Heart Association functional class II through IV, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or higher, evidence of structural heart disease, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels were randomized between September 2020 and January 2023. Data analysis was conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2024. INTERVENTION: Addition of once-daily finerenone or placebo to usual therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events. Frailty was measured using the Rockwood cumulative deficit approach. RESULTS: Of the 6001 patients randomized in FINEARTS-HF, a frailty index (FI) was calculable in 5952 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.0 [9.6] years; 3241 [54.4%] male). In total, 1588 patients (26.7%) had class I frailty (FI &#x2264;0.210 [not frail]), 2141 (36.0%) had class II frailty (FI 0.211-0.310 [more frail]), and 2223 (37.3%) had class III frailty (FI &#x2265;0.311 [most frail]). Compared with patients with class I frailty, those with class II and III frailty had a higher risk of the primary outcome (unadjusted rate ratio [RR], 1.88 [95% CI, 1.54-2.28] for class II and 3.86 [95% CI, 3.22-4.64] for class III). The effect of finerenone on the primary outcome did not vary significantly by frailty class (class I: RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.77-1.49]; class II: RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.52-0.83]; class III: RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76-1.07]; P for interaction&#x2009;=&#x2009;.77). Frailty class did not modify the effects of finerenone on the components of the primary outcome, all-cause death, or improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. The effects of finerenone, compared with placebo, on experiencing hypotension, elevated creatinine level, hyperkalemia, or hypokalemia did not differ by frailty class. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In FINEARTS-HF, finerenone reduced the risk of total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death, and it improved symptoms; these effects were not modified by frailty status. In addition, the effects of finerenone on experiencing hypotension, elevated creatinine level, hyperkalemia, or hypokalemia did not differ by frailty status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.

Humans

UGT1A1 genotype testing for irinotecan: A guideline developed by the UK Centre of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation in Pharmacogenomics (CERSI-PGx).

Irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, is available as both non-pegylated and pegylated formulations. The non-pegylated formulation is licensed for use in advanced colorectal cancer either in combination with other agents or as monotherapy. However, it is also used off-label across a range of gastrointestinal malignancies and in rare malignancies such as glioblastoma and sarcomas. The pegylated formulation is licensed for use as combination therapy in adult patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Irinotecan is hydrolysed to its active metabolite, SN-38, which is predominantly inactivated by the enzyme uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase UGT1A1. UGT1A1 is encoded by the gene UGT1A1, which is polymorphically expressed, with allele frequencies varying across populations. Poor metabolizers carry two variants that reduce UGT1A1 enzyme expression or activity, leading to increased risk of irinotecan toxicity. Any patient who is about to be prescribed irinotecan for an epithelial malignancy should have pharmacogenetic testing, to identify clinically relevant UGT1A1 variants, where testing is available. Irinotecan dose should be reduced by 30% at Cycle 1 treatment in poor metabolizers for all indications, with doses titrated thereafter based on tolerability and neutrophil counts. The lack of evidence precludes us from making any recommendation for rare malignancies such as sarcomas. Our guideline is consistent with other international pharmacogenetics prescribing guidelines. This guideline is grounded in the latest evidence but cannot account for all individual factors relevant to patient care. Therefore, prescribers must conduct a thorough assessment of each patient's risk-benefit profile, ensuring that therapy is optimized to maximize benefits while minimizing potential harms.

Humans

MT-RNR1 genotype testing for preventing aminoglycoside-mediated ototoxicity: A guideline developed by the UK Centre of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation in Pharmacogenomics (CERSI-PGx).

Aminoglycosides are broad-spectrum antibiotics used in the management of severe infections. Aminoglycosides are associated with nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Although dosing strategies such as once-daily administration and therapeutic drug monitoring have reduced the incidence of nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity remains unpredictable and may occur at therapeutic concentrations. A strong association between specific mitochondrial DNA variants in MT-RNR1 (m.1555A&#x2009;>&#x2009;G, m.1494C&#x2009;>&#x2009;T and m.1095&#x2009;T&#x2009;>&#x2009;C) and aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss exists. These variants (frequency ~1 in 330 individuals across populations) predispose to irreversible, sensorineural hearing loss following aminoglycoside exposure, sometimes after a single dose. Avoidance of aminoglycosides is recommended at any detectable variant level. In England, laboratory-based MT-RNR1 testing is nationally commissioned, whereas point-of-care testing in time-critical settings like neonatal sepsis is delivered in some centres. Approximately 20% of aminoglycoside use is predictable providing opportunities for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing. Where MT-RNR1 testing results are unavailable and clinical urgency is high, aminoglycoside treatment should not be delayed. Early health economic evidence suggests that point-of-care testing in neonates may be cost-saving by preventing lifelong hearing loss. Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment bodies support targeted implementation of testing alongside further evidence generation. Overall, integration of MT-RNR1 pharmacogenetic testing offers a feasible and proportionate strategy to reduce harm while preserving access to life-saving antibiotic therapy. This guideline is grounded in the latest evidence in this field but cannot account for all individual factors relevant to patient care. Therefore, prescribers must conduct a thorough assessment of each patient's risk-benefit profile, ensuring that therapy is optimized to maximize benefits while minimizing potential harms.

Humans

Patient-reported outcomes with tarlatamab in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy: results from the phase 3 DeLLphi-304 trial.

BACKGROUND: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is associated with a high symptom burden and impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This prespecified analysis from the phase 3 DeLLphi-304 trial evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tarlatamab versus standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy following first-line platinum-based therapy. METHODS: DeLLphi-304 is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study in adults with ES-SCLC. PROs were assessed using validated instruments, including the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-LC13, FACT-G GP5, BPI-SF, and the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale. Change from baseline, response rates, and time to deterioration in these PROs were analyzed. RESULTS: PRO data from all 509 patients enrolled were evaluated. Compliance with QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 assessments remained above 69% through 19&#xa0;weeks. A higher proportion of patients receiving tarlatamab achieved symptom or functional improvement at 19&#xa0;weeks compared with SoC in chest pain (19% vs 10%), cough (35% vs 26%), dyspnea (22% vs 7%), physical functioning (13% vs 8%), and global health status (23% vs 15%), respectively. Tarlatamab also delayed deterioration in symptoms, physical functioning, and pain at worst relative to SoC. FACT-G GP5 results indicated that patients receiving tarlatamab were less bothered by treatment side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to its previously reported antitumor activity, tarlatamab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms and HRQoL compared with SoC. These findings support a favorable benefit-risk profile of tarlatamab in patients previously treated for ES-SCLC.

Humans

Valproate vs levetiracetam in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset typically in adolescence and a chronic course requiring long-term antiseizure medications (ASMs). Valproate (VPA) is the most effective treatment for seizure control in JME but use is limited by metabolic, cognitive, and teratogenic adverse effects (AEs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is an alternative ASM when VPA is contraindicated or not tolerated. Comparisons of the efficacy and long-term tolerability of VPA and LEV remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2026 for studies in JME patients comparing LEV and VPA, and included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with&#xa0;&#x2265;&#xa0;6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were seizure remission and ASM failure or treatment discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included, memory impairment, weight gain or obesity, dizziness, and overall AEs. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 1,009 patients were included. VPA was associated with higher pooled seizure remission rates compared with LEV (344 of 574 vs. 169 of 390; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;88.4%) limits confidence in this finding. VPA was associated with a lower risk of drug failure or treatment discontinuation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), with no heterogeneity (I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.0%). VPA was also associated with a higher risk of memory impairment (RR 5.37, 95% CI 2.05-14.04; I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;74.5%) and weight gain or obesity (RR 6.40, 95% CI 3.64-11.26; I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;35.9%). No significant differences were observed between treatments regarding dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.37; I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;21.2%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: VPA was associated with higher seizure remission rates and lower treatment discontinuation compared with LEV; however, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity, the predominance of observational studies, and the serious risk of bias identified in most included studies VPA also demonstrated lower rates of treatment discontinuation, despite a higher burden of cognitive impairment and weight gain. No relevant differences were observed regarding dizziness. Large-scale randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to define the comparative risk-benefit profiles of LEV and VPA in JME.

Humans

Efficacy and safety of mitapivat in adults with transfusion-dependent &#x3b1;-thalassaemia or &#x3b2;-thalassaemia (ENERGIZE-T): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The absence of disease-modifying therapies for patients with &#x3b1;-thalassaemia and oral disease-modifying therapies for patients with &#x3b2;-thalassaemia has been a substantial unmet need in these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mitapivat, an oral allosteric activator of pyruvate kinase, in adults with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. METHODS: ENERGIZE-T is a global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, conducted across 19 countries in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and the Middle East. Patients aged 18 years or older with transfusion-dependent &#x3b1;-thalassaemia or &#x3b2;-thalassaemia were randomly allocated (2:1) with a central interactive response technology system, stratified by geographical region and thalassaemia genotype, to receive 100 mg mitapivat or placebo orally twice a day for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was transfusion reduction response (TRR), defined as a reduction of at least 50% in transfused red blood cell units with a reduction of at least two units in any consecutive 12-week period until week 48 compared with baseline. Efficacy was analysed in the full analysis set, comprising all randomly allocated patients. Type, severity, and relationship of adverse events and serious adverse events were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04770779) and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2021 and May 2, 2023, 305 patients were screened, of whom 258 were randomly allocated (median age 33&#xb7;5 years [IQR 27&#xb7;0-44&#xb7;0]; 136 [53%] female and 122 [47%] male participants). Of 258 patients allocated, 238 (92%) completed the double-blind treatment period. All patients were required to have a safety follow-up approximately 4 weeks after the final dose of study drug, regardless of completion of the double-blind period or continuation into the open-label extension period. In the full analysis set, TRRs occurred in 52 (30%) of 171 patients in the mitapivat group and 11 (13%) of 87 in the placebo group (adjusted difference 18 percentage points [95% CI 8-27]; two-sided p=0&#xb7;0003). The safety analysis set comprised 172 patients in the mitapivat group (including one patient allocated to the placebo group who received one dose of mitapivat in error) and 85 in the placebo group. Adverse events were reported in 155 (90%) patients treated with mitapivat and 71 (84%) treated with placebo; the most common events with mitapivat were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, initial insomnia, diarrhoea, and fatigue. Serious adverse events were reported in 19 (11%) patients treated with mitapivat and 13 (15%) treated with placebo. Ten (6%) patients who received mitapivat and one (1%) who received placebo discontinued study treatment due to adverse events. No deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Mitapivat significantly reduced the transfusion burden and was generally well tolerated, showing a favourable benefit-risk profile. These findings support mitapivat as the first oral disease-modifying therapy for adults with transfusion-dependent &#x3b1;-thalassaemia or &#x3b2;-thalassaemia, providing a new treatment option to reduce transfusion burden in this patient population. FUNDING: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Adult

Effect of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL trials: a prespecified pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide reduces clinically important kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to assess the pooled effects of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in prespecified analyses of participant-level data from the diverse populations of the SELECT, FLOW, and SOUL randomised placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: Participants with CKD (FLOW) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (SELECT and SOUL) were randomly assigned semaglutide (once-weekly subcutaneous 1&#xb7;0 mg [FLOW], once-weekly subcutaneous 2&#xb7;4 mg [SELECT], or once-daily oral 14 mg [SOUL]) or matching placebo, added to standard of care. The primary outcome in this pooled analysis was time to first occurrence of a kidney composite, defined as onset of persistent 50% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), kidney failure (persistent eGFR <15 mL/min per 1&#xb7;73 m2, or initiation of kidney replacement therapy), kidney-related death, or cardiovascular-related death. Safety was also assessed. FINDINGS: The pooled participants from the trials (N=30&#x2008;787) had a mean follow-up of 39&#xb7;5-47&#xb7;5 months. Among participants assigned to semaglutide, 973 first events of the primary kidney composite occurred compared with 1134 first events for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0&#xb7;84 [95% CI 0&#xb7;77-0&#xb7;91]). First events of a narrower secondary kidney composite (excluding cardiovascular-related death from the primary outcome) were also reduced with semaglutide versus placebo (347 and 416, respectively; 0&#xb7;80 [0&#xb7;69-0&#xb7;92]). Safety outcomes were overall similar between groups, and in line with other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials. Serious adverse events were numberically lower with semaglutide than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Data pooled from three large phase 3 trials suggest that semaglutide reduces the risk of major kidney outcomes in a broad population with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease while having a favourable risk-benefit profile. In people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, with and without diabetes, semaglutide (oral or injected) prevents kidney-related and cardiovascular complications and induces adverse events in line with GLP-1 receptor agonist studies, regardless of baseline characteristics within the cardio-kidney-metabolic spectrum. This was a participant-level analysis conducted in a large database of three randomised controlled trials of similar design and examining the same treatment, but there were some differences in participants' baseline characteristics, and in the dose and route of administration of treatment. This pooled analysis adds evidence for the benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists in general, and semaglutide in particular, in a broad population of people with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, suggesting that the benefit of semaglutide might not be explained only by its glycaemic effects, weight-management effects, or both. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans

Efficacy of esketamine in reducing nausea and vomiting after anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are significant perioperative challenges. This study evaluated the efficacy of perioperative esketamine in preventing PONV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2025 for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of perioperative esketamine on PONV. The primary outcome was PONV incidence. Secondary outcomes included time to first flatus, postoperative pain degree, anxiety scores, agitation, anesthesia recovery time, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess result stability and explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized trials (3,425 patients) were included. Esketamine reduced the risk of nausea (RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and vomiting (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98), shortened time to first flatus (SMD=-0.81, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.15), and decreased rescue analgesic needs within 2 days (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.2-0.5). However, it prolonged anesthesia recovery time (SMD=0.97, 95% CI: 0.28-1.67) and PACU stay (SMD=0.76, 95% CI: 0.27-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative esketamine may reduce PONV and aid gastrointestinal recovery, but its potential to delay anesthesia recovery and PACU discharge requires consideration. Further studies are needed to clarify its risk-benefit profile. DATE OF FIRST SUBMISSION TO PROSPERO: 10 March 2024. DATE OF THE START OF STUDY SCREENING AGAINST ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: 21 March 2024.

Humans

Safety and Tolerability of Single and Multiple Daily Oral Doses of Dried Kratom Leaf Powder in a Randomized Trial in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Kratom use is rising, increasing the need for safety and tolerability studies of high-quality and well-characterized kratom products in humans. Kratom's risk-benefit ratio, recommended dose, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), abuse potential, and withdrawal require evaluation. Thus, the safety and tolerability of 4 escalating single and 15 daily dried kratom leaf powder doses in human volunteers were evaluated over 47 days in the largest controlled kratom-administration study to date. METHODS: A randomized, between-subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study of MitraLeaf kratom powder after single doses (SD), during 15 daily doses (multiple doses; MD), and a 23-day follow-up was conducted in 116 volunteers (49 MitraLeaf and 67 placebo). Twelve participants each received a SD of either 6.65, 13.3, 26.6, or 53.2 mg (n = 13) mitragynine in 500, 1000, 2000, or 4000 mg of MitraLeaf, respectively, with a 10-day follow-up. The same participants received 15 daily doses at the same concentration of SD mitragynine received, with a 27-day follow-up period. Inclusion criteria were nonsmoking healthy males and females who never used kratom or had not used kratom for &#x2265;12 months, 18-55 years old, and BMI &#x2265;18.5 and &#x2264;29.9 kg/m 2 . Participants were excluded if they had known CYP3A4, CYP2D6, or CYP1A2 genetic polymorphisms. RESULTS: No serious adverse events or deaths were reported. TEAEs after SD or MD generally increased as the dose increased. Dizziness, nausea, and feeling of relaxation were the most commonly reported TEAEs after SD, and headache, feeling hot, increased alanine aminotransferase level, and nausea were most common after MD. CONCLUSIONS: This SD and first MD controlled study shows that Mitragyna speciosa -derived MitraLeaf kratom powder was safe and well tolerated at the dose ranges tested, with no evidence of meaningful abuse potential or withdrawal.

Humans

Vasoactive Agent Therapy in Septic Shock: From Monotherapy Battles to Tailored Hemodynamic Optimization.

Hemodynamic stabilization and preservation of organ perfusion are central elements in the management of septic shock. This is achieved by fluid resuscitation and by administration of vasoactive agents to secure a time window for definitive cause-directed therapy. Guided by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the optimization of vasoactive agent strategies, namely protective hemodynamic management, has become a central focus. Tracing key research over the past 25 years reveals a paradigm shift in vasopressor therapy, from empiricism to goal-directed strategy. This evolution has deepened our understanding of the benefit-risk profile of vasoactive agents and fostered a new conceptual framework regarding organ perfusion and protection. Under this framework, management strategies have advanced from the mere pursuit of hemodynamic parameters to care bundles that integrate the monitoring of organ perfusion, microcirculation, and oxygen metabolism. These advances have optimized agent selection, established safe dosing ranges, and ultimately promoted the widespread adoption of combined and multimodal therapy concepts. This review delineates this transformative journey, synthesizing evidence on the reappraisal of traditional agents and exploring "de-catecholaminization" strategies, thereby aiming to broaden the therapeutic landscape. The integration of artificial intelligence and genomic medicine is expected to further advance personalized management strategies for septic shock.

Humans

Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of Upadacitinib Among Patients in East Asia With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: A Post Hoc Subanalysis of Randomized Phase 3 Studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, is approved to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). This post hoc subanalysis evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of upadacitinib in patients in East Asia. METHODS: U-ACHIEVE (UC1; NCT02819635) and U-ACCOMPLISH (UC2; NCT03653026) were Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, induction studies evaluating upadacitinib 45&#x2009;mg or placebo daily in adults with moderately to severely active UC. Clinical responders to 8&#x2009;weeks of upadacitinib induction were eligible to receive upadacitinib 15&#x2009;mg, upadacitinib 30&#x2009;mg, or placebo daily in the 52-week U-ACHIEVE maintenance study (UC3; NCT02819635). Efficacy outcomes, safety, and pharmacokinetics were evaluated among East Asian patients. RESULTS: A higher proportion of East Asian patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib than placebo at induction Week 8 (UC1: n&#x2009;=&#x2009;127, 31.4% vs. 7.3%; UC2: n&#x2009;=&#x2009;114, 31.2% vs. 2.7%) and maintenance Week 52 (UC3: n&#x2009;=&#x2009;184, upadacitinib 15&#x2009;mg, 52.4%; upadacitinib 30&#x2009;mg, 53.8%; placebo, 10.7%). Rates of endoscopic outcomes were higher with upadacitinib than with placebo across studies. No new safety signals were identified. Herpes zoster occurrences were low (UC1 and UC2: upadacitinib 45&#x2009;mg, two events [in one patient]; placebo, zero events; UC3: upadacitinib 15&#x2009;mg, five events; upadacitinib 30&#x2009;mg, eight events; placebo, zero events). Pharmacokinetics and trends in the relationship between upadacitinib exposure and efficacy were consistent in the East Asian and global populations. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated and effective for treating moderately to severely active UC in patients in East Asia, with a favorable benefit-risk profile consistent with the global population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819635, NCT03653026.

Humans

RENOIR phase 3 rituximab-lenalidomide vs rituximab as maintenance treatment in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

Maintenance treatment in older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) remains an area of investigation. RENOIR was a multicenter, phase 3, open-label randomized trial conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) in older patients with R/R FL after 1 or 2 previous therapies. Patients achieving partial response or complete response (CR) after 4 to 6 cycles of standard rituximab (R)-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to maintenance with R alone (standard arm) or R plus lenalidomide (R2; experimental arm). The primary end point was 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization, with an expected hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5. A total of 152 patients (median age, 71 years) were enrolled. After induction, 129 (85%) achieved an overall response (CR, 58%) and were randomized to R (n = 65) or R2 (n = 64). At a median follow-up of 68 months, the 2-year PFS was 73% in the R2 arm and 64% in the R arm. An unplanned hypothesis-generating subgroup analysis showed a greater 2-year PFS benefit with R2 in patients aged <70 years: R2, 96% vs R, 69%. Two-year overall survival rates were similar (R2, 80% vs R, 89%). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in R2, mainly neutropenia and gastrointestinal disorders. In conclusion, the primary end point of the study was not met, and R2 maintenance did not significantly improve 2-year PFS in older patients with R/R FL, although a numerical benefit was observed. R2 showed a more favorable benefit-risk profile in patients aged <70 years, whereas in older patients careful consideration of individual tolerability is warranted. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02390869.

Humans