Safety, pharmacokinetics, and early bactericidal activity of quabodepistat in combination with delamanid, bedaquiline, or both in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis: a randomised, active-controlled, open-label trial.

Quabodepistat (formerly OPC-167832) showed potent activity in preclinical studies and in the first stage of an early bactericidal activity study in adults with smear-positive, drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Stage 2 of this study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and early bactericidal activity of quabodepistat in combination with delamanid, bedaquiline, or both versus rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide combination therapy for 14 days. Stage 2 of this open-label, active-controlled, randomised, parallel-group study was conducted at two research sites in South Africa in adults (aged 18-64 years) with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Eligible participants had a BMI of 16-32 kg/m2 and the ability to produce an adequate volume of sputum (≥10 mL overnight) and were excluded if they had drug-resistant tuberculosis or previous treatment for Mycobacterium tuberculosis within the past 3 years. Participants were centrally randomly assigned via interactive web response technology system, with no stratification, into four treatment groups in a ratio of 14:14:14:4 (quabodepistat 30 mg plus delamanid 300 mg, quabodepistat 30 mg plus bedaquiline 400 mg, or quabodepistat 30 mg plus delamanid 300 mg plus bedaquiline 400 mg orally once daily for 14 days, or rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide combination therapy [control] according to local standard of care for 20 days). The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability during and after 14 days of treatment in all participants who received any study medication and pharmacokinetics at day 1 and day 14 in participants in the quabodepistat groups with adequate data for deriving pharmacokinetics parameters. The main secondary outcome was bactericidal activity from baseline to day 14 in all eligible participants who were quantitatively culture-positive at baseline. The study was not powered for formal statistical hypothesis testing; therefore, data were summarised by treatment group with descriptive statistics. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03678688) and is closed to new participants. 98 participants were screened for entry into stage 2 of the trial between Feb 1, 2021, and Jan 27, 2022, of whom 46 were randomly assigned (14 to each quabodepistat group, 4 to the control group) and 44 received at least one dose of study medication (one patient excluded from the quabodepistat plus delamanid and quabodepistat plus bedaquiline groups). 32 (73%) of 44 participants had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Most events (30/32 [94%]) were mild or moderate; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥2 participants; not related to study drugs) were headache (4/44 [9%]), dizziness (3/44 [7%]), abdominal pain (2/44 [5%]), pruritus (2/44 [5%]), and nausea (2/44 [5%]). Two serious adverse events were reported in two participants in the quabodepistat and bedaquiline cohort (anal abscess [n=1], pneumothorax [n=1]); both were deemed not related to study drug. Quabodepistat exposure was minimally affected by coadministration of delamanid or bedaquiline, with lower exposure in the quabodepistat and bedaquiline cohorts (maximum plasma concentration for quabodepistat plus delamanid 208 ng/mL [SD 61; n=11]; quabodepistat plus bedaquiline 175 ng/mL [31; n=10]; quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline 183 ng/mL [52; n=11]). Maximum quabodepistat concentrations were achieved approximately 3 h after administration in all combinations. Mean elimination half-life was shorter in combinations with bedaquiline than without bedaquiline (12·3-14·5 h vs 15·2 h). Mean changes from baseline to day 14 of sputum log10 colony-forming units per mL were -2·73 (SD 1·51) for quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline (n=12) and -2·71 (SD 0·92) for control (n=19); mean change was -2·17 (SD 1·83) in the quabodepistat plus delamanid cohort (n=11) and -1·97 (SD 1·29) in the quabodepistat plus bedaquiline cohort (n=11). In this 14-day trial, quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline, a novel three-drug combination, appeared to be safe, well tolerated, and provided robust early bactericidal activity in adults with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Further evaluation is warranted. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dawson R ，Diacon AH ，De Jager V ，Narunsky K ，Moodley VM ，Stinson KW ，Liu Y ，Zheng B ，Hafkin J ... -  《-》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LBP-EC01, a CRISPR-Cas3-enhanced bacteriophage cocktail, in uncomplicated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli (ELIMINATE): the randomised, open-label, first part of a two-part phase 2 trial.

The rate of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, outpacing small-molecule-drug development efforts. Novel therapies are needed to combat this growing threat, particularly for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic use and associated antibiotic resistance. LBP-EC01 is a novel, genetically enhanced, six-bacteriophage cocktail developed by Locus Biosciences (Morrisville, NC, USA) to address UTIs caused by Escherichia coli, regardless of antibiotic resistance status. In this first part of the two-part phase 2 ELIMINATE trial, we aimed to define a dosing regimen of LBP-EC01 for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs that could advance to the second, randomised, controlled, double-blinded portion of the study. This first part of ELIMINATE is a randomised, uncontrolled, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in six private clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were female by self-identification, aged between 18 years and 70 years, and had an uncomplicated UTI at the time of enrolment, as well as a history of at least one drug-resistant UTI caused by E coli within the 12 months before enrolment. Participants were initially randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into three treatment groups, but this part of the trial was terminated on the recommendation of the safety review committee after a non-serious tolerability signal was observed based on systemic drug exposure. A protocol update was then implemented, comprised of three new treatment groups. Groups A to C were dosed with intraurethral 2 × 1012 plaque-forming units (PFU) of LBP-EC01 on days 1 and 2 by catheter, plus one of three intravenous doses daily on days 1-3 of LBP-EC01 (1 mL of 1 × 1010 PFU intravenous bolus in group A, 1 mL of 1 × 109 PFU intravenous bolus in group B, and a 2 h 1 × 1011 PFU intravenous infusion in 100 mL of sodium lactate solution in group C). In all groups, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 160 mg and 800 mg) was given twice daily on days 1-3. The primary outcome was the level of LBP-EC01 in urine and blood across the treatment period and over 48 h after the last dose and was assessed in patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received at least one dose of LBP-EC01 and had concentration-time data available throughout the days 1-3 dosing period (pharmacokinetic population). Safety, a secondary endpoint, was assessed in enrolled patients who received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). As exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints, we assessed E coli levels in urine and clinical symptoms of UTI in patients with at least 1·0 × 105 colony-forming units per mL E coli in urine at baseline who took at least one dose of study drug and completed their day 10 test-of-cure assessment (pharmacodynamic-evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05488340, and is ongoing. Between Aug 22, 2022, and Aug 28, 2023, 44 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 were randomly assigned (ITT population). Initially, eight participants were assigned to the first three groups. After the protocol was updated, 31 participants were allocated into groups A (11 patients), B (ten patients), and C (ten patients). One patient in group C withdrew consent on day 2 for personal reasons, but as she had received the first dose of the study drug was included in the modified ITT population. Maximum urine drug concentrations were consistent across intraurethral dosing, with a maximum mean concentration of 6·3 × 108 PFU per mL (geometric mean 8·8 log10 PFU per mL and geometric SD [gSD] 0·3). Blood plasma level of bacteriophages was intravenous dose-dependent, with maximum mean concentrations of 4·0 × 103 (geometric mean 3·6 log10 PFU per mL [gSD 1·5]) in group A, 2·5 × 103 (3·4 log10 PFU per mL [1·7]) in group B, and 8·0 × 105 (5·9 log10 PFU per mL [1·4]) in group C. No serious adverse events were observed. 44 adverse events were reported across 18 (46%) of the 39 participants in the safety population, with more adverse events seen with higher intravenous doses. Three patients in groups 1 to 3 and one patient in group C, all of whom received 1 × 1011 LBP-EC01 intravenously, had non-serious tachycardia and afebrile chills after the second intravenous dose. A rapid reduction of E coli in urine was observed by 4 h after the first treatment and maintained at day 10 in all 16 evaluable patients; these individuals had complete resolution of UTI symptoms by day 10. A regimen consisting of 2 days of intraurethral LBP-EC01 and 3 days of concurrent intravenous LBP-EC01 (1 × 1010 PFU) and oral TMP-SMX twice a day was well tolerated, with consistent pharmacokinetic profiles in urine and blood. LBP-EC01 and TMP-SMX dosing resulted in a rapid and durable reduction of E coli, with corresponding elimination of clinical symptoms in evaluable patients. LBP-EC01 holds promise in providing an alternative therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, with further testing of the group A dosing regimen planned in the controlled, double-blind, second part of ELIMINATE. Federal funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Kim P ，Sanchez AM ，Penke TJR ，Tuson HH ，Kime JC ，McKee RW ，Slone WL ，Conley NR ，McMillan LJ ，Prybol CJ ，Garofolo PM ... -  《-》

Evaluation of proximod, a selective agonist of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-1, in healthy volunteers and patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase 1, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, ascending dose trial.

Proximod is a selective agonist of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-1 (S1PR1). It acts by redirecting lymphocytes from the circulation to secondary lymph nodes, and is under development as an immunomodulator for rheumatoid arthritis. We aimed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of proximod in healthy volunteers and patients with rheumatoid arthritis. We did a two part, phase 1, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, ascending dose trial at a single centre in China. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-50 years with a BMI of 18-28 kg/m2 for healthy volunteers and aged 18-70 years with a BMI of 18-30 kg/m2 for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In part 1, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned within ten cohorts to receive a single oral dose of proximod (0·125 mg, 0·25 mg, 0·5 mg, 1 mg, 1·5 mg, 2 mg, 3 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg in cohorts 1-10) or placebo. In part 2, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive once-daily doses of proximod 5 mg or placebo, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive once-daily doses of proximod 5 mg, proximod 10 mg, or placebo, for 28 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile of proximod for 72 days in healthy volunteers and for 48 days in patients with rhematoid arthritis, assessed in all treated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06361199, NCT06361186), and is complete. Between Nov 1, 2017, and June 22, 2021, 124 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned in part 1 of the study and 124 were included in the analyses (mean age 34·3 years [SD 6·9], 62 [50%] of 124 participants were women and 62 [50%] were men, and 116 [94%] were Han Chinese ethnicity). Between Feb 16, 2022, and Oct 8, 2023, 113 participants were screened for inclusion in part 2 (80 healthy volunteers and 33 patients with rheumatoid arthritis). 79 participants were excluded and 34 were randomly assigned (10 healthy participants and 24 patients with rheumatoid arthritis), 34 of whom were included in the analyses. Ten (100%) of ten healthy participants were Han Chinese ethnicity, with a mean age of 39·9 years (SD 7·3). Five (50%) of ten healthy volunteers were women and five (50%) were men). 22 (92%) of 24 participants with rheumatoid arthritis were Han Chinese ethnicity, with a mean age of 52·7 years (SD 6·8). 22 (92%) of 24 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were women and two (8%) were men. In part 1, all doses of proximod were well tolerated, with no dose-related adverse reactions or serious adverse events observed. In part 2, 74 adverse reactions were reported in eight (80%) of ten healthy volunteers and 22 (92%) of 24 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Adverse events associated with proximod were predominantly mild or moderate. In part 2, the concentration of proximod and its active metabolite, proximod-phosphate, gradually increased in all three groups receiving proximod and the EC50 of the S1PR1 agonist for proximod-phosphate (6·1 ng/mL) was reached on day 14 for both 5 mg groups, and on day 7 for the 10 mg group. The mean Ctrough values for proximod-phosphate on day 28 were 7·7 ng/mL and 10·2 ng/mL for 5 mg in healthy volunteers and patients with rheumatoid arthritis, respectively, and 15·3 ng/mL for 10 mg in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lymphocyte count decreased after treatment in all proximod groups reaching nadir at approximately day 28, with a corresponding percentage decline from baseline of 65·25% in the 5 mg group, 71·64% in the 10 mg group, and 20·57% in the placebo group. Proximod exhibited good tolerability over the 28-day treatment period, demonstrating its potential in reducing blood lymphocyte count. These results highlight the promise of the S1PR1 agonist proximod as a potential candidate for rheumatoid arthritis treatment, warranting further investigation in subsequent clinical studies. Beijing Union Pharmaceutical Factory and Jian Kuan (Suzhou) Biotechnology.

Zhang H ，Li Q ，Li C ，Wu M ，Chen H ，Li Y ，You F ，Zhao Y ，Jin J ，Chen X ，Ding Y ... -  《Lancet Rheumatology》

Primary lung tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

Patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy often experience synergistic toxicity, and local regional control rates remain poor. We assessed the activity and safety outcomes of primary tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy to the lymph nodes and consolidation immunotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled at eight regional cancer centres in North Carolina and South Carolina, USA. Patients were eligible if they had stage II-III, unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC (any histology), with peripheral or central primary tumours that were 7 cm or smaller, excluding central tumours within 2 cm of involved nodal disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients who had previously received systemic therapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Participants received SBRT to the primary tumour (50-54 Gy in three to five fractions) followed by standard radiotherapy (planned up to 60 Gy in 30 2 Gy fractions) to the involved lymph nodes with concurrent platinum doublet chemotherapy (either paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 intravenously plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min every 7 days for a total of six 1-week cycles or etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 and days 29-33 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 for two cycles of 4 weeks). An amendment to the protocol (Dec 11, 2017) permitted the administration of consolidation durvalumab at the discretion of the treating investigator. An additional protocol amendment on Jan 13, 2021, directed patients without disease progression after chemoradiotherapy to receive consolidation durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles or 1500 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1), assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of SBRT and had radiological follow-up data up to 1 year. A 1-year progression-free survival rate of greater than 60% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show significant improvement in 1-year progression-free survival. One-sided exact binomial tests were used to compare the primary endpoint versus the historical control 1-year progression-free survival rate used to determine the sample size. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one fraction of SBRT. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141359, and is closed to accrual. Between May 11, 2017, and June 27, 2022, 61 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of fractionated SBRT, of whom 59 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-72), 28 (46%) of 61 were female, 33 (54%) were male, 51 (84%) were White, seven (11%) were Black, and three (5%) were of other or unknown race. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 47 received at least one dose of consolidation durvalumab. As of data cutoff (July 12, 2023), median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 14·9-47·1). 1-year progression-free survival was 62·7% (90% CI 51·2-73·2; one-sided p=0·39, compared with the historical control rate), with 37 of 59 evaluable participants progression free and alive 1 year after enrolment (n=14 progressed, n=8 died). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (nine [15%] of 61 patients), decreased white blood cell count (five [8%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 11 (18%) of 61 patients, which included lung infection (three [5%]), pneumonitis (two [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (two [3%]), febrile neutropenia (two [3%]), and dyspnoea, hypoxia, respiratory failure, sinus tachycardia, bronchial infection, and acute kidney injury (each in one [2%] patient). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (7%) of 61 patients (one each of respiratory failure, respiratory failure and dyspnoea, lung infection, and pneumonitis). Although this study did not meet the primary endpoint, activity and safety profiles of primary lung tumour SBRT followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy were favourable compared with other modern trials treating locally advanced NSCLC with chemoradiotherapy. These findings serve as the basis for the ongoing randomised phase 3 study NRG Oncology LU008 (NCT05624996). AstraZeneca and Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute.

Heinzerling JH ，Mileham KF ，Robinson MM ，Symanowski JT ，Induru RR ，Brouse GM ，Corso CD ，Prabhu RS ，Haggstrom DE ，Moeller BJ ，Bobo WE ，Fasola CE ，Thakkar VV ，Pal SE ，Gregory JM ，Norek SL ，Begic XJ ，Kesarwala AH ，Burri SH ，Simone CB 2nd ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》