No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveThis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the factors that contribute to poor antibody response in organ transplant recipients after receiving the 2-dose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.MethodData was obtained from Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). Studies reporting factors associated with antibody responses to the 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients were included in our study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two researchers completed the literature search, screening, and data extraction. Randomized models were used to obtain results. Egger’s test was performed to determine publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the stability of the result. The heterogeneity was determined using the Galbraith plot and subgroup analysis.ResultsA total of 29 studies were included in the present study. The factors included living donor, BNT162b2, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, antimetabolite, mycophenolic acid (MPA) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine, corticosteroids, high-dose corticosteroids, belatacept, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, tritherapy, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), hemoglobin, and tacrolimus level were significantly different. Multivariate analysis showed significant differences in age, diabetes mellitus, MPA or MMF, high-dose corticosteroids, tritherapy, and eGFR.ConclusionThe possible independent risk factors for negative antibody response in patients with organ transplants who received the 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine include age, diabetes mellitus, low eGFR, MPA or MMF, high-dose corticosteroids, and triple immunosuppression therapy. mTOR inhibitor can be a protective factor against weak antibody response.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42021257965.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesRecently, some cohorts have looked into the use of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in cancer patients. The objective of the current meta-analysis was to determine its utility in predicting clinical and survival outcomes for cancer patients.MethodSearching and screening literature from PubMed, Web of Science and Embase until September 13, 2022 was performed by two researchers independently. According to the exclusion and inclusion criteria, articles reporting the impact of malnutrition diagnosed by GLIM on long-term survival and clinical outcomes were included. Data of interest were also extracted from the included papers. The stability of the pooled results was evaluated using sensitivity analysis. With the aid of subgroup analysis, heterogeneity was revealed. To assess publication bias, Egger’s and Begg’s tests were conducted. The influence of publication bias on the pooling risk estimate was examined using a trim-and-fill analysis.Results15 studies that qualified for our study were identified. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) from both multivariate and univariate regression analysis showed a worse overall survival in GLIM-defined malnourished cancer patients than those in well-nourished status. Meanwhile, disease-free survival was also poorer in malnourished patients. Moreover, pooled odds ratio (OR) demonstrated that malnourished cancer patients were more likely to develop overall postoperative complications, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade IIa and complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa. Two articles reported negative relation between GLIM-defined malnutrition and 30-day readmission/mortality.ConclusionGLIM-defined malnutrition possesses value in predicting poorer survival and clinical outcomes for cancer patients.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321094], identifier [CRD42022321094].

No abstract