Programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have demonstrated varying effectiveness in treating esophageal or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment in patients with esophageal or G/GEJ cancer by analyzing the types of medications. Randomized controlled trials comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 to control therapy were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) rates, and serious adverse events (SAEs), evaluating the differences in therapy types, including a comparison between PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. Eight studies were included in the analysis. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors affected the overall OS rate increment without influencing the PFS rate (HR, 0.837; 95% CI, 0.753–0.929; p = 0.001; HR 0.991; 95% CI, 0.778–1.263; p = 0.942, respectively). Anti-PD-1 was significantly more beneficial for increasing OS and PFS than PD-L1 inhibitors. Anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 use was not significantly associated with SAE development in esophageal or G/GEJ cancer patients. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use was associated with improved OS and PFS rate increase among PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. Considering response variations to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 usage, more individualized treatments should be introduced in clinical practice.

To investigate the effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists on glycemic variability (GV), the mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE), mean blood glucose (MBG) levels, and percentage of time maintaining euglycemia were evaluated. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists for treating people with diabetes were selected through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases. Sixteen studies were finally analyzed. There were no differences in the reductions in MAGE after treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists (standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.59, 95% CI = −0.82 to −0.36 vs. SMD = −0.43, 95% CI = −0.51 to −0.35, respectively), and treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors was associated with an increased reduction in MBG levels (SMD = −0.56, 95% CI = −0.65 to −0.48, p < 0.00001). Monotherapy and add-on therapy with medications were correlated with MAGE and MBG level reductions. In conclusion, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists were associated with a reduction in GV and could be alternatives for treating people with diabetes.

This study aimed to identify the development of hepatitis B or C infection in diabetes patients compared to those without and to elucidate factors associated with the prevalence of hepatitis B or C infection in diabetes. We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013–2018. As evaluation factors, we included variables such as age, race, illicit drug use, and poverty. The diabetic group had a significantly higher prevalence of hepatitis B or C infection than the non-diabetic group (odds ratio (OR) = 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36–2.21, p < 0.01). In multivariate Cox regression, non-poverty and non-illicit drug use were lower risk factors contributing to hepatitis development in diabetes (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79, p < 0.01, and HR = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03–0.08, p < 0.01, respectively). Logistic regression also showed that these factors were significant contributors to hepatitis development in the diabetic group (p < 0.01). In patients with diabetes, the development of hepatitis was higher than that in those without, and hepatitis development was influenced by poverty and illicit drug use. This may provide supporting evidence of response strategies for diabetes to care for hepatitis development in advance.

This study aimed to assess the trend in oncology trial commencements registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and to evaluate the contributing factors by comparing the trends in the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic era. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched to identify oncology study trials starting from 1 January 2018 to 28 February 2021. Data on the variables of start/complete date, phase, status, funding source, center, country and study type were extracted. According to the time point of the COVID-19 pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization (WHO), March 2020, we analyzed the extracted data, including interrupted time series (ITS) analysis and multivariable regression analysis. We identified 18,561 new oncology trials during the study period. A total of 5678 oncology trials in the prepandemic period and 6134 in the postpandemic period were included in the comparative analysis. The year 2020 had the most newly launched trials (32.3%), and the majority of trials were planned to be conducted for longer than two years (70.3%). The results of ITS show the trend in the commencement of oncology trials was significantly increased after the pandemic declaration (coefficient = 27.99; 95% CI = 19.27 to 36.71). Drug intervention trials were the largest contributor to the increased trial number compared to different interventions, such as trials of devices or procedures (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.26, OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.29, and OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.31, respectively), whereas the United Kingdom was the highest contributor to the number of decreased trials (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.89 p = 0.01) in the postpandemic era. The interruption in oncology trial initiation was diminished shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic declaration, which was influenced by several factors, such as interventions or national responses. Based on the current outcomes, appropriate strategies for developing oncology trials can be planned to mitigate the impact of future crises on oncology trials.

It is important to find effective and safe pharmacological options for managing cluster headache (CH) because there is limited evidence from studies supporting the general efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in patients with CH. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for CH. Efficacy outcomes included frequency and duration of attacks, pain-free rate, and the use of rescue agents. Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients who experienced adverse events. A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. The frequency of attacks was reduced (mean difference (MD) = −1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.62 to −0.47; p = 0.0004), and the pain-free rate was increased (odds ratio (OR) = 3.89, 95% CI = 2.76–5.48; p < 0.00001) in the pharmacological treatment group, with a lower frequency of rescue agent use than the placebo group. Preventive, acute, and triptan or non-triptan therapies did not show significant differences in efficacy (p > 0.05). In the NMA, different results were shown among the interventions; for example, zolmitriptan 5 mg was more effective than zolmitriptan 10 mg in the pain-free outcome (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.19–0.82; p < 0.05). Pharmacological treatment was shown to be more effective than placebo to manage CH with differences among types of therapies and individual interventions, and it was consistently shown to be associated with the development of adverse events. Thus, individualized therapy approaches should be applied to treat CH in real-world practice.