Objective: In recent years, the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) or combination therapies have been recommended as an alternative emerging choice of treatment for oncology patients. However, the efficacy and adverse events of different combination strategies for the treatment of tumors remain controversial. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medicine Oncology (ESMO) were searched from database inception until 16 February 2022. The endpoints of objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed from different treatment schemes and tumor types. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328927). Results: This meta-analysis included forty-eight eligible studies. Combination therapy has improved ORR (RR = 1.40, p < 0.001), DCR (RR = 1.22, p < 0.001), and PFS (the median survival ratio (MSR) was estimated to be 1.475 p < 0.001) compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 but had no significant benefit on OS (MSR was estimated to be 1.086 p = 0.117). Besides, combination treatment strategies are more toxic in any grade AEs (RR = 1.13, p < 0.001) and grade 3–5 AEs (RR = 1.81, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with other antitumor therapies improve patients’ ORR, DCR, and PFS compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1. However, it is regrettable that there is no benefit to OS and an increased risk of AEs in combinatorial therapies.
No abstract
COVID-19 has emerged as a global pandemic, challenging the world’s economic and health systems. Human oral microbiota comprises the second largest microbial community after the gut microbiota and is closely related to respiratory tract infections; however, oral microbiomes of patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have not yet been thoroughly studied. Herein, we compared the oral bacterial and fungal microbiota after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in 23 COVID-19 recovered patients to those of 29 healthy individuals. Our results showed that both bacterial and fungal diversity were nearly normalized in recovered patients. The relative abundance of some specific bacteria and fungi, primarily opportunistic pathogens, decreased in recovered patients (RPs), while the abundance of butyrate-producing organisms increased in these patients. Moreover, these differences were still present for some organisms at 12 months after recovery, indicating the need for long-term monitoring of COVID-19 patients after virus clearance.
Background. Cancers of digestive system have high case-fatality rate. It is important to find more appropriate methods in diagnosing and predicting gastrointestinal malignances. And thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2) was reported to have the functions, although results were not identical. So we performed this meta-analysis to clarify the significance of TSP-2 in this area. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies. Data were extracted from these involved records. For the meta-analysis of diagnostic test, bivariate mixed effect model was used to estimate diagnostic accuracy. For prognosis part, HRs and their 95% CIs were pooled to compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients with high TSP-2 and low TSP-2. Results. Nine records were eligible for the analysis of diagnostic test. Pooled results were as follows: sensitivity 0.60 (0.52, 0.68), specificity 0.96 (0.91, 0.98), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 15.4 (7.3, 32.2), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.42 (0.34, 0.50), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 37 (18, 76). While in prognosis part, 10 articles were included. Patients with increased TSP-2 had shorter OS ( HR = 1.64 , 95% CI = 1.21 -2.22); however, no difference was found in DFS between TSP-2 high and low groups ( HR = 1.44 , 95% CI = 0.28 -7.33). Conclusions. TSP-2, as a diagnostic marker, has a high specificity but a moderate sensitivity. Meanwhile, it plays a role in predicting OS. Therefore, making TSP-2 a routine assay could be beneficial to high-risk individuals and patients with digestive malignances.
Objectives. There are no detailed reports on the long-term outcome of patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) compared with entecavir (ENT) following liver transplantation. We aimed to assess the association between TDF use and long-term outcome compared to recipients using ENT. Methods. This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent liver transplantation between January 2015 and May 2019 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine and Hangzhou Shulan Hospital. Cox regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to assess HBV recurrence, renal dysfunction, and patient survival in liver transplant patients treated with TDF compared with ENT. Results. A total of 907 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis, among which, there were 109 (12.0%) patients treated with TDF and 798 (88.0%) patients treated with ENT. During the follow-up period, 166 patients died, 15 (13.8%) in the TDF group, and 151 (18.9%) in the ENT group. No significant association was found between TDF or ENT use and patient survival (HR, 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.23; P = 0.226 ) by PSM analysis. Similarly, differences in the antiviral agents were not significantly associated with hepatitis B recurrence (HR, 1.19, 95% CI 0.62-2.28; P = 0.603 ), but TDF use was significantly related to renal dysfunction after liver transplantation (HR 1.70, 95% CI, 1.21-2.37; P = 0.002 ). Similar results were obtained in subsequent sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. In this study, the results showed that the use of TDF after liver transplantation is as safe and effective as the use of ENT in preventing hepatitis B recurrence. However, renal function in recipients treated with TDF requires careful monitoring.
COVID-19 has emerged as a global pandemic, challenging the world’s economic and health systems. Human oral microbiota comprises the second largest microbial community after the gut microbiota and is closely related to respiratory tract infections; however, oral microbiomes of patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have not yet been thoroughly studied. Herein, we compared the oral bacterial and fungal microbiota after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in 23 COVID-19 recovered patients to those of 29 healthy individuals. Our results showed that both bacterial and fungal diversity were nearly normalized in recovered patients. However, the relative abundance of some specific bacteria and fungi, primarily opportunistic pathogens, decreased in recovered patients (RPs), while the abundance of butyrate-producing organisms increased in these patients. Moreover, these differences were still present for some organisms at 12 months after recovery, indicating the need for long-term monitoring of COVID-19 patients after virus clearance.
The morphology and morphogenesis of viruses of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) were studied by thin-section electron microscopy. Ten strains of HFRS virus isolated in China and one strain isolated in Korea were compared. The virions varied in size as well as in the shape and character of their inner components. Both intracellular and extracellular ribosome-like, electron-dense, virus-associated granules were seen. A viral antigen layer was often visualized on the surface of HFRS virus-infected cells, as confirmed by immune electron microscopy. Aberrant tailed particles and elongated rod-like particles were seen infrequently. The morphogenesis of HFRS viruses appears to be more complex than that of other members of the family Bunyaviridae. The prototype Hantaan virus shares a common morphology and morphogenesis with the other HFRS viruses studied.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.