Objective: The effect of oil pulling on oral health has not yet been fully demonstrated. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of oil pulling on oral health. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the EMBASE database, limiting the search to human patients and articles written in English and published before 31 July 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oil pulling on improving dental health and oral hygiene. The outcomes of this study were salivary bacteria count, plaque index, and gingival index. Results: In total, nine RCTs were included in this study. The study showed that salivary bacterial colony (BC) counts were significantly reduced in the oil pulling group compared to the control group [mean difference (MD): 17.55, 95% CI 2.56, 32.55]. There was no significant difference between the two groups (MD: −0.10, 95% CI −0.33, 0.14; −0.05, 95% CI −0.12, 0.02) in plaque index and gingival index score. Conclusions: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, the oil pulling may have a beneficial effect on reducing salivary BC count compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the plaque index and gingival index score between the oil pulling and the control group. Therefore, future clinical trials should be more rigorous and better reported.

Background and objectives: The association between hypnotic drugs and risk of cancer remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate this association. Materials and Methods: Pubmed and Embase were searched systematically to identify publications up to April 2020. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of studies. All included studies were evaluated by two reviewers independently; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results: Twenty-eight studies including 22 case-control studies and 6 cohort studies with 340,614 hypnotics users and 1,828,057 non-users were included in the final analyses. Hypnotics (benzodiazepines and Z-drugs) use was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] or relative risk [RR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.09–1.26) in a random-effects meta-analysis of all studies. Subgroup meta-analysis by anxiolytics/sedatives effect (anxiolytics benzodiazepines vs. sedatives group (include sedatives benzodiazepines and Z-drugs)) revealed that a significant association in sedatives group (pooled OR/RR 1.26, 95% CI, 1.10–1.45), whereas no significant relationship was observed in anxiolytics benzodiazepines (pooled OR/RR 1.09, 95% CI, 0.95–1.26). Moreover, a significant dose–response relationship was observed between the use of hypnotics and the risk of cancer. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed association between use of hypnotics drugs and risk of cancer. However, the use of lower dose hypnotics and shorter duration exposed to hypnotics seemed to be not associated with an increased risk of cancer. Moreover, the use of anxiolytics effect benzodiazepines seemed to be lower risk than sedatives benzodiazepines. A high heterogeneity was observed among identified studies, and results were inconsistent in some subgroups. Randomized control trials are needed to confirm the findings in the future.

Background: The KRAS G12C mutation, prevalent in various malignancies, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), represents a unique therapeutic target. Adagrasib and sotorasib, two FDA-approved agents specifically targeting this mutation, have shown promise in clinical trials. This study aims to compare their efficacy in treating KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC, drawing insights from pivotal clinical trials. Methods: We analyzed data from three key clinical trials: KRYSTAL-1, CodeBreak100, and CodeBreak200. Our methodology involved reconstructing individual patient data from published Kaplan–Meier curves using the IPDfromKM tool (Version 0.1.10). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), evaluated through hazard ratios (HRs) and the restricted mean survival time (RMST) method. Results: The HR for PFS favored adagrasib (HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.69, 1.19], p = 0.473), suggesting a non-significant trend toward better disease control compared to sotorasib. For OS, the HR was 0.99 [95% CI: 0.75, 1.33] (p = 0.969), indicating no significant difference between the two drugs. RMST analysis supported these findings, with adagrasib showing a consistently higher RMST in PFS at 6, 12, and 18 months. However, OS benefits converged over time, with adagrasib marginally surpassing sotorasib by the 18-month mark. Conclusions: This comprehensive analysis reveals that while adagrasib may offer a slight advantage in PFS, both drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in OS for KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The subtle differences observed, particularly in PFS, could inform clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment strategies. Future research should focus on long-term effects and identifying patient subgroups that may benefit more from one drug over the other.

Background: Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (hereinafter, atezolizumab–bevacizumab) is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC, the optimal second-line regimen remains unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with advanced HCC that progressed under atezolizumab–bevacizumab treatment. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published before November 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), comparing patients who received sorafenib versus lenvatinib. Results: Seven studies involving 387 patients were included. The pooled ORR, DCR, OS, and PFS for sorafenib and lenvatinib together were 26% (95% CI: 14–43%), 63% (95% CI: 47–77%), 11.45 months (95% CI: 7.12–15.77, I² = 92%, p < 0.01), and 3.78 months (95% CI: 2.34–5.23, I² = 67%, p = 0.02), respectively. Although lenvatinib users had a longer median OS (12.42 vs. 10.75 months) and PFS (5.15 vs. 2.58 months) than sorafenib users, the pooled ORR, DCR, median OS, and PFS for these medications were comparable. Additionally, the distributions of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 adverse events for sorafenib and lenvatinib were comparable to those for these two medications when used as first-line therapies. Conclusions: Sorafenib or lenvatinib can provide effective treatment with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC after disease progression under atezolizumab–bevacizumab.