Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) have a very short survival time even if they receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (EP). Several randomized controlled trials have shown that patients with ED-SCLC who received a combination of EP plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had superior survival compared with those who received EP alone. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide a ranking of ICIs for our primary endpoints in terms of overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR), as well as our secondary endpoint in terms of adverse events. The fractional polynomial model was used to evaluate the adjusted hazard ratios for the survival indicators (OS and PFS). Treatment rank was estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), as well as the probability of being best (Prbest) reference. EP plus nivolumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab had significant benefits compared with EP alone in terms of OS (Hazard Ratio HR = 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval CI = 0.46–0.98 for nivolumab, HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54–0.91 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.90 for durvalumab) but no significant differences were observed for pembrolizumab or ipilimumab. The probability of nivolumab being ranked first among all treatment arms was highest (SCURA = 78.7%, Prbest = 46.7%). All EP plus ICI combinations had a longer PFS compared with EP alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46–0.92 for nivolumab, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61–0.96 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65–0.94 for durvalumab, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61–0.92 for pembrolizumab), and nivolumab was ranked first in terms of PFS (SCURA = 85.0%, Prbest = 66.8%). In addition, nivolumab had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events (SUCRA = 84.8%) in our study. We found that nivolumab had the best PFS and OS in all combinations of ICIs and EP, but nivolumab also had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events in our network meta-analysis. Further head-to head large-scale phase III randomized controlled studies are needed to verify our conclusions.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is a feasible alternative treatment for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the modern era. Clinical trials have shown that it could lower the risk of bleeding complications without increased ischemic events as compared to standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, the efficacy and safety of this novel approach among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are controversial because they have a much higher risk for recurrent ischemic events. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this novel approach among patients with ACS. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with 12-month DAPT in ACS patients who underwent PCI with stent implantation. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other three websites were searched for data from the earliest report to July 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major or minor bleeding events. The secondary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of major bleeding and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 21,034 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The quantitative analysis showed a significant reduction in major or minor bleeding events in patients treated with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as compared with standard DAPT(OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.46–0.75, p < 0.0001) without increasing the risk of MACCE (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.86–1.13, p = 0.82). The NACE was favorable in the patients treated with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73–0.93, p = 0.002). Of note, the overall clinical benefit of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was quite different between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. The incidence of NACE was significantly lower in ticagrelor monotherapy as compared with DAPT (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68–0.91), but not in clopidogrel monotherapy (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.79–1.63). Both clopidogrel and ticagrelor monotherapy showed a similar reduction in bleeding complications (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.22–0.94; OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.44–0.83, respectively). Although statistically insignificant, the incidence of MACCE was numerically higher in clopidogrel monotherapy as compared with standard DAPT (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.99–2.28, p = 0.06). Based on these findings, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor would be a better choice of medical treatment for ACS patients after PCI with stent implantation in the current era.

Increasing evidence has shown P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is a feasible alternative treatment for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation in the modern era. However, patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a higher risk of ischemic events and more complex coronary artery disease. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this novel approach among patients with DM and those without DM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients who underwent PCI with stent implantation. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and three other websites were searched for our data from the earliest report to January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE): a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The primary safety outcome was major or minor bleeding events. The secondary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE) which are defined as a composite of major bleeding and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. A total of four randomized controlled trials with 29,136 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The quantitative analysis showed a significant reduction in major or minor bleeding events in patients treated with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared to standard DAPT (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46–0.99, p = 0.04) without increasing the risk of MACCE (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85–1.09, p = 0.50). The number of NACE was significantly lower in the patients treated with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.97, p = 0.019). In DM patients, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of MACCE compared to standard DAPT (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74–0.98, p = 0.02). Furthermore, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was accompanied by a favorable reduction in major or minor bleeding events (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64–1.05, p = 0.107). In non-DM patients, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy showed a significant reduction in major or minor bleeding events (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38–0.88, p = 0.01), but without increasing the risk of MACCE (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.82–1.19, p = 0.89). Based on these findings, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy could significantly decrease bleeding events without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis or myocardial infarction in the general population. The benefit of reducing bleeding events was much more significant in non-DM patients than in DM patients. Surprisingly, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy could lower the risk of MACCE in DM patients. Our study supports that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is a promising alternative choice of medical treatment for patients with DM undergoing PCI with stent implantation in the modern era.

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor susceptible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and are treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) show longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those treated with chemotherapy. However, developed EGFR-TKI resistance limits PFS improvements. Currently, combination treatment with EGFR-TKIs and anti-angiogenic agents is considered a beneficial regimen for advanced-stage NSCLC harboring susceptible EGFR mutations. However, several trials reported osimertinib plus bevacizumab failed to show superior efficacy over osimertinib alone. However, subgroup analysis showed significantly longer PFS among patients with a history of smoking over those who never smoked. We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the smoking status impact. At the end of the process, a total of 2068 patients from 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, combination EGFR-TKI plus anti-angiogenic agent treatment showed significantly better PFS among patients with a smoking history (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.48–0.73). Erlotinib-based combination therapy showed positive PFS benefits regardless of smoking status (HR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.41–0.71 for ever smoker, HR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.54–0.87 for never smoker). Combination therapy prolonged PFS significantly regardless of ethnicity (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44–0.93 for Asian RCTs, HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41–0.74 for global and non-Asian RCTs). PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022304198).