Several anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKIs) have demonstrated excellent efficacy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and also better adverse effect (AE) profiles compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in advanced stage anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted this systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide a ranking of ALKIs for treatment-naïve ALK-positive patients in terms of PFS, ORR, and AEs. In addition, a sub-group analysis of treatment benefits in patients with baseline brain metastasis was also conducted. Contrast-based analysis was performed for multiple treatment comparisons with the restricted maximum likelihood approach. Treatment rank was estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), as well as the probability of being the best (Prbest) reference. All next-generation ALKIs were superior to crizotinib in PFS but lorlatinib and brigatinib had increased AEs. The probability of lorlatinib being ranked first among all treatment arms was highest (SUCRA = 93.3%, Prbest = 71.8%), although there were no significant differences in pairwise comparisons with high- (600 mg twice daily) and low- (300 mg twice daily) dose alectinib. In subgroup analysis of patients with baseline brain metastasis, low-dose alectinib had the best PFS (SUCRA = 87.3%, Prbest = 74.9%). Lorlatinib was associated with the best ranking for ORR (SUCRA = 90.3%, Prbest = 71.3%), although there were no significant differences in pairwise comparisons with the other ALKIs. In addition, low-dose alectinib had the best safety performance (SUCRA = 99.4%, Prbest = 97.9%). Lorlatinib and low-dose alectinib had the best PFS and ORR in the overall population and baseline brain metastasis subgroup, respectively. Low-dose alectinib had the lowest AE risk among the available ALKIs. Further head-to-head large-scale phase III RCTs are needed to verify our conclusions.

Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have very poor prognoses, and pemetrexed plus platinum is the standard first-line therapy. However, the second-line therapy for relapsed MPM remains controversial. A comprehensive search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating various second-line regimens in patients with relapsed MPM. Indirect comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed using network meta-analysis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were used to rank the included treatments according to each outcome. Nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significantly longer OS than placebo (hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55–0.94 for nivolumab alone; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31–0.92 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab). The best SUCRA ranking for OS was identified for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (SUCRA: 90.8%). Tremelimumab, vorinostat, nivolumab alone, chemotherapy (CTX), asparagine–glycine–arginine–human tumor necrosis factor plus CTX, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab all produced noticeable PFS benefits compared with placebo. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the best PFS ranking (SUCRA: 92.3%). Second-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided the OS and PFS outcomes for patients with relapsed MPM.

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.

Various anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKIs) have been approved for first-line use in treating anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, no head-to-head comparison of these newer generation ALKIs has been made, and different efficacies of ALKIs may present across ethnicity. This study aims to compare newer generation ALKIs for treatment efficacy in Asian groups using network meta-analysis. Phase II/III trials that enrolled treatment-naïve Asian ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients treated by ALKIs were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) of each trial were extracted as indicators of drug efficacy. Surfaces under cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) were calculated as a numeric presentation of the overall ranking associated with each agent. After a systematic literature review, six phase III clinical trials were included. Our results showed that newer generation ALKIs, such as alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, all demonstrated superior efficacy to crizotinib. Among those, ensartinib exhibited the best overall SUCRA value and ranked first among all agents. According to our network meta-analysis, ensartinib may currently be the most effective first-line treatment for Asian patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. However, this conclusion needs further validation by a larger scale of clinical trials or posthoc analysis of Asian populations. Moreover, in our comparison, low-dose alectinib (300 mg twice daily) exhibited an efficacy profile similar to a higher dose regimen in Asian populations.

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.