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.

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.

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.