Introduction: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has shown favorable outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are on insulin therapy. However, the efficacy of CGM in managing glucose levels in noninsulin-treated people with T2D remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGM to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with T2D not using insulin. We computed weighted mean differences (WMDs) and standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I ² statistics. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.3. Results: We included six RCTs comprising 407 noninsulin-treated people with T2D of whom 228 were randomized to CGM. Diabetes duration ranged from 5.4 to 13.9 years. The mean age was 57.9 years and the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m ² . Four trials used real-time CGM (rt-CGM) and two intermittent scanning CGM (is-CGM). Compared with SMBG, CGM significantly reduced the glycated hemoglobin level (WMD −0.31%; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.21; I ² = 0%), glucose level (WMD −11.16 mg/dL; 95% CI −19.94 to −2.39; I ² = 0%), time in hypoglycemia level 2 (WMD −0.28%; 95% CI −0.52 to −0.03; I ² = 91%), glucose time >180 mg/dL (WMD −7.75%; 95% CI −12.04 to −3.45; I ² = 0%), and the standard deviation of glucose variation (WMD −4.00 mg/dL; 95% CI −6.86 to −1.14; I ² = 0%). CGM also increased time in range (WMD 8.63%; 95% CI 4.54–12.71; I ² = 0%) and treatment satisfaction (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.54–1.05; I ² = 0%). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, rt-CGM and is-CGM were associated with improvement in glycemic control in people with T2D not using insulin when compared to SMBG.

Background: Paclitaxel and carboplatin is the standard chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the benefit of adding programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to chemotherapy is still unclear. Method: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. We computed hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models for all endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. R, version 4.2.3, was used for statistical analyses. Results: A total of three studies and 1,431 patients were included. Compared with carboplatin plus paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, progression-free survival (PFS) rate (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.23–0.44; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) at 30 months (RR 3.13; 95% CI 1.26–7.78; p = 0.01) were significant in favor of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus carboplatin and paclitaxel group in the mismatch repair–deficient subgroup. However, there were no significant differences in the mismatch repair–proficient subgroup for PFS (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50–1.08; p = 0.117) or OS at 30 months (RR 2.24; 95% CI 0.79–6.39; p = 0.13). Conclusion: Immunotherapy plus carboplatin-paclitaxel increased significantly PFS and OS among patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, with a significant benefit in the mismatch repair–deficient and high microsatellite instability population.

Background: The benefit of adding Zolbetuximab to the treatment in patients with Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJ) is not yet fully elucidated. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for GC or GEJ adenocarcinoma. We computed hazard-ratios (HRs) or odds-ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three studies and 1,233 patients were included. Comparing with Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, progression-free survival (PFS) rate (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49–0.84; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.62–0.83; p < 0.01) were significant in favor of the Zolbetuximab group. Regarding effectiveness, the Objective Response Rate (ORR) was (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87–1.53; p = 0.34). Conclusions: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, the incorporation of Zolbetuximab alongside chemotherapy offers a promising prospect for reshaping the established treatment paradigms for patients diagnosed with advanced CLDN18.2-positive GC/GEJ cancer.

Patients with heart failure have high rehospitalisation rates and poor cardiovascular outcomes. Home-based monitoring (HBM) has emerged with promising results in different settings. However, its long-term effects on patients recently admitted for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) remain uncertain. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBM with usual care (UC) that were published between database inception and June 24, 2023. We included studies with patients admitted for ADHF in the previous 6 months and with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. We excluded studies with patients hospitalised for reasons other than ADHF and studies with disproportional education interventions between arms. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.2. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger’s test, and heterogeneity was assessed through I² statistics and sensitivity analysis. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42023465359). We included 16 RCTs comprising 4629 patients, of whom 2393 (51.7%) were randomised to HBM and 3150 (68%) were men. Follow-up ranged from six to fifteen months. As compared with UC, HBM significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61, 0.91; p = 0.005), all-cause hospitalisations (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70, 0.97; p = 0.018), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36, 0.79; p = 0.002), hospitalisations for heart failure (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.91; p = 0.004), and CV hospitalisations (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay (MD 0.97 days; 95% CI -0.90, 2.84; p = 0.308). In patients recently admitted with ADHF, HBM significantly reduces long-term all-cause mortality and hospitalisations, CV mortality and hospitalisations, and hospitalisations for heart failure, as compared with UC. This supports the implementation of HBM as a standard practice to optimise patient outcomes following admissions for ADHF. However, future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implementing HBM in the real-world setting. None.