Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a condition, in which women develop high blood sugar levels during pregnancy without having diabetes. Evidence on the effects of probiotics on the blood glucose levels of women with GDM is inconsistent. Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the effects of probiotics on the blood glucose levels of pregnant women. Methods: Online databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before July 2018. Trials had to meet the inclusion criteria of our study. Methodological quality and risk bias were independently assessed by two reviewers. Data were pooled using a random effects model and were expressed as the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated and quantified as I². Results: In total, 12 RCTs were included in this study. Studies have shown that the use of probiotics significantly reduced the fasting blood glucose (FBG) level (MD: −0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.19, −0.02), insulin concentration (MD: −2.24 μIU/mL; 95% CI: −3.69, −0.79), Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) score (MD: −0.47; 95% CI: −0.74, −0.21), and Homeostasis model of assessment-estimated β cell function (HOMA-B) score (MD: −20.23; 95% CI: −31.98, −8.49) of pregnant women. In a subgroup analysis, whether the blood glucose-lowering effect of probiotics influenced the diagnosis of pregnant women with GDM was assessed. The results showed that probiotics had significantly reduced the fasting blood glucose (FBG) level (MD: −0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.17, −0.04) and HOMA-IR score (MD: −0.37; 95% CI: −0.72, −0.02) of pregnant women who were not diagnosed with GDM. Conclusion: Probiotics reduce the blood glucose level of pregnant women, especially without GDM diagnosis. However, further research using RCTs must be conducted to validate the results of the present study.

Objective: Currently, several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been investigated; their overall efficacy and safety remain unclear.Methods: We searched electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ICIs with or without chemotherapy to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. We collected and compaired thier parameters, including overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) of grade ≥3.Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 8869 patients with NSCLC were included. Pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy had higher OS and PFS than platinum‐based chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.46–0.67; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41–0.70, respectively). Pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy had higher ranked ORR than platinum‐based chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2.92, 95% CI 1.99–4.22). In terms of OS, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab ranked as the best treatments for patients with programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) expression levels of ≥50%, 1–49%, and <1%, respectively. In terms of PFS, pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy ranked as the best treatment for patients with any PD‐L1 expression levels. However, ipilimumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy, nivolumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy have higher TRAEs of grade ≥3 than platinum‐based chemotherapy.Conclusions: Pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy prevailed in rank in OS, PFS, and ORR benefit. The TRAEs of pembrolizumab plus platinum‐based chemotherapy were more than ICI monotherapy and chemotherapy.

Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is a common side effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with cancers. The prevention or treatment of OM in cancer patients is crucial in the treatment of cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the randomized control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing and treating OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The prespecified primary efficacy outcome was the treatment effect of moderate to severe oral mucositis with 12 interventions. The outcome was moderate to a severe grade of OM. Results: This study included 55 RCTs with 3,552 participants. The results showed that honey significantly lowered the risk of chemo/radiotherapy-induced moderate to severe oral mucositis than placebo (OR: 0.01, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.45), followed by lignocaine (OR: 0.07, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.95). The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for honey were 0.95, followed by lignocaine (SUCRA, 0.81) and benzydamine (SUCRA, 0.78). Conclusions: The honey is effective for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

Background This meta‐analysis systematically evaluated the efficacy of PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors for the treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and investigated the efficacy of first‐line therapy and PD‐1 versus PD‐L1 inhibitors. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched up to November 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for eligible studies. The outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). The methodology was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Data were pooled by using the random effects model and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (I ²). Results Seven RCTs were included in this study. PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors achieved superior OS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63–0.82; P < 0.0001). OS was superior in previously treated patients compared to untreated patients (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63–0.76; HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47–1.44, respectively). No significant differences in OS were observed between PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.86; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63–0.84, respectively). Conclusions PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors significantly prolonged the OS of previously treated patients. No significant differences in OS were observed between PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors.

Several case reports and retrospective studies have indicated that carbapenems decrease the serum concentration of valproic acid (VPA), thus decreasing its therapeutic activity. This study evaluates a potential drug interaction between VPA and carbapenems in a regional hospital. This retrospective observational study was performed over a 14-month period from January 2010 to February 2011. Patients concurrently receiving VPA and carbapenems who had at least two serially measured concentrations of serum VPA prior to, during, or after this combined treatment were included. Patients whose serum samples for VPA were drawn within 2 hours after VPA administration who had severe liver impairment or who received other drugs that could potentially interact with VPA were excluded from the study. The serum levels and therapeutic activities of VPA during coadministration of carbapenems were recorded and evaluated. Nine VPA-treated patients were identified who concomitantly received meropenem (n = 5), ertapenem (n = 3), or imipenem (n = 1). Mean serum VPA trough levels during combined treatment decreased by 76.3% (from 55.6 ± 22.9 μg/mL to 13.2 ± 6.1 μg/mL) from values before carbapenem treatment. However, only one patient experienced seizures after a combination of VPA and carbapenems. The coadministration of VPA and carbapenems resulted in decreased trough concentrations of VPA. Clinicians should be aware of this potential interaction and closely monitor serum VPA levels and possible failure to control seizures with the concomitant use of carbapenems