Search

We appreciate the interest in our article entitled "Real-world effectiveness of Azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study." They further praised the benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients and demonstrated their results supporting a faster time to nucleic acid-negative conversion compared to patients receiving Azvudine. Nevertheless, it was not necessary for our study, which aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical effectiveness (composite outcomes and mortality).[3] Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 patients as early as possible, but these drugs were not strictly used according to the instructions during the special period. [Extracted from the article]

The introduction of immunotherapy‐based strategies has significantly improved the prognosis for melanoma patients. Nevertheless, some patients still have dismal outcomes, emphasizing the significance of survival predictive indicators in immunotherapy‐based approaches. We systematically searched randomized controlled clinical trials investigating dual immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy versus placebo or mono‐immunotherapy or chemotherapy alone in advanced melanoma patients. R version 4.3.0. was employed to perform all analyses. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on a total of 13,809 patients with advanced melanoma from 19 randomized clinical trials. Immunotherapy‐based strategies (alone or in combination) could significantly lengthen the overall survival(OS) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS) compared with corresponding controls. Mono‐immunotherapy improved RFS and OS in PD‐L1 positive patients, in stage AJCC IIIC, and with 4 or more positive lymph nodes, compared with chemotherapy. Combined immunotherapy statistically improved RFS and OS in those aged < 65, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 0, and LDH ≤ ULN at baseline compared with single treatment alone. Our findings indicated that certain clinicopathological and molecular features could assist in choosing appropriate melanoma patients for immune‐based treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Regulated cell death (RCD) is a critical physiological process essential in maintaining skin homeostasis. Among the various forms of RCD, ferroptosis stands out due to its distinct features of iron accumulation, lipid peroxidation, and involvement of various inhibitory antioxidant systems. In recent years, an expanding body of research has solidly linked ferroptosis to the emergence of skin disorders. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms underlying ferroptosis in skin diseases is crucial for advancing therapy and prevention strategies. This review commences with a succinct elucidation of the mechanisms that underpin ferroptosis, embarks on a thorough exploration of ferroptosis's role across a spectrum of skin conditions, encompassing melanoma, psoriasis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), vitiligo, and dermatological ailments precipitated by ultraviolet (UV) exposure, and scrutinizes the potential therapeutic benefits of pharmacological interventions aimed at modulating ferroptosis for the amelioration of skin diseases., (Copyright © 2024 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.)

Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) agonists have been approved by Food and Drug Administration for management of obesity. However, the causal relationship of GLP1R agonists (GLP1RA) with cancers still unclear., Methods: The available cis-eQTLs for drugs target genes (GLP1R) were used as proxies for exposure to GLP1RA. Mendelian randomizations (MR) were performed to reveal the association of genetically-proxied GLP1RA with 14 common types cancer from large-scale consortia. Type 2 diabetes was used as positive control, and the GWASs data including 80 154 cases and 853 816 controls. Replicating the findings in the FinnGen study and then pooled with meta-analysis. Finally, all the related randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on GLP1RA were systematically searched from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to comprehensively synthesize the evidence to validate any possible association with cancers., Result: A total of 22 significant cis-eQTL single-nucleotide polymorphisms were included as genetic instrument. The association of genetically-proxied GLP1RA with significantly decreased type 2 diabetes risk [OR (95%)=0.82 (0.79-0.86), P <0.001], which ensuring the effectiveness of identified genetic instruments. The authors found favorable evidence to support the association of GLP1RA with reduced breast cancer and basal cell carcinoma risk [0.92 (0.88-0.96), P <0.001, 0.92 (0.85-0.99), P =0.029, respectively], and with increased colorectal cancer risk [1.12 (1.07-1.18), P <0.001]. In addition, there was no suggestive evidence to support the association of GLP1RA with ovarian cancer [0.99 (0.90-1.09), P =0.827], lung cancer [1.01 (0.93-1.10), P =0760], and thyroid cancer [0.83 (0.63-1.10), P =0.187]. Our findings were consistent with the meta-analysis. Finally, 80 RCTs were included in the systematic review, with a low incidence of different kinds of cancer., Conclusions: Our study suggests that GLP1RA may decrease the risk of breast cancer and basal cell carcinoma, but increase the risk of colorectal cancer. However, according to the systematic review of RCTs, the incidence of cancer in patients treated with GLP1RA is low. Larger sample sizes of RCTs with long-term follow-up are necessary to establish the incidence of cancers and evaluate the risk-benefit ratios., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) have a poor prognosis, and few appropriate medications are available. Tebentafusp is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for mUM recently. However, the real efficacy and safety of tebentafusp are still unclear. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 20, 2024. The research was reported based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. We used random effects models to aggregate data on the response rates and adverse events of tebentafusp therapy. Six studies met the inclusion criteria with a total sample of 589 participants. The pooled objective response rate was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.05-0.12), and pooled disease control rate was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.44-0.57). The overall incidence was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95-1.00) for any grade adverse events, 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41-0.59) for grade 3-4 adverse events, and 0.01 (95% CI: 0-0.03) for discontinuation due to adverse events. Tebentafusp exhibits promising treatment outcomes for mUM patients. Although accompanied with a common occurrence of adverse events, which can typically be managed and controlled. Future research is necessary for substantiating these findings and refining guidelines for management of mUM.

Competing Interests: All authors report no conflict interest relevant to this article.

Introduction: The ongoing worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) has posed a huge threat to global public health. However, the issue as to whether routine blood tests could be used to monitor and predict the severity and prognosis of COVID‑19 has not been comprehensively investigated so far., Objectives: This study aimed to provide an overview of the association of markers in the routine blood test with the severity of COVID‑19., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched to identify studies reporting data on markers in the routine blood test and the severity of COVID‑19, published until March 20, 2020. The STATA software was used for meta‑analysis., Results: A total of 15 studies with 3090 patients with COVID‑19 were included in this analysis. Patients in the nonsevere group, compared with those in the severe group, had lower counts of white blood cells (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.85 [×109/l]; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.16; P = 0.02) and neutrophils (WMD, -1.57 [×109/l]; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.54; P = 0.003), greater counts of lymphocytes (WMD, 0.29 [×109/l]; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P <0.001) and platelets (WMD, 19.05 [×109/l]; 95% CI, 3.04-35.06; P = 0.02), and a lower neutrophil‑to‑lymphocyte (NLR) ratio (WMD, -2.48; 95% CI, -3.81 to -1.15; P <0.001). There was no difference in the monocyte count (WMD, 0.01 [×109/l]; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = 0.029) between these 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis and meta‑analysis based on standard mean difference did not change the conclusions regarding neutrophils, lymphocytes, and NLR, but yielded inconsistent results for white blood cells and platelets., Conclusions: Severe patients had more neutrophils, higher NLR level, and fewer lymphocytes than non-severe patients with COVID-19. Measurement of these markers might assist clinicians to monitor and predict the severity and prognosis of COVID-19.