METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Ara h 2.02 cDNA was cloned into pNZ8048 for heterologous expression in L. lactis. The purified recombinant allergen showed IgE binding comparable with native Ara h 2. Balb/c mice were fed with either recombinant (rLl), nonrecombinant L. lactis (Ll) or NaHCO3 (Sham) prior to sensitization and challenged with rAra h 2.02, whereas the baseline group was only fed with Ll. Allergen-specific immunoglobulin and splenocyte cytokines responses were determined for each mouse. Mice fed with either Ll or rLl showed significant alleviation of IgE and IgG1 compared to the Sham group. Despite no significant decrease in Th2 (IL-4, IL-13, IL-6) or increase in Th1 (IFN-γ) cytokines, both groups showed lower IL-10 level, while the IL-4 : IFN-γ ratio was significantly lower for rLl compared to Ll group.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of rLl harbouring Ara h 2.02 demonstrated alleviation of Th2-associated responses in allergen-challenged mice and a possible added allergen-specific prophylactic effect.
SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Ara h 2.02 coupled with the intrinsic properties of probiotic L. lactis as a delivery vehicle can be explored for the development of a commercially scalable vaccine.
METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials up to March 2016. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality and rated the quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 655 participants were included. Evidence of low to moderate-quality showed that cordyceps plus conventional treatment compared to conventional treatment alone significantly improved C-reactive protein [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.61; 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.00 to -0.22], high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.44 mg/L; 95% CI -3.89 to -2.99], serum albumin (WMD 3.07 g/L; 95% CI 1.59 to 4.55), malondialdehyde (WMD -1.95 nmol/L; 95% CI -2.24 to -1.66), and hemoglobin (WMD 9.56 g/L; 95% CI 3.65 to 15.47) levels. However, there was no significant improvement for serum creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Overall, most trials either did not monitor adverse events or poorly documented them.
CONCLUSION: Given the small number of trials included, the unclear methodological quality of the included trials, and the high heterogeneity in pooled analyses, the evidence obtained in this review is insufficient to recommend the use of cordyceps as adjunctive treatment in hemodialysis patients.