In recent years, atezolizumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) has shown clinical efficacies against many different solid malignancies. In late October 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to atezolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. With the development of clinical trials, the applications of atezolizumab in lung cancer treatment have gradually expanded. In this review, we summarized the current clinical status of atezolizumab in the treatment of lung cancer.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (TAV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsA computer-based search in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their date of inception to March 2019 was conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data and evaluated their quality. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for meta-analysis.ResultsThe selected 15 cohort studies contained 45 770 patients, including 1 500 of BAV patients and 44 270 of TAV patients. The results showed that no statistical difference was found in postoperative in-hospital mortality [OR=1.29, 95%CI (0.91, 1.83), P=0.15], 30-day mortality [OR=1.23, 95%CI (0.86, 1.77), P=0.25], and 1-year mortality [OR=1.14, 95%CI (0.87, 1.50), P=0.33] between the two groups. The surgical success rate [OR=0.57, 95%CI (0.44, 0.74), P<0.01], postoperative bleeding events [OR=0.72, 95%CI (0.58, 0.91), P<0.01] and postoperative vascular injury [OR=0.68, 95%CI (0.47, 0.97), P=0.03] of patients in the BAV group were lower than those in the TAV group. The incidence of paravalvular leak in the BAV group was higher than that in the TAV group [OR=1.47, 95%CI (1.13, 1.90), P<0.01]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of conversion to surgery, postoperative myocardial infarction, postoperative renal failure, postoperative neurologic events, postoperative valve gradient difference and pacemaker implantation.ConclusionCompared with TAV, the application of TAVR in BAV patients is feasible and effective.
ObjectiveTo compare the complications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients ≥90 years and patients <90 years, and to explore the efficacy and safety of TAVR in AS patients ≥90 years.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) were searched by computer from inception to May 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the included studies. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 12 cohort studies were included, including60 186 patients (11 350 patients ≥90 years and 48 836 patients <90 years). Meta-analysis showed that compared with the patients <90 years, those ≥90 years had higher all-cause mortality in the hospital (OR=1.51, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.66, P<0.000 01),on postoperative 30 d (OR=1.68, 95%CI 1.50 to 1.89, P<0.000 01) and at postoperative 1 year (OR=1.36, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.48, P<0.000 01), and had higher incidence of stroke (OR=1.31, 95%CI 1.18 to 1.46, P<0.000 01), bleeding events (OR=1.14, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.20, P<0.000 01) and vascular complications (OR=1.31, 95%CI 1.18 to 1.46, P<0.000 01). ConclusionAll-cause mortality and the incidence of some complications after TAVR in AS patients ≥90 years are higher than those in patients <90 years, but this difference is clinically acceptable. Therefore, TAVR treatment is safe and effective for elderly patients.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical outcome of patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsElectronic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and CBM databases to identify studies about the new-onset LBBB after TAVR from inception to March 19, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 15.0 software.ResultsA total of 17 cohort studies were included, covering 9 205 patients, including 2 202 patients with new-onset LBBB and 7 003 without new-onset LBBB after TAVR. The results of meta-analysis showed that patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR at 30-day (RR=1.65, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.10, P<0.001) and 1-year (RR=1.30, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.45, P<0.001) all-cause mortality was higher than no new-onset LBBB group. One-year cardiovascular mortality was higher in the new-onset LBBB group (RR=1.47, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.79, P<0.001). In the occurrence of 30-day (RR=1.51, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.08, P=0.011) and 1-year (RR=1.34, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.58, P=0.001) rehospitalization rate, 30-day (RR=3.05, 95% CI 1.49 to 6.22, P=0.002) and 1-year (RR=2.15, 95%CI 1.52 to 3.03, P<0.001) pacemaker implantation, the incidence of patients with new-onset LBBB was higher than that of the no new-onset LBBB group.ConclusionCompared with the patients without LBBB after TAVR, the clinical prognosis of patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR is poor. In the future, the management and follow-up of the patients with LBBB after TAVR should be further strengthened to improve the prognosis of patients.
In recent years, CRO has developed rapidly in China, and has played an important role in improving the level of Chinese clinical trials and drug development. However, the development of CRO industry also has problems. This paper discusses the beneficial factors of the main problems and the future direction of CRO, in attempt to attract the attention of government supervision and management departments and CRO industries.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TFTAVR) under local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA). MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang and CBM were searched to collect randomized controlled trial and cohort studies on clinical outcomes of TFTAVR under LA and GA from inception to September 2020. Two authors independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies, and a meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0 software. ResultsA total of 30 studies involving 52 087 patients were included in this study. There were 18 719 patients in the LA group and 33 368 patients in the GA group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the in-hospital all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.65, 95%CI (0.45, 0.94), P=0.021], 30-day all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.73, 95%CI (0.62, 0.86), P＜0.001], 30-day stroke [RR=0.82, 95%CI (0.68, 0.98), P=0.025], cardiac arrest [RR=0.50, 95%CI (0.34, 0.73), P＜0.001], ICU stay time [RR=−6.86, 95%CI (−12.31, −1.42), P=0.013], and total hospital stay time [RR=−2.02, 95%CI (−2.59, −1.45), P＜0.001] in the LA group were all better than those in the GA group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital stroke [RR=0.83, 95%CI (0.69, 1.00), P=0.053], in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI) [RR=1.74, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.434], or 30-day MI [RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.42, 1.42), P=0.404] between the two groups. ConclusionLA provides a safe and effective way to induce sedation without intubation, and may be a good alternative to GA for TFTAVR.