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.

Background and objectives: The association between hypnotic drugs and risk of cancer remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate this association. Materials and Methods: Pubmed and Embase were searched systematically to identify publications up to April 2020. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of studies. All included studies were evaluated by two reviewers independently; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results: Twenty-eight studies including 22 case-control studies and 6 cohort studies with 340,614 hypnotics users and 1,828,057 non-users were included in the final analyses. Hypnotics (benzodiazepines and Z-drugs) use was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] or relative risk [RR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.26) in a random-effects meta-analysis of all studies. Subgroup meta-analysis by anxiolytics/sedatives effect (anxiolytics benzodiazepines vs. sedatives group (include sedatives benzodiazepines and Z-drugs)) revealed that a significant association in sedatives group (pooled OR/RR 1.26, 95% CI, 1.10-1.45), whereas no significant relationship was observed in anxiolytics benzodiazepines (pooled OR/RR 1.09, 95% CI, 0.95-1.26). Moreover, a significant dose-response relationship was observed between the use of hypnotics and the risk of cancer. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed association between use of hypnotics drugs and risk of cancer. However, the use of lower dose hypnotics and shorter duration exposed to hypnotics seemed to be not associated with an increased risk of cancer. Moreover, the use of anxiolytics effect benzodiazepines seemed to be lower risk than sedatives benzodiazepines. A high heterogeneity was observed among identified studies, and results were inconsistent in some subgroups. Randomized control trials are needed to confirm the findings in the future.

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.

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.

To assess the efficacy and safety of anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKIs) for the treatment of advanced-stage ALK rearrangement-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).