It remains controversial whether tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonism is effective for asthma. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy of TNF-α antagonism in treatment of patients with asthma. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL databases were searched for English-language studies published through January 3, 2010. Randomized-controlled trials comparing TNF-α antagonism with control therapy were selected. For each report, data were extracted in relation to the outcomes analyzed: asthma exacerbation, asthma quality of life questionnaire scores, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Four assessable trials were identified including 641 patients with asthma. TNF-α antagonism therapy was superior to control therapy in preventing exacerbations in asthmatics [pooled odds ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.88), P=0.02]; however, there was a nonsignificant reduction in asthma quality of life questionnaire scores [0.23 (0 to 0.47), P=0.05], forced expiratory volume in 1 second [0.03, (-0.14 to 0.10), P=0.74] when analyzed using standardized mean differences. TNF-α antagonism was superior to control chemotherapy in terms of asthma exacerbation, but not asthma quality of life questionnaire scores or forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

Objective To evaluate the effect of clinical pathway in pulmonary thrombus embolism (PTE) .Methods 60 cases of PTE were admitted department of respiratory from 2011 to 2012 and divided into the experimental group and the control group ,30 cases for each group .The control group was implemented with normal process of hospital management while experimental group de-veloped clinical pathways .The efficacy ,department of respiratory drug costs ,complications and patient satisfaction were recorded and computed .Results The average department of respiratory and drug costs in experimental group respectively was (17 .13 ± 2 .22)days ,(16 545 .04 ± 1 557 .44) RMB and (7 050 .83 ± 372 .74) RMB ;less than (19 .77 ± 3 .41)day ,(17 709 .45 ± 1 902 .05) RMB and (7 345 .75 ± 450 .82) RMB in control group ,there were significant difference between the two groups (P<0 .05) .The satisfaction scores of experimental group and the control group respectively were (93 .47 ± 3 .88)sores and (90 .90 ± 5 .30)scores , there was significant difference between the two groups (P<0 .05) .The therapeutic effect and complication rates between experi-mental group and control group were no significant difference (P>0 .05) .Conclusion The effect of clinical pathway in PTE have a positive role in reducing hospitalization time ,total costs ,drug costs and increasing satisfaction ,it is worth to develop in primary hos-pital .

It remains controversial whether tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonism is effective for asthma.This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy of TNF-α antagonism in treatment of patients with asthma.MEDLINE,EMBASE,LILACS,and CINAHL databases were searched for English-language studies published through January 3,2010.Randomized-controlled trials comparing TNF-α antagonism with control therapy were selected.For each report,data were extracted in relation to the outcomes analyzed:asthma exacerbation,asthma quality of life questionnaire scores,and forced expiratory volume in 1 second.Four assessable trials were identified including 641 patients with asthma.TNF-α antagonism therapy was superior to control therapy in preventing exacerbations in asthmatics [pooled odds ratio 0.52 (95％ confidence interval 0.29-0.88),P=0.02]; however,there was a nonsignificant reduction in asthma quality of life questionnaire scores [0.23 (0 to 0.47),P=0.05],forced expiratory volume in 1 second [0.03,(-0.14 to 0.10),P=0.74] when analyzed using standardized mean differences.TNF-α antagonism was superior to control chemotherapy in terms of asthma exacerbation,but not asthma quality of life questionnaire scores or forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. Patients with NSCLC have achieved great survival benefits from immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoints. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are frequently used for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms, as supportive care for non-cancer-associated symptoms, and for management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The aim of this study was to clarify the safety and prognostic significance of glucocorticoid use in advanced patients with NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: The study searched publications from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database up to March 1st, 2022, and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of glucocorticoid use on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs through the available data. The study calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: This study included data from 25 literatures that were mainly retrospective, with 8713 patients included. Patients taking GCs had a higher risk for tumor progression and death compared with those not taking GCs (PFS: HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.33-1.86, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.41-1.88, P <0.001). GCs used for cancer-associated symptoms caused an obviously negative effect on both PFS and OS (PFS: HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.32-2.29, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.52-2.04, P <0.001). However, GCs used for irAEs management did not negatively affect prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1.00, P = 0.050; OS: HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.83, P = 0.005), and GCs used for non-cancer-associated indications had no effect on prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.63-1.32, P = 0.640; OS: HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.59-1.41, P = 0.680). CONCLUSIONS In advanced NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms may result in a worse PFS and OS, indicating that they increase the risk of tumor progression and death. But, in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for the management of irAEs may be safe, and the use of GCs for the treatment of non-cancer-associated symptoms may not affect the ICIs' survival benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful and evaluate indications rationally before administering GCs in individualized clinical management.
Humans ; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy* ; Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use* ; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use* ; Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Retrospective Studies