Connor Prosty

Importance: To date, no meta-analyses have comprehensively assessed the association of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized and nonrandomized settings. In addition, there exists controversy concerning the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with NSCLC with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels less than 1%. Objective: To compare neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy by adverse events and surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes using recently published randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized trials. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2013, to October 25, 2023, for all clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy that included at least 10 patients. Study Selection: Observational studies and trials reporting the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, including chemoradiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy monotherapy, were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgical, pathological, and efficacy end points and adverse events were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Among 43 eligible trials comprising 5431 patients (4020 males [74.0%]; median age range, 55-70 years), there were 8 randomized clinical trials with 3387 patients. For randomized clinical trials, pooled overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; I2 = 0%), event-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.67; I2 = 14.9%), major pathological response (risk ratio, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.83-4.15; I2 = 31.2%), and complete pathological response (risk ratio, 5.52; 95% CI, 4.25-7.15; I2 = 27.4%) favored neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with baseline tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1%, there was a significant benefit in event-free survival for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89; I2 = 0%). Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy across surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes. These findings suggest that patients with resectable NSCLC with tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1% may have an event-free survival benefit with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

pneumonia (PCP). While guidelines have approached the diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of PCP, the numerous studies of PCP in PWH are dominated by the 1980s and 1990s. As such, most studies have included younger male populations, despite PCP affecting both sexes and a broad age range. Many studies have been small and observational in nature, with an overall lack of randomized controlled trials. In many jurisdictions, and especially in low- and middle-income countries, the diagnosis can be challenging due to lack of access to advanced and/or invasive diagnostics. Worldwide, most patients will be treated with 21 days of high-dose trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, although both the dose and the duration are primarily based on historical practice. Whether treatment with a lower dose is as effective and less toxic is gaining interest based on observational studies. Similarly, a 21-day tapering regimen of prednisone is used for patients with more severe disease, yet other doses, other steroids, or shorter durations of treatment with corticosteroids have not been evaluated. Now with the widespread availability of antiretroviral therapy, improved and less invasive PCP diagnostic techniques, and interest in novel treatment strategies, this review consolidates the scientific body of literature on the diagnosis and management of PCP in PWH, as well as identifies areas in need of more study and thoughtfully designed clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Sex and gender have increasingly been recognized as significant risk factors for many diseases, including dermatological conditions. Historically, sex and gender have often been grouped together as a single risk factor in the scientific literature. However, both may have a distinct impact on disease incidence, prevalence, clinical presentation, severity, therapeutic response, and associated psychological distress. OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The mechanisms that underlie differences in skin diseases between males, females, men, and women remain largely unknown. The specific objectives of this review paper are:To highlight the biological differences between males and females (sex), as well as the sociocultural differences between men and women (gender) and how they impact the integumentary system.To perform a literature review to identify important sex- and gender-related epidemiological and clinical differences for various skin conditions belonging to a range of disease categories and to discuss possible biological and sociocultural factors that could explain the observed differences.To discuss dermatological skin conditions and gender-affirming treatments within the transgender community, a population of individuals who have a gender identity which is different than the gender identity they were assigned at birth. FUTURE IMPACT: With the rising number of individuals that identify as non-binary or transgender within our increasingly diverse communities, it is imperative to recognize gender identity, gender, and sex as distinct entities. By doing so, clinicians will be able to better risk-stratify their patients and select treatments that are most aligned with their values. To our knowledge, very few studies have separated sex and gender as two distinct risk factors within the dermatology literature. Our article also has the potential to help guide future prevention strategies that are patient-tailored rather than using a universal approach.

BACKGROUND: Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.