Background The world is currently struggling with the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Dietary supplements (DSs) and herbal medicine provide a potentially convenient and accessible method for its recovery, but direct evidence is limited. Objective This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of DSs and herbs in patients with COVID-19. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in multiple electronic English and Chinese databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DSs or herbal medicine interventions on patients with COVID-19 from November 2019 to February 2021 were included. Data was extracted, summarized and critically examined. Results Out of 9402 records identified in the initial search, twelve RCTs were included in this review. Risk of bias of these RCTs was deemed high. Most of the trials were of low methodologic quality. Nine studies showed herbal supplements were beneficial to the recovery of COVID-19 patients; zinc sulfate could shorten the duration of loss of smell but not total recovery from COVID-19. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion Herbal supplements may help patients with COVID-19, zinc sulfate is likely to shorten the duration of olfactory dysfunction. DS therapy and herbal medicine appear to be safe and effective adjuvant therapies for patients with COVID-19. These results must be interpreted with caution due to the overall low quality of the included trials. More well-designed RCTs are needed in the future.

Although disease susceptibility is known to differ between men and women, it is controversial whether the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for malignancies also differs between the sexes. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore the impact of sex on immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to October 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors with hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex. We calculated the pooled HRs for men and women using the ln(HR), and assessed the heterogeneity between the two estimates through an interaction test. In total, 22,268 patients from 39 randomized controlled trials were included. Immune checkpoint inhibitors yielded better overall survival than conventional agents in both men (HR: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.80) and women (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.85). Progression-free survival benefits were also observed in both men (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.58-0.70) and women (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.77) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. No sex differences in the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors were found when overall survival and progression-free survival were used as the endpoints.

This study is a meta-analysis assessing the safety and efficacy of programmed cell death-1/cell death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in order to improve their efficacy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. We retrieved studies of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies for non–small-cell lung cancer from electronic databases; 17 clinical trials were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratios for overall and progression-free survival (PFS), and the odds ratios (ORs) for the objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. The pooled hazard ratios for overall and PFS were 0.69 and 0.74, respectively, and the pooled OR for the ORR was 1.78, implying a significant improvement in overall survival (OS), PFS, and ORR with administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. In subgroup analysis, the ORs of the ORR were 2.48 in PD-L1 positive versus negative tumors, and 0.99 for a high dose of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors versus a low dose. The ORs for the occurrence of any treatment-related adverse effects and grades 3–5 treatment-related adverse effects were 0.33 and 0.30, respectively, suggesting a good safety profile. PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy has superior outcomes in terms of the ORR, OS, and PFS with tolerable adverse effects when compared with chemotherapy.