Abubeker, Ibrahim Yusuf

Background/Objectives: Despite immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs)’s transformation of lung cancer treatment, pneumonitis remains a potentially serious immune-related adverse event. However, reliable data on the comparative risks of individual ICPIs remain unknown. We conducted this network meta-analysis (NMA) to, therefore, quantify and compare the exact pooled burden of pneumonitis risk across multiple ICPI analogs. Methods: We searched the following databases, PubMed, Embase, Scopus MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as gray literature on Google Scholar for eligible studies reporting on the prevalence of pneumonitis following immune check point inhibitor exposures. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) for pneumonitis, using placebo as the common comparator. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of study quality and combination therapies. Results: A total of 29 studies enrolling 15,271 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in the meta-analysis. Pembrolizumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of pneumonitis compared to placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 2.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70–4.17), with similar elevated risk observed for sugemalimab (odds ratio [OR] = 2.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.52–3.95). Nivolumab was associated with increased odds of pneumonitis, although with unstable point estimate (odds Ratio [OR] = 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64–11.35). Statistical heterogeneity was low (H statistics = 1.34). Atezolizumab and ipilimumab demonstrated modest or uncertain risk. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 12%), and results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Higher pneumonitis rates were observed in combination regimens. Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that pneumonitis risk varies among ICPIs, with pembrolizumab and sugemalimab showing the highest odds. Although the absolute incidence is low, the potential severity of pneumonitis warrants vigilant monitoring. These results should guide clinicians in risk stratification and treatment planning, and they should support the development of standardized reporting criteria and further comparative research.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now the preferred anticoagulant over vitamin K antagonists for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Variability in drug exposure raises concerns about bleeding and thrombotic events, highlighting the potential value of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to May 2025) and identified studies reporting DOAC levels and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2.0, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale). Random-effects meta-analytical models generated pooled estimates, with meta-regression exploring potential sources of variability (DOAC type, drug levels) and exposure–response relationships. Results: Nineteen studies comprising 5770 patients were included in the review. The pooled event rates were 8% for major bleeding (95% CI: 0.05–0.11), 7% for thrombotic events (95% CI: 0.05–0.09), and 3% for mortality (95% CI: 0.03–0.04). Heterogeneity was substantial for bleeding and thrombotic events (I2 = 95.6% and 87.3%, respectively) but negligible for mortality (I2 = 0%). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant association between mean DOAC concentration and either major bleeding (β = −0.00021, p = 0.35, Adj R2 ≈ 0%) or thrombotic events (β = 0.00005, p = 0.78, Adj R2 ≈ 0%), indicating that variations in measured plasma levels did not meaningfully explain event rate differences across studies. Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, measured DOAC concentrations show limited and inconsistent association with clinical outcomes. While the present synthesis does not demonstrate a statistically robust linear correlation between DOAC plasma concentrations and adverse outcomes, it highlights the multifactorial determinants of bleeding and thrombosis risk underscores the potential value of selective TDM in individualized care. Further prospective, standardized studies are needed to define clinically actionable thresholds and to validate TDM-guided strategies that optimize the delicate balance between safety and efficacy in DOAC therapy.