SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Is nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab more effective for treating lung cancer? a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNivolumab and ipilimumab combination immunotherapy has become a standard treatment option for certain cancers. However, the benefits of combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in lung cancer patients are not entirely clear. We aimed to evaluate whether nivolumab plus ipilimumab improves clinical outcomes in lung cancer patients compared to nivolumab monotherapy.
methodsA literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception until November 2024 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias, the hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for survival, risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for response rate and safety outcomes, and a random effects model meta-analysis was performed to estimate the safety and efficacy of the treatments.
resultsSeven trials comprising 2134 patients were included. Compared with patients receiving nivolumab monotherapy, non-small cell lung cancer patients who received combination therapy had better progression-free survival (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.71; 0.93, P < 0.01, low certainty), and there were no significant differences in overall survival (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86; 1.0, P = 0.31, moderate certainty), or objective response rate (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.91; 2.02, P = 0.14 very low certainty). The combination group had a significantly greater risk of grade 3-4 adverse events (RR = 2.77, 95% CI 1.38; 5.56, P < 0.01, low certainty).
conclusionAlthough combination treatment significantly improved progression-free survival in NSCLC patients, it was also associated with a greater risk of adverse events and treatment-related mortality than nivolumab monotherapy. The current evidence is insufficient for choosing combination treatment over nivolumab monotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39680077What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.