Supplementary MaterialsAdditional file 1: Supplementary Table. (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), and TRAEs in any SC 560 grade and grade 3 or higher. Results The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, 0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, 0.001) than nivolumab alone. Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy group had better CR (RR: 4.89, 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, 0.001). Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, = 0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, = 0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between both groups (RR: 1.05, = 0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 SC 560 or higher) was lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, 0.001). Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of nivolumab or ipilimumab monotherapy. In the combined immunotherapy group, N1I3 was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in N1I3 group, overall safety was acceptable. values of 0.05. Results Literature search We identified 4361 research in the books search. It removed 2133 duplicates and additional 2228 after careful evaluation then. Although 56 content articles met the addition criteria, 45 were removed besides qualifying for meta-analysis for a genuine SC 560 amount of reasons. Among them, 16 articles had been excluded because they didn’t include the mix of ipilimumab and nivolumab; 11 content articles were non-prospective medical trials; 7 content articles had been excluded because they included additional treatments; 6 content articles were single-arm research; 5 content articles were excluded due to irrelevant outcome. In the final end, 11 content articles [19C29] were certified for the meta-analysis. The precise reasons are demonstrated in Supplementary Shape 1. Research features The features of every scholarly research are shown in Supplementary Desk 1. The 11 medical tests included 2484 individuals. Of the 879 received nivolumab 1?ipilimumab plus mg/kg 3?mg/kg (N1We3), 560 received nivolumab 3?ipilimumab plus mg/kg 1?mg/kg (N3We1), when combined, nivolumab is used 3?mg/kg, ipilimumab used 1?nivolumab or mg/kg used 1?mg/kg, ipilimumab CCM2 used 3?mg/kg. 1000 eighty-eight received nivolumab at a suggested dosage of 3?mg/kg monotherapy, while 357 were placed on ipilimumab in a recommended dosage of 3?mg/kg monotherapy. The chosen studies had different instances, from melanoma, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, little cell lung tumor (SCLC), esophagogastric tumor (EGC), malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sarcoma, glioblastoma. There have been two stage I clinical tests, two stage I-II clinical tests, four stage II clinical tests, two stage III clinical tests, and one stage III-IV clinical tests. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab only Weighed against ipilimumab only, nivolumab plus ipilimumab synergy triggered a greater impact under CR (RR: 4.89, 95% SC 560 CI: 2.91C8.23, 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, 95% CI: 2.05C3.69, 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.60C4.20, 0.001) while shown in Fig. ?Fig.1.1. Even though the occurrence of any TRAEs was identical between your two organizations (RR: 1.05, = 0.44), ipilimumab monotherapy led to less serious instances, (quality 3 or more) than nivolumab in addition ipilimumab group (RR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.78C2.61, 0.001) while shown in Fig. ?Fig.22. Open up in a separate window Fig. 1 Forest plot of the overall effect between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and ipilimumab alone. a Complete response (CR). b Partial response (PR). c Objective response rate (ORR) Open in a separate window Fig. 2 Forest plot of the adverse events between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and ipilimumab alone. a Any grade TRAEs. b Grade 3 or higher TRAEs Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone Overall, nivolumab plus ipilimumab group showed better ORR (RR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.22C1.61, 0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.23C1.83, 0.001) than nivolumab alone; however, there was no statistically significant difference in the CR (RR: 1.13, = 0.39) between the two as shown in Fig. ?Fig.33. Open in a separate window Fig. 3 Forest plot of the overall effect between nivolumab-ipilimumab combined therapy and nivolumab monotherapy. a Complete response (CR). b Partial response (PR). c Objective response rate (ORR) In terms of adverse effects, the incidence of any TRAEs and serious TRAEs were elevated in nivolumab monotherapy than in nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00C1.21, = 0.04; RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.57C2.81, 0.001, respectively) as shown in Fig. ?Fig.44. Open in a separate window Fig. 4 Forest plot of the adverse events between nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and nivolumab alone. a Any grade TRAEs. b Grade.