Evidence Hub

A Silent Saboteur of Immunotherapy: Antibiotic Use and Its Impact on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Efficacy, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies

Ciappina G, Toscano E, Di Mauro G, Franchina T, Basile F, Vanni G, Facchini G, Nasti G et al.

Cancers, 2026

52,489 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the management of solid tumors, yet only a subset of patients achieve durable benefit. The gut microbiota is a key modulator of antitumor immunity, and systemic antibiotic therapy (ABT), frequently prescribed-and sometimes overused-in oncology, can profoundly disrupt microbial homeostasis. Observational studies suggest that ABT may impair ICI efficacy, but results remain heterogeneous, warranting an updated synthesis.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 2018 and 2025 evaluating the association between ABT exposure and time-to-event outcomes in patients with solid tumors treated with ICIs. Studies were required to report explicit definition of the ABT exposure window. Random-effects models were considered primary. A sensitivity analysis was performed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Results: Fifteen studies encompassing 52,489 patients were included. ABT exposure was associated with significantly worse OS (random-effects HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.29) and PFS (random-effects HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95-1.27), indicating an increased risk of death and disease progression compared with no ABT exposure. In the NSCLC sensitivity analysis, ABT was consistently associated with inferior PFS and, when accounting for heterogeneity, with significantly reduced OS, supporting the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 52,489 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free