Back

The comparative effectiveness and safety of biologic therapies for uncontrolled severe asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Pitre, T.; Jassal, T.; Angjeli, A.; Jarabana, V.; Nannapaneni, S.; Umair, A.; Hussain, M.; Leung, G.; Kirsch, S.; Su, J.; Desai, K.; Zeraatkar, D.

2022-08-08 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2022.08.07.22278522 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTrials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. ObjectiveTo comparative the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022, for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. ResultsWe identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI 272.6 to 366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI 272.6 to 357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared to placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD 0.24 L [95% CI 0.16 to 0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L (95% CI 0.21 to 0.29) improve lung function (FEV1) compared to placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 (95% CI 94.53 to 120.56 fewer) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11 to 124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared to placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD 0.1 L [95% CI 0 to 0.19]) and dupilumab (MD 0.1 L [95% CI 0 to 0.20)] may improve lung function (low certainty). ConclusionTezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in use of biologics, including tezepelumab since they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Thorax
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.8%
2
CHEST
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
4.0%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.5%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.1%
10
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
11
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.7%
13
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
16
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Life
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
20
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.8%
21
ERJ Open Research
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%