1
|
Pitre T, Jassal T, Angjeli A, Jarabana V, Nannapaneni S, Umair A, Hussain M, Leung G, Kirsh S, Su J, Desai K, Coyne J, Mohan S, Zeraatkar D. A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2022; 130:595-606. [PMID: 36563746 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.12.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. METHODS We 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 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. RESULTS We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with 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, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty). CONCLUSION Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler Pitre
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Albi Angjeli
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vineeth Jarabana
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ayesha Umair
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Muizz Hussain
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gareth Leung
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sarah Kirsh
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Johnny Su
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kairavi Desai
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jade Coyne
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Respirology, St Mary's General Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sindu Mohan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Respirology, St Mary's General Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|