International archives of allergy and immunology · 2021
Which Is the Best Biologic for Nasal Polyps: Dupilumab, Omalizumab, or Mepolizumab? A Network Meta-Analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Qingwu, Zhang Yana, Kong Weifeng, Wang Xinyue, Yuan Lianxiong, Zheng Rui, Qiu Huijun, Huang Xuekun, Yang Qintai
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Compared with the placebo, biologics are beneficial in reducing nasal polyp mass and safe in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, there lacks a head-to-head randomized trial comparing biologics. We aimed to determine the best biologic for CRSwNP.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021226766). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on December 29, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing biologics in adult patients for CRSwNP were included.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1,190 patients comparing 3 different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab) and the placebo were included. Dupilumab had the best efficacy in terms of nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score, and nasal congestion score (NCS) for surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.900, 0.916, 1.000, and 0.807, respectively. Omalizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS for SUCRA values of 0.606, 0.500, and 0.693, respectively. Mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of NPS for SUCRA values of 0.563 and had the highest risk of adverse events (AEs) for SUCRA values of 0.746.
CONCLUSION: This is the first NMA that compared different biologics in patients with CRSwNP. Based on the efficacy (NPS) and safety (AEs), dupilumab is the best choice and omalizumab is the second best option for CRSwNP. Although mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy, it had the highest risk of AEs.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021226766). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on December 29, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing biologics in adult patients for CRSwNP were included.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1,190 patients comparing 3 different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab) and the placebo were included. Dupilumab had the best efficacy in terms of nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score, and nasal congestion score (NCS) for surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.900, 0.916, 1.000, and 0.807, respectively. Omalizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS for SUCRA values of 0.606, 0.500, and 0.693, respectively. Mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of NPS for SUCRA values of 0.563 and had the highest risk of adverse events (AEs) for SUCRA values of 0.746.
CONCLUSION: This is the first NMA that compared different biologics in patients with CRSwNP. Based on the efficacy (NPS) and safety (AEs), dupilumab is the best choice and omalizumab is the second best option for CRSwNP. Although mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy, it had the highest risk of AEs.