A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

摘要

? 2022 American College of Allergy, Asthma ImmunologyBackground: 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.