Abstract
Background Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.
Objective To comparative 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 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.
Results We 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).
Conclusion Tezepelumab 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
Dena Zeraatkar is funded by a Banting postdoctoral fellowship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclaimers/Conflicts of interest: None
Funding: DZ is funded by a Banting postdoctoral fellowship.
Data: Data will be available on OSF upon publication.
Updated analysis
Data Availability
On final publication of the article.
