Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab and Benralizumab in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ando K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7037967 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.ObjectiveWe compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.ResultsEight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).ConclusionThere are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.
| S-EPMC9643621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but few patients are eligible for these trials. Studies involving more diverse groups of participants exist, but there is a lack of precise pooled estimates.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the generalizability of the RCT data.MethodsClinical outcomes including exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid usage, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were examined. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).ResultsA total of 21 studies examining biologicals in real-world settings were identified; they mostly focused on benralizumab and mepolizumab. The introduction of biologicals reduced the annualzsed exacerbation rate significantly by -3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.53, -3.04), -3.17 (95% CI -3.74, -2.59) and -6.72 (95% CI -8.47, -4.97) with benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab, respectively. Likewise, improvements were observed in FEV1 (0.17 L 95% CI 0.11, 0.24) and FeNO (-14.23 ppb 95% CI -19.71, -8.75) following the treatment with mepolizumab. After treatment with benralizumab, there was an increase in FEV1 (0.21 L 95% CI 0.08, 0.34).ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that anti-IL5 biologicals may improve the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs. The data were mainly retrospective and unadjusted, so estimated effect sizes may not be reliable. More data are needed to acquire accurate effect estimates in different subpopulations of patients.
| S-EPMC9311192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies have evaluated the comparative efficacy of biologics for asthma. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of biologics. This study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of a biologic compared to a placebo or another biologic in patients with inadequately controlled asthma despite high-intensity treatment, published by January 6, 2022. Two researchers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. The outcomes of interest were the annual asthma exacerbation rate (AER), forced expiratory volume per second before bronchodilator use (preBD FEV1), the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) results. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and a random effects model was used to draw pooled incidence rate ratio or standardized mean differences. Twenty-three RCTs with 8376 participants were retrieved. All biologics included in this study were associated with significantly better effects than placebo in AER, preBD FEV1, and ACQ outcomes. Although there were no significant differences between the biologics in the overall study population, patients with eosinophil levels ≥300 cells/μL or eosinophilic asthma showed that dupilumab and tezepelumab were significantly better than anti-IL-5 biologics in improving preBD FEV1. Additionally, in patients with eosinophil levels ≥300 cells/μL, benralizumab, unlike reslizumab, performed significantly better than placebo in improving ACQ and AQLQ outcomes. The comparative effects of biologics can be considered with phenotypes and biomarkers to help clinicians select an appropriate treatment for inadequately controlled asthma.
| S-EPMC11293571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin antibody (tezepelumab) has therapeutical potential for inadequately controlled asthma. However, evidence comparing tezepelumab with other biologics is scarce. To address this issue, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy of five treatments (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, and placebo) in overall participants and in subgroups stratified by the thresholds of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, including peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). The primary endpoints were annualized exacerbation rate (AER) and any adverse events (AAEs). In the ranking assessment using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of AER, tezepelumab ranked the highest overall and across subgroups (based on PBEC and FeNO level thresholds). A significant difference was observed between tezepelumab and dupilumab in the patient subgroup with PBEC < 150, and between tezepelumab and benralizumab in overall participants and the patient subgroup with PBEC ≥ 300 and ≥150, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AAEs in the overall participants between each pair of five treatment arms. These results provide a basis for the development of treatment strategies for asthma and may guide basic, clinical, or translational research.
| S-EPMC8909778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quilizumab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, targets the M1-prime segment of membrane-expressed IgE, leading to depletion of IgE-switched and memory B cells. In patients with mild asthma, quilizumab reduced serum IgE and attenuated the early and late asthmatic reaction following whole lung allergen challenge. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of quilizumab in adults with allergic asthma, inadequately controlled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and a second controller.Five hundred seventy-eight patients were randomized to monthly or quarterly dosing regimens of subcutaneous quilizumab or placebo for 36 weeks, with a 48-week safety follow-up. Quilizumab was evaluated for effects on the rate of asthma exacerbations, lung function, patient symptoms, serum IgE, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory analyses were conducted on biomarker subgroups (periostin, blood eosinophils, serum IgE, and exhaled nitric oxide).Quilizumab was well tolerated and reduced serum total and allergen-specific IgE by 30-40 %, but had no impact on asthma exacerbations, lung function, or patient-reported symptom measures. At Week 36, the 300 mg monthly quilizumab group showed a 19.6 % reduction (p?=?0.38) in the asthma exacerbation rate relative to placebo, but this was neither statistically nor clinically significant. Biomarker subgroups did not reveal meaningful efficacy benefits following quilizumab treatment.Quilizumab had an acceptable safety profile and reduced serum IgE. However, targeting the IgE pathway via depletion of IgE-switched and memory B cells was not sufficient for a clinically meaningful benefit for adults with allergic asthma uncontrolled by standard therapy.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01582503.
| S-EPMC4797126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn the Phase III SIROCCO trial (NCT01928771), benralizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and improved lung function and symptoms for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. The aim of this subgroup analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of benralizumab for Korean patients in SIROCCO.MethodsSIROCCO was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial of 1,204 patients aged 12-75 years with severe asthma uncontrolled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β₂-agonists (ICS/LABA). Patients received benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W; first 3 doses Q4W) or placebo Q4W for 48 weeks. The primary analysis population comprised patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL. This subgroup analysis evaluated Korean patients from this group.ResultsOf 122 Korean patients randomized, 86 had blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL. Benralizumab reduced the annual asthma exacerbation rate by 70% (Q4W: rate estimate 0.79, rate ratio 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.13-0.65], nominal P = 0.003; n = 28) and 85% (Q8W: rate estimate 0.40, rate ratio 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06-0.36], nominal P < 0.001; n = 30) vs. placebo (rate estimate 2.67, n = 28). Prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second was increased with benralizumab treatment by 0.270 L (Q4W: 95% CI, 0.039-0.500, nominal P = 0.023; n = 28) and 0.362 L (Q8W: 95% CI, 0.143-0.582, nominal P = 0.002; n = 30) vs. placebo (n = 27). Total asthma symptom score was similar for patients receiving either benralizumab Q4W (-0.27 [95% CI, -0.83 to 0.30], nominal P = 0.356; n = 27) or benralizumab Q8W (0.10 [95% CI, -0.44 to 0.65], nominal P = 0.708; n = 30) vs. placebo (n = 28). Drug-related adverse events were experienced by 2%, 8%, and 5% of patients in the placebo, benralizumab Q4W, and benralizumab Q8W arms.ConclusionsBenralizumab reduced annual asthma exacerbation rates, increased lung function, and was well-tolerated by Korean patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.
| S-EPMC6557768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor 2 (DP2 receptor) pathway is an important regulator of the inflammatory cascade in asthma, which can be stimulated by allergic or non-allergic triggers. Fevipiprant is an oral, non-steroidal, highly selective, reversible antagonist of the DP2 receptor that inhibits the binding of PGD2 and its metabolites.MethodsSPIRIT, a 2-treatment period (52-week, double-blind and optional 104-week single-blind), randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study, assessed the long-term safety of fevipiprant (150 mg and 450 mg o.d.) added to standard of care in patients ≥ 12 years with uncontrolled asthma. Stratified block randomisation was used. Patients were randomised in an approximate ratio of 3:3:1 (fevipiprant 150 mg, fevipiprant 450 mg or placebo). Patients were either newly enrolled or had participated in a previous fevipiprant Phase 3 trial. Primary endpoints were: time-to-first treatment emergent adverse event (AE); serious AE; and AE leading to discontinuation from study treatment. Data from both treatment periods were combined for analyses. Data were collected during study site visits.ResultsIn total, 1093 patients were randomised to receive fevipiprant 150 mg, 1085 to fevipiprant 450 mg, and 360 to placebo. Overall, 1184 patients had ≥ 52 weeks' treatment, while 163 received ≥ 104 weeks' treatment. Both doses were well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo both in new patients and in those enrolled from previous studies. In exploratory analyses, reduced rates of moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations, increased time-to-first moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation and improved FEV1 were observed for both doses of fevipiprant versus placebo; these were without multiplicity adjustment and should be interpreted with caution. SPIRIT was terminated early, on 16 December 2019, by the Sponsor.ConclusionsIn patients with uncontrolled asthma, the addition of fevipiprant had a favourable long-term safety profile.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03052517, prospectively registered 23 January 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03052517 .
| S-EPMC8666007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Azithromycin is a potential therapeutic choice for asthma control, which is a heterogeneous airway inflammatory disease. Because of variable findings, we intend to evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of azithromycin in asthma. Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CNKI until 31 December 2017, were searched to identify available randomised controlled trials regarding azithromycin treatment for asthma. We identified seven studies involving 1520 cases that met our criteria. The mean difference for lung function (FEV1 , FVC, PEF), symptom assessment (ACQ, AQLQ), airway inflammation, and risk ratios for adverse events were extracted. Chi-square and I2 tests were applied to evaluate the heterogeneity among the studies towards each index with a random effect model or a fixed effect model. Pooled analysis shows that azithromycin administration results in no significant improvement in FEV1 (MD: 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.29, P = 0.36), PEF (MD: 11.76; 95% CI, -2.86 to 26.38, P = 0.11), total airway inflammatory cells (MD: -0.29; 95% CI, -1.38 to 0.80, P = 0.60), ACQ (MD: 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.19, P = 0.44), and AQLQ (MD: 0.12; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26, P = 0.10). Moreover, no significant difference was detected in adverse events (Risk ratio 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19, P = 0.90). These findings demonstrate no beneficial clinical outcome of azithromycin in asthma control, and we propose that further prospective cohorts are warranted.
| S-EPMC6378181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
| S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Dupilumab, a fully human anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibody, inhibits signaling of both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which are key drivers of type 2-mediated inflammation. Dupilumab is approved in the EU, USA, and other countries for the treatment of adults with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Following positive phase 2 results in asthma, the phase 3 Liberty Asthma QUEST trial was initiated to provide further evidence for dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS:Liberty Asthma QUEST is a phase 3, multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (NCT02414854) in patients with persistent asthma who are receiving continuous treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus one or two other asthma controller medicines. A total of 1902 patients (aged ≥ 12 years) were randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks of add-on therapy with subcutaneously administered dupilumab 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks or matched placebo. The study consisted of a 4 ± 1-week screening period, 52-week randomized treatment period, and 12-week post-treatment follow-up period. All patients continued to receive their prescribed ICS plus up to two additional controller medications. The primary efficacy endpoints were annualized rate of severe exacerbation events during the 52-week treatment period and absolute change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at week 12. CONCLUSION:Uncontrolled asthma patients with persistent symptoms represent a population of significant unmet need, for whom new treatments are required. Patients with severe asthma are at high risk of asthma exacerbations, and face an accelerated decline in lung function and impaired quality of life. QUEST examines the efficacy of dupilumab in this at-risk patient population; it is the largest placebo-controlled study in uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with a biologic agent to date, and the only phase 3 study of a biologic therapy of asthma that enrolled patients irrespective of baseline type 2 inflammatory biomarker levels. FUNDING:Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT02414854.
| S-EPMC5960488 | biostudies-literature