4.3 Article

Which Is the Best Biologic for Nasal Polyps: Dupilumab, Omalizumab, or Mepolizumab? A Network Meta-Analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 183, Issue 3, Pages 279-288

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000519228

Keywords

Nasal polyps; Dupilumab; Omalizumab; Mepolizumab; Network meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U20A20399, 81870704]
  2. Key-area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province [2020B0101130015]
  3. Sun Yat-Sen University Clinical Research 5,010 Programme [2019006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, it was found that dupilumab is the best choice for patients with CRSwNP, followed by omalizumab as the second-best option. Mepolizumab, while ranking second in efficacy, had the highest risk of adverse events among the biologics studied.
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.(c) 2021 S. Karger AG, Base

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available