AIMS To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count [Eos], fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.RESULTS Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.LIMITATIONS Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.CONCLUSIONS Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.
BACKGROUND: This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.
Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases characterized by sex disparities. Gender bias is a well-documented issue detected in the design of published clinical trials (CTs). International guidelines encourage researchers to analyze clinical data by sex, gender, or both where appropriate. The objective of this work was to evaluate gender bias in the published CTs of biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma. A systematic review of randomized controlled CTs of the biological agents (omalizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab or dupilumab) for the treatment of severe asthma was conducted. The literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE without language restrictions. This study followed the corresponding international recommendations. We identified a total of 426 articles, of which 37 were finally included. Women represented 60.4% of patients included. The mean percentage of women in these trials was 59.9%, ranged from 40.8% to 76.7%. The separate analysis by sex of the main variable was only performed in 5 of the 37 publications included, and none of the trials analyzed secondary variables by sex. Only 1 of the articles discussed the results separately by sex. No study included the concept of gender in the text or analyzed the results separately by gender. The proportion of women included in CTs was higher compared to publications of other disciplines, where women were under-represented. The analysis of the main and secondary variables by sex or gender, even the discussion separately by sex, was insufficient. This gives rise to potential gender bias in these CTs.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved monoclonal antibodies used as add-on maintenance therapy in uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched on December 17, 2018 using keywords: asthma, eosinophilic asthma, omalizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies evaluating safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for treatment of severe or eosinophilic asthma were included.
RESULTS: Twenty-one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the current FDA-approved monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) for the treatment of uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma were included. The studies demonstrated clinically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, symptoms, emergency room visits, eosinophil counts, and improvements in pulmonary function and asthma-related quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Five monoclonal antibodies are available for uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. Choice depends on patient factors. Future studies should focus on cost-effectiveness of treatment, drug-drug comparisons, and long-term efficacy and safety.
Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognised phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (3 RCTs for benralizumab, 3 RCTs for dupilumab, 3 RCTs for mepolizumab, 4 RCTs for omalizumab, and 5 RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab rate ratio (RR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and reslizumab RR 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality adjusted life-years value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalisations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 and cost-effectiveness. More data on long term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.
Since novel treatments to target eosinophilic inflammation in Type 2 asthma are emerging, we aimed to evaluate and meta-analyze the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies to reduce exacerbation rate. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for phase II and phase III randomized clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies targeting key mediators of type 2-associated asthma. Thirty trials were selected involving biologics that target the IL-5 pathway, IL-13, the common IL-4 and IL-13 receptor, IL-9, IL-2 and TSLP. As no head-to-head trials were retrieved from literature, we performed an arm-based network meta-analysis to compare effects on exacerbation rate between the different treatments.Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab significantly reduced the risk of exacerbations compared to placebo (by 47-52%, 50-60%, and 28-51% respectively). Reslizumab and benralizumab also improved lung function. Dupilumab and tezepelumab improved lung function in frequent exacerbators. Lebrikizumab had no significant effect on the number of exacerbations, symptom control or health-related quality of life. Tralokinumab improved lung function compared to placebo. Network meta-analysis of all treatment and placebo arms, showed no superiority of one biologic over the others. Large reductions in exacerbation rates were observed compared to placebo, though only benralizumab was sufficiently powered (n = 2051) to demonstrate significantly decreased exacerbation rates in the subgroup analysis of IL-5 acting agents compared to placebo.Monoclonal antibodies such as mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab have proven their benefit to reduce exacerbation rates in severe persistent eosinophilic asthma in the published trials. However, no statistically significant superiority was observed of one biologic over the other in the network meta-analysis. More studies with direct head to head comparisons and better defined endotypes are required.
Background: Healthcare decisions made on the basis of insufficient evidence may potentially have ineffective or even harmful consequences. The proportion of older ages (over 65 years) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for severe asthma is not enough to establish whether anti-IL-5/IL-5R therapies are equally effective in the elderly as in younger subjects. Methods: In order to assess the relationship between age and the efficacy of anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with respect to the risk of exacerbations and changes in FEV1, a meta-regression analysis via random-effect method was carried out by plotting the effect estimates (outcome variables) resulting from the pairwise meta-analysis with the age of asthmatic subjects (explanatory variable). A comprehensive literature search was performed for pivotal RCTs on the effects of anti-IL-5/IL-5R in severe asthma, with the following keywords: “asthma and mepolizumab”, “asthma and reslizumab” and “asthma and benralizumab”. The study was restricted to “clinical trials”, “age over 65” and “humans”. Data were checked for age, exacerbation rates, changes from baseline in FEV1, and blood eosinophil (Eos) count. Secondary outcomes included inhaled and oral medication use, clinical scores and quality of life. Results: A total of 10 studies were analysed. Age did not modulate the efficacy of anti-IL-5/IL-5R treatment against the risk of exacerbation neither in the overall population (coefficient −0.007, P = 0.89), nor in patients with high blood Eos count (coefficient 0.075, P = 0.30). The blood Eos level drove the efficacy of anti-IL-5/IL-5R mABs against the risk of exacerbation regardless of age (coefficient −0.27, P < 0.001). Age did not significantly affect the efficacy of anti-IL-5/IL-5R mABs with respect to the change in FEV1 (coefficient −7.15, P = 0.190); however, in high Eos subjects this improvement tended to be less evident in the more advanced age ranges (coefficient −15.18, P = 0.087). In addition, anti-IL-5/IL-5R mABs reduced ACQ score (P < 0.001 vs. placebo), SGRQ score (P < 0.001 vs. placebo), Total Asthma Symptom Score (P < 0.05 vs. placebo), and the use of oral glucocorticoids (P < 0.001 vs. placebo). Conclusions: Age does not negatively affect the efficacy of anti-IL-5/IL-5R mABs. These findings support the use of anti-IL-5/IL-5R mABs in asthmatics of different age ranges.
AIMS To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count [Eos], fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.RESULTS Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.LIMITATIONS Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.CONCLUSIONS Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.
