Advanced Biologic Therapies in the Management of Asthma in Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY
Jinting Lin, Kexin Yang, Qilin Zhou, Qiqing Ye, Zhuanggui Chen, Pingping Zhang, Min Zhou, Li Pan
{"title":"Advanced Biologic Therapies in the Management of Asthma in Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jinting Lin, Kexin Yang, Qilin Zhou, Qiqing Ye, Zhuanggui Chen, Pingping Zhang, Min Zhou, Li Pan","doi":"10.1159/000542797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Emerging evidences have underscored the positive impact of biologics on asthmatic patients. However, there is a pressing need to verify their therapeutic efficacy in children and adolescents with asthma. To address this, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologics in the asthma management of this demographic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The database of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched in our study until May 29th, 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included to estimate the value of biologics on asthmatic children and adolescents. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two researchers. Outcomes were analyzed by a fixed effects model, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores were calculated to determine the likelihood of each biologic being the most effective intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2,672 patients were included for comparing four different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, lebrikizumab, and mepolizumab) with a placebo. Dupilumab has been demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing asthmatic exacerbations, improving lung function and patients' quality of life, with the SUCRA values of 0.956, 0.999 and 0.897, respectively. Omalizumab showed the best safety potential by reducing the risk of adverse and severe events, with the SUCRA values of 0.876 and 0.930.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this NMA, focusing on biologics that target type 2 inflammation in childhood and adolescent asthma, that four biologics demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Notably, dupilumab emerged as the most effective, while omalizumab was identified as the safest therapy. Further studies must be conducted in order to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":13652,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Allergy and Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Allergy and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542797","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Emerging evidences have underscored the positive impact of biologics on asthmatic patients. However, there is a pressing need to verify their therapeutic efficacy in children and adolescents with asthma. To address this, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologics in the asthma management of this demographic.

Methods: The database of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched in our study until May 29th, 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included to estimate the value of biologics on asthmatic children and adolescents. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two researchers. Outcomes were analyzed by a fixed effects model, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores were calculated to determine the likelihood of each biologic being the most effective intervention.

Results: 2,672 patients were included for comparing four different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, lebrikizumab, and mepolizumab) with a placebo. Dupilumab has been demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing asthmatic exacerbations, improving lung function and patients' quality of life, with the SUCRA values of 0.956, 0.999 and 0.897, respectively. Omalizumab showed the best safety potential by reducing the risk of adverse and severe events, with the SUCRA values of 0.876 and 0.930.

Conclusions: In this NMA, focusing on biologics that target type 2 inflammation in childhood and adolescent asthma, that four biologics demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Notably, dupilumab emerged as the most effective, while omalizumab was identified as the safest therapy. Further studies must be conducted in order to confirm these findings.

先进的生物疗法在儿童和青少年哮喘管理:一个全面的网络荟萃分析。
新出现的证据强调了生物制剂对哮喘患者的积极影响。然而,迫切需要验证它们对儿童和青少年哮喘的治疗效果。为了解决这个问题,我们进行了一项网络荟萃分析(NMA)来评估生物制剂在这一人群哮喘管理中的有效性和安全性。方法:综合检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library数据库,检索时间截止到2024年5月29日。仅纳入随机对照试验来评估生物制剂对哮喘儿童和青少年的价值。数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两位研究者独立完成。通过固定效应模型分析结果,并计算累积排名(SUCRA)评分下的表面,以确定每种生物制剂成为最有效干预措施的可能性。结果:2672例患者被纳入比较四种不同的生物制剂(dupilumab, omalizumab, lebrikizumab和mepolizumab)与安慰剂。Dupilumab在减少哮喘加重、改善肺功能和患者生活质量方面的疗效最高,SUCRA值分别为0.956、0.999和0.897。Omalizumab通过降低不良和严重事件的风险显示出最佳的安全性潜力,其SUCRA值分别为0.876和0.930。结论:在这项针对儿童和青少年哮喘2型炎症的生物制剂的NMA中,有四种生物制剂显示出良好的安全性。值得注意的是,dupilumab是最有效的,而omalizumab被认为是最安全的治疗方法。为了证实这些发现,必须进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.60%
发文量
105
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ''International Archives of Allergy and Immunology'' provides a forum for basic and clinical research in modern molecular and cellular allergology and immunology. Appearing monthly, the journal publishes original work in the fields of allergy, immunopathology, immunogenetics, immunopharmacology, immunoendocrinology, tumor immunology, mucosal immunity, transplantation and immunology of infectious and connective tissue diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信