Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps and Biologics: A Call for Better Data Standardisation and Presentation in Clinical Studies.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S467250
Harsha Hemantha Kariyawasam, Dean Langan, Joanne Rimmer
{"title":"Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps and Biologics: A Call for Better Data Standardisation and Presentation in Clinical Studies.","authors":"Harsha Hemantha Kariyawasam, Dean Langan, Joanne Rimmer","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S467250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is often severe, debilitating and difficult to treat. Recent randomised control trials (RCTs) of biologics that target key inflammatory pathways have demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating CRSwNP. Such RCTs must facilitate meta-analysis. Here we report the need for urgent improvement in double-blind randomised controlled trials of biologics in CRSwNP, having previously undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of such studies. The RCTs included in that systematic review did not conform to a standard study design. Patient selection criteria was not consistent in studies with several heterogeneous disease subgroups of CRSwNP patients present in each study. Different durations of treatment and variable outcome measures also made the comparative assessment of efficacy between different biologics difficult. Data presentation to allow extraction for meta-analysis was not always clear, such that on occasion selected data sets or even an entire RCT had to be excluded from further evaluation. As such, the high heterogeneity between studies made the overall interpretation of the findings difficult. We make an urgent call to design and conduct future RCTS of biologics in CRSwNP in a more standardised manner, and to present data in a clear way that is easily extractable. This will facilitate more inclusive and thus robust evaluation and interpretation via meta-analysis, which will in turn enable clearer insight into which CRSwNP patient subgroups might benefit from specific biologics and thus achieve better clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"21 ","pages":"27-34"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724617/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S467250","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is often severe, debilitating and difficult to treat. Recent randomised control trials (RCTs) of biologics that target key inflammatory pathways have demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating CRSwNP. Such RCTs must facilitate meta-analysis. Here we report the need for urgent improvement in double-blind randomised controlled trials of biologics in CRSwNP, having previously undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of such studies. The RCTs included in that systematic review did not conform to a standard study design. Patient selection criteria was not consistent in studies with several heterogeneous disease subgroups of CRSwNP patients present in each study. Different durations of treatment and variable outcome measures also made the comparative assessment of efficacy between different biologics difficult. Data presentation to allow extraction for meta-analysis was not always clear, such that on occasion selected data sets or even an entire RCT had to be excluded from further evaluation. As such, the high heterogeneity between studies made the overall interpretation of the findings difficult. We make an urgent call to design and conduct future RCTS of biologics in CRSwNP in a more standardised manner, and to present data in a clear way that is easily extractable. This will facilitate more inclusive and thus robust evaluation and interpretation via meta-analysis, which will in turn enable clearer insight into which CRSwNP patient subgroups might benefit from specific biologics and thus achieve better clinical outcomes.

慢性鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉和生物制剂:在临床研究中要求更好的数据标准化和报告。
慢性鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉(CRSwNP)通常是严重的,使人虚弱且难以治疗。最近针对关键炎症途径的生物制剂的随机对照试验(rct)已经证明了治疗CRSwNP的临床疗效。这样的随机对照试验必须有利于荟萃分析。在此,我们报告了CRSwNP生物制剂双盲随机对照试验急需改进的需求,并对此类研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。纳入该系统评价的随机对照试验不符合标准研究设计。患者选择标准在每项研究中都存在几个异质性疾病亚组的CRSwNP患者中不一致。不同的治疗时间和不同的结果测量也使不同生物制剂之间的疗效比较评估变得困难。用于提取荟萃分析的数据呈现并不总是清晰,因此有时必须将选定的数据集甚至整个RCT排除在进一步评估之外。因此,研究之间的高度异质性使得对研究结果的整体解释变得困难。我们迫切呼吁以更标准化的方式设计和开展CRSwNP生物制剂的随机对照试验,并以易于提取的清晰方式呈现数据。这将有助于通过荟萃分析进行更具包容性和可靠性的评估和解释,从而更清楚地了解哪些CRSwNP患者亚组可能受益于特定的生物制剂,从而获得更好的临床结果。
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
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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