Biologic Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Tyler Pitre, Daniel Lupas, Jasmine Mah, Matthew Stanbrook, Alina Blazer, Dena Zeraatkar, Terence Ho
{"title":"Biologic Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Tyler Pitre, Daniel Lupas, Jasmine Mah, Matthew Stanbrook, Alina Blazer, Dena Zeraatkar, Terence Ho","doi":"10.1080/15412555.2025.2449889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite limited breakthroughs in COPD pharmacotherapy, recent trials have shown promising results for biologics in COPD patients. However, robust evidence synthesis in this area is currently lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to July 17, 2024, to identify randomized trials of biologic medications in patients with COPD. We performed a random effects frequentist network meta-analysis and present the results using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE framework to rate the certainty of the evidence. Outcomes of interest included exacerbations, change in FEV1, change in quality of life, and serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dupilumab reduced exacerbations as compared to placebo (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.79]) (high certainty). Benralizumab (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.78 to 1]), itepekimab (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.07]) and tezepelumab (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.12]) may reduce exacerbations as compared to placebo (all low certainty). Dupilumab probably reduced exacerbations more than mepolizumab (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]) (moderate certainty). Dupilumab may reduce exacerbations more than tezepelumab (RR 0.82 [95% CI 1.14]) (low certainty). For all patients, no treatment improved FEV1 above the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.1 L. Dupilumab probably has no meaningful effect on FEV1 compared to placebo (MD 0.07 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.13]) (moderate certainty). However, in the subgroup of patients with blood eosinophils ≥300/mcL, both tezepelumab (MD 0.15 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.26]) and dupilumab (MD 0.13 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.19]) probably improved FEV1 above the MCID.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dupilumab is effective at improving patient-relevant outcomes in COPD with higher eosinophil levels. Other biological therapies, including tezepelumab, have no important effect on patient-relevant outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10704,"journal":{"name":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"22 1","pages":"2449889"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2025.2449889","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite limited breakthroughs in COPD pharmacotherapy, recent trials have shown promising results for biologics in COPD patients. However, robust evidence synthesis in this area is currently lacking.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to July 17, 2024, to identify randomized trials of biologic medications in patients with COPD. We performed a random effects frequentist network meta-analysis and present the results using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE framework to rate the certainty of the evidence. Outcomes of interest included exacerbations, change in FEV1, change in quality of life, and serious adverse events.

Results: Dupilumab reduced exacerbations as compared to placebo (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.79]) (high certainty). Benralizumab (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.78 to 1]), itepekimab (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.07]) and tezepelumab (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.12]) may reduce exacerbations as compared to placebo (all low certainty). Dupilumab probably reduced exacerbations more than mepolizumab (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]) (moderate certainty). Dupilumab may reduce exacerbations more than tezepelumab (RR 0.82 [95% CI 1.14]) (low certainty). For all patients, no treatment improved FEV1 above the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.1 L. Dupilumab probably has no meaningful effect on FEV1 compared to placebo (MD 0.07 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.13]) (moderate certainty). However, in the subgroup of patients with blood eosinophils ≥300/mcL, both tezepelumab (MD 0.15 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.26]) and dupilumab (MD 0.13 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.19]) probably improved FEV1 above the MCID.

Conclusion: Dupilumab is effective at improving patient-relevant outcomes in COPD with higher eosinophil levels. Other biological therapies, including tezepelumab, have no important effect on patient-relevant outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: From pathophysiology and cell biology to pharmacology and psychosocial impact, COPD: Journal Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease publishes a wide range of original research, reviews, case studies, and conference proceedings to promote advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and control of lung and airway disease and inflammation - providing a unique forum for the discussion, design, and evaluation of more efficient and effective strategies in patient care.
×
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