Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 12 1区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Allergy Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI:10.1111/all.70031
Anna Rattu,Piers Dixey,David Charles,Chris Brightling,Kian Fan Chung,Apostolos Bossios,Arnaud Bourdin,Ratko Djukanovic,Sven-Erik Dahlén,Louise Fleming,Rekha Chaudhuri,Erik Melén,Antoine Deschildre,Charles Pilette,Gerard H Koppelman,Andrew Exley,Freja Anckers,Sarah Miller,Hanna Nielsen,Clare Williams,Ekaterina Khaleva,Graham Roberts,
{"title":"Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Anna Rattu,Piers Dixey,David Charles,Chris Brightling,Kian Fan Chung,Apostolos Bossios,Arnaud Bourdin,Ratko Djukanovic,Sven-Erik Dahlén,Louise Fleming,Rekha Chaudhuri,Erik Melén,Antoine Deschildre,Charles Pilette,Gerard H Koppelman,Andrew Exley,Freja Anckers,Sarah Miller,Hanna Nielsen,Clare Williams,Ekaterina Khaleva,Graham Roberts, ","doi":"10.1111/all.70031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biologics are effective for severe asthma, but not all patients benefit equally. There is an urgent need to understand which biologic works best for which patient. We systematically searched for predictors of response to biologics (except omalizumab) for severe asthma in four bibliographic databases and two trial registries from 1990 to 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified CASP checklist. Data were synthesized narratively, and certainty of evidence assessed using the modified GRADE framework. Comparable studies were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. From 5853 records, 21 studies were identified investigating predictors of anti-IL5/5Rα, 4Rα, and anti-TSLP response. We found predominantly 'moderate' to 'high' quality evidence that raised blood eosinophil counts (≥ 300 cells/μL), FeNO levels (> 40 ppb), lack of or low OCS dose (< 10 mg/day), and better asthma control predict biologic response. Evidence for the predictive value of other characteristics was limited and mostly 'low' quality. Key reasons for downgrading the evidence were heterogeneous response definitions and imprecision. No data were identified for the pediatric population or biologics targeting the non-T2 pathway. Outside of traditional inflammatory and clinical variables, there is an unmet need for universally applicable predictors of biologic response for severe asthma.","PeriodicalId":122,"journal":{"name":"Allergy","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/all.70031","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Biologics are effective for severe asthma, but not all patients benefit equally. There is an urgent need to understand which biologic works best for which patient. We systematically searched for predictors of response to biologics (except omalizumab) for severe asthma in four bibliographic databases and two trial registries from 1990 to 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified CASP checklist. Data were synthesized narratively, and certainty of evidence assessed using the modified GRADE framework. Comparable studies were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. From 5853 records, 21 studies were identified investigating predictors of anti-IL5/5Rα, 4Rα, and anti-TSLP response. We found predominantly 'moderate' to 'high' quality evidence that raised blood eosinophil counts (≥ 300 cells/μL), FeNO levels (> 40 ppb), lack of or low OCS dose (< 10 mg/day), and better asthma control predict biologic response. Evidence for the predictive value of other characteristics was limited and mostly 'low' quality. Key reasons for downgrading the evidence were heterogeneous response definitions and imprecision. No data were identified for the pediatric population or biologics targeting the non-T2 pathway. Outside of traditional inflammatory and clinical variables, there is an unmet need for universally applicable predictors of biologic response for severe asthma.
重度哮喘对生物制剂反应的预测因素:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
生物制剂对严重哮喘是有效的,但并不是所有患者都受益。迫切需要了解哪种生物制剂对哪种患者最有效。从1990年到2024年,我们系统地检索了4个文献数据库和2个试验注册库中治疗严重哮喘的生物制剂(omalizumab除外)反应的预测因子。两名审稿人筛选记录,提取数据,并使用改进的CASP检查表评估偏倚风险。对数据进行叙述性综合,并使用改进的GRADE框架评估证据的确定性。使用随机效应模型对可比研究进行meta分析。从5853份记录中,确定了21项研究调查抗il5 / 5r α, 4Rα和抗tslp反应的预测因素。我们发现主要是“中等”到“高”质量的证据表明,血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数升高(≥300个细胞/μL), FeNO水平(> - 40 ppb), OCS剂量不足或低剂量(< 10 mg/天),以及更好的哮喘控制预示着生物反应。其他特征的预测价值的证据有限,而且大多是“低”质量。证据降级的主要原因是异质性反应定义和不精确。未发现针对非t2通路的儿科人群或生物制剂的数据。在传统的炎症和临床变量之外,对普遍适用的严重哮喘生物反应预测指标的需求尚未得到满足。
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
Allergy
Allergy 医学-过敏
CiteScore
26.10
自引率
9.70%
发文量
393
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Allergy is an international and multidisciplinary journal that aims to advance, impact, and communicate all aspects of the discipline of Allergy/Immunology. It publishes original articles, reviews, position papers, guidelines, editorials, news and commentaries, letters to the editors, and correspondences. The journal accepts articles based on their scientific merit and quality. Allergy seeks to maintain contact between basic and clinical Allergy/Immunology and encourages contributions from contributors and readers from all countries. In addition to its publication, Allergy also provides abstracting and indexing information. Some of the databases that include Allergy abstracts are Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Disease, Academic Search Alumni Edition, AgBiotech News & Information, AGRICOLA Database, Biological Abstracts, PubMed Dietary Supplement Subset, and Global Health, among others.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信