Updated treatment approaches for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: A systematic scoping review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Mayu Shiomi, Tomoaki Higuchi, Mitsuhiro Akiyama, Megumi Oshima, Ryu Watanabe, Ken-Ei Sada, Kenji Nagasaka, Akinori Hara, Yoshinori Matsumoto, Kiyoshi Sekiya, Takahiko Kurasawa, Shunsuke Furuta, Haruki Koike, Yoshinori Komagata, Hiroaki Dobashi, Naoto Tamura
{"title":"Updated treatment approaches for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: A systematic scoping review.","authors":"Mayu Shiomi, Tomoaki Higuchi, Mitsuhiro Akiyama, Megumi Oshima, Ryu Watanabe, Ken-Ei Sada, Kenji Nagasaka, Akinori Hara, Yoshinori Matsumoto, Kiyoshi Sekiya, Takahiko Kurasawa, Shunsuke Furuta, Haruki Koike, Yoshinori Komagata, Hiroaki Dobashi, Naoto Tamura","doi":"10.1093/mr/roaf126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis causing multi-organ damage and long-term disability. Various treatments including IL-5-targeting agents and other biologics have recently emerged, prompting regular updates of clinical practice guidelines. This scoping review and systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and benralizumab in EGPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant clinical questions, followed by an SR of trials published between December 2018 and July 2023. Studies comparing rituximab or benralizumab with standard treatments were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2 and quality of evidence was rated using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 105) comparing rituximab with conventional therapy, showed a 180-day remission rate of 63.5% versus 60.4% (risk ratio: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.78-1.42), with very low certainty due to serious RoB and imprecision. Another RCT compared benralizumab with mepolizumab, showing similar rates of remission (58.6% versus 55.7%), relapse (30%), and glucocorticoid tapering, with low certainty owing to imprecision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rituximab showed no clear benefit over conventional therapy, whereas benralizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to mepolizumab. However, evidence remains limited, and further EGPA-specific trials are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":18705,"journal":{"name":"Modern Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":"415-421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mr/roaf126","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis causing multi-organ damage and long-term disability. Various treatments including IL-5-targeting agents and other biologics have recently emerged, prompting regular updates of clinical practice guidelines. This scoping review and systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and benralizumab in EGPA.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant clinical questions, followed by an SR of trials published between December 2018 and July 2023. Studies comparing rituximab or benralizumab with standard treatments were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2 and quality of evidence was rated using GRADE.

Results: One randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 105) comparing rituximab with conventional therapy, showed a 180-day remission rate of 63.5% versus 60.4% (risk ratio: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.78-1.42), with very low certainty due to serious RoB and imprecision. Another RCT compared benralizumab with mepolizumab, showing similar rates of remission (58.6% versus 55.7%), relapse (30%), and glucocorticoid tapering, with low certainty owing to imprecision.

Conclusions: Rituximab showed no clear benefit over conventional therapy, whereas benralizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to mepolizumab. However, evidence remains limited, and further EGPA-specific trials are needed.

嗜酸性肉芽肿病合并多血管炎的最新治疗方法:一项系统的范围审查。
目的:嗜酸性肉芽肿病合并多血管炎(EGPA)是一种罕见的抗中性粒细胞细胞质抗体相关的血管炎,可引起多器官损害和长期残疾。最近出现了包括il -5靶向药物和其他生物制剂在内的各种治疗方法,促使临床实践指南定期更新。本综述和系统评价(SR)旨在评价利妥昔单抗和贝纳利珠单抗治疗EGPA的疗效和安全性。方法:进行范围综述以确定相关临床问题,然后对2018年12月至2023年7月发表的试验进行回顾性分析。比较利妥昔单抗或贝纳利珠单抗与标准治疗的研究被纳入。偏倚风险(RoB)采用RoB 2评价,证据质量采用GRADE评价。结果:一项比较利妥昔单抗与常规治疗的随机对照试验(RCT; n = 105)显示,180天缓解率为63.5% vs. 60.4%(风险比1.05,95% CI 0.78-1.42),由于严重的RoB和不精确,确定性非常低。另一项RCT比较了贝纳利珠单抗和美波利珠单抗,显示相似的缓解率(58.6% vs 55.7%),复发率(30%)和糖皮质激素逐渐减少,由于不精确,确定性较低。结论:利妥昔单抗与常规治疗相比没有明显的益处,而贝纳利珠单抗的疗效和安全性与美波珠单抗相当。然而,证据仍然有限,需要进一步的egpa特异性试验。
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
Modern Rheumatology
Modern Rheumatology RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
146
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Modern Rheumatology publishes original papers in English on research pertinent to rheumatology and associated areas such as pathology, physiology, clinical immunology, microbiology, biochemistry, experimental animal models, pharmacology, and orthopedic surgery. Occasional reviews of topics which may be of wide interest to the readership will be accepted. In addition, concise papers of special scientific importance that represent definitive and original studies will be considered. Modern Rheumatology is currently indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, Academic OneFile, Current Abstracts, Elsevier Biobase, Gale, Health Reference Center Academic, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by Serial Solutions
×
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
小红书