治疗慢性阻塞性肺病的杜匹单抗和其他生物药物的实际疗效和患者报告结果--系统回顾。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ophir Freund, Ori Wand, Sara Kutzkel, Boaz Tiran, Irina Pumin, Inbal Friedman Regev, Liran Levy, Amir Bar-Shai
{"title":"治疗慢性阻塞性肺病的杜匹单抗和其他生物药物的实际疗效和患者报告结果--系统回顾。","authors":"Ophir Freund, Ori Wand, Sara Kutzkel, Boaz Tiran, Irina Pumin, Inbal Friedman Regev, Liran Levy, Amir Bar-Shai","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the last few decades, the efficacy of biological therapies for COPD has been evaluated by different randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Still, the evaluation of real-world data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been performed in this field before. In the current work, we present a systematic literature review of the real-world data and PROMs of biological treatments for COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three large databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were utilized for the systematic literature review. Clinical studies (RCT, cohorts, case series/reports) assessing patients with COPD treated by any biological therapy were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review resulted in twelve eligible studies (nine randomized controlled trials and three \"real-world\" case series/reports). The evaluation of PROMs in the included studies was mainly limited to the severity and burden of respiratory symptoms. Most biological therapies were associated with improved PROMs compared to the baseline, although not for the placebo. Dupilumab was the only biologic therapy with proven efficacy in RCT for both objective and subjective measures. One prior study reported patients' self-perceived drug effects, and none evaluated patients' perceived disease status. Only 25 patients were assessed in a real-world setting for all biologic therapies combined. Real-world data were retrospective in the form of case reports or series.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are limited data on patients' experience with biological therapies for COPD. While real-world data and PROMs are missing, biases such as a placebo effect must be considered, requiring their incorporation with objective outcomes from prospective controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-World and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Dupilumab and Other Biological Drugs for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Ophir Freund, Ori Wand, Sara Kutzkel, Boaz Tiran, Irina Pumin, Inbal Friedman Regev, Liran Levy, Amir Bar-Shai\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/diagnostics14212390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the last few decades, the efficacy of biological therapies for COPD has been evaluated by different randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Still, the evaluation of real-world data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been performed in this field before. In the current work, we present a systematic literature review of the real-world data and PROMs of biological treatments for COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three large databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were utilized for the systematic literature review. Clinical studies (RCT, cohorts, case series/reports) assessing patients with COPD treated by any biological therapy were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review resulted in twelve eligible studies (nine randomized controlled trials and three \\\"real-world\\\" case series/reports). The evaluation of PROMs in the included studies was mainly limited to the severity and burden of respiratory symptoms. Most biological therapies were associated with improved PROMs compared to the baseline, although not for the placebo. Dupilumab was the only biologic therapy with proven efficacy in RCT for both objective and subjective measures. One prior study reported patients' self-perceived drug effects, and none evaluated patients' perceived disease status. Only 25 patients were assessed in a real-world setting for all biologic therapies combined. Real-world data were retrospective in the form of case reports or series.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are limited data on patients' experience with biological therapies for COPD. While real-world data and PROMs are missing, biases such as a placebo effect must be considered, requiring their incorporation with objective outcomes from prospective controlled trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostics\",\"volume\":\"14 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545442/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212390\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212390","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的几十年中,不同的随机对照试验(RCT)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病的生物疗法的疗效进行了评估。然而,在这一领域,对真实世界数据和患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的评估还没有进行过。在目前的工作中,我们对慢性阻塞性肺病生物治疗的真实世界数据和患者报告结局指标进行了系统的文献综述:系统性文献综述使用了三个大型数据库(MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus 和 ScienceDirect)。纳入了对接受任何生物疗法治疗的慢性阻塞性肺病患者进行评估的临床研究(RCT、队列、病例系列/报告):综述结果显示,有 12 项研究符合条件(9 项随机对照试验和 3 项 "真实世界 "病例系列/报告)。纳入研究的 PROMs 评估主要局限于呼吸道症状的严重程度和负担。与基线相比,大多数生物疗法都能改善 PROMs,但安慰剂则不然。杜比鲁单抗是唯一一种在临床试验中被证实具有客观和主观疗效的生物疗法。此前有一项研究报告了患者对药物效果的自我感觉,但没有一项研究评估了患者对疾病状态的感知。在真实世界环境中,只有 25 位患者接受了所有生物疗法的综合评估。真实世界的数据都是病例报告或系列报告形式的回顾性数据:有关慢性阻塞性肺疾病生物疗法患者体验的数据十分有限。虽然缺少真实世界数据和PROMs,但必须考虑安慰剂效应等偏差,需要将其与前瞻性对照试验的客观结果结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Real-World and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Dupilumab and Other Biological Drugs for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-A Systematic Review.

Background: Over the last few decades, the efficacy of biological therapies for COPD has been evaluated by different randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Still, the evaluation of real-world data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been performed in this field before. In the current work, we present a systematic literature review of the real-world data and PROMs of biological treatments for COPD.

Methods: Three large databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were utilized for the systematic literature review. Clinical studies (RCT, cohorts, case series/reports) assessing patients with COPD treated by any biological therapy were included.

Results: The review resulted in twelve eligible studies (nine randomized controlled trials and three "real-world" case series/reports). The evaluation of PROMs in the included studies was mainly limited to the severity and burden of respiratory symptoms. Most biological therapies were associated with improved PROMs compared to the baseline, although not for the placebo. Dupilumab was the only biologic therapy with proven efficacy in RCT for both objective and subjective measures. One prior study reported patients' self-perceived drug effects, and none evaluated patients' perceived disease status. Only 25 patients were assessed in a real-world setting for all biologic therapies combined. Real-world data were retrospective in the form of case reports or series.

Conclusions: There are limited data on patients' experience with biological therapies for COPD. While real-world data and PROMs are missing, biases such as a placebo effect must be considered, requiring their incorporation with objective outcomes from prospective controlled trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
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