Evidence Hub

Comparative safety of monoclonal antibodies in chronic inflammatory airway diseases (chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma): A network meta-analysis

Yang Shen, Da-Yu Guan, Yu Gu, Bo-Wen Zheng, X. Ke, Su-Ling Hong, Yu-Cheng Yang

International Immunopharmacology, 2024

5 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Several monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) targeting specific type 2 immune reactions have been developed as innovative therapeutic approaches for chronic inflammatory airway diseases, such as chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and asthma. However, the clinical safety of these MoAbs and how to choose them are not clear. Therefore, we aimed to assess the systemic drug- and dose-based safety of MoAbs in chronic airway inflammation using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published in English between January 2009 and December 2022. Eligible studies must have clearly reported adverse events (AEs) among the MoAbs' safety data.

RESULTS

1). Regarding serious AEs, mepolizumab was significantly safer than placebo; in terms of permanent treatment discontinuation, reslizumab and dupilumab were significantly safer than benralizumab. 2). Regarding asthma worsening, dupilumab was associated with the best safety profile; was safer than dupilumab/300 mg/q2-4w. 3). In terms of injection-site reactions, dupilumab posed a higher risk than placebo; dupilumab/300 mg/qw posed a higher risk than dupilumab/300 mg/q2w and dupilumab/300 mg/q2-4w; lebrikizumab/250 mg/q4w posed a higher risk than lebrikizumab/37.5 mg/q4w; mepolizumab/100 mg/q4w posed a higher risk than mepolizumab/75 mg/q4w; benralizumab/30 mg/q4-8w posed a higher risk than benralizumab/20 mg/q4-8w. 4) In CRSwNP patients combined with asthma, the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free