Efficacy of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s00405-024-08903-7
Huikang Wang, Xinjun Xu, Zhaoyang Lu, Zhaoxue Zhai, Liting Shao, Xicheng Song, Yu Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Huikang Wang, Xinjun Xu, Zhaoyang Lu, Zhaoxue Zhai, Liting Shao, Xicheng Song, Yu Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s00405-024-08903-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is a debate around the use of biological agents in the treatment of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps. Therefore, this study's purpose was to assess the effectiveness of various biologics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic and manual search was conducted for all relevant studies from inception to December 20, 2023. Two independent authors carried out the search, screening, assessment, and data extraction. Network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis includes a comprehensive set of 19 studies. These studies compared the efficacy of four distinct biologic treatments. The results of reticulated Meta-analysis showed that Dupilumab (MD = - 1.85, 95% CI: - 2.47, - 1.24), Omalizumab (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI: - 1.90, - 0.70), Benralizumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.66, - 0.03) and Mepolizumab (MD = - 1.48, 95% CI: - 2.22, - 0.74) were superior to placebo from the nasal polyp score(NPS), Dupilumab (MD = - 12.56, 95% CI: - 22.49,- 2.63) was superior to placebo from the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22(SNOT-22)score, and Dupilumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.08, - 0.59) and Omalizumab (RR = - 0.51, 95% CI: - 0.83, - 0.19) were superior to placebo from the nasal congestion severity(NCS). In terms of cumulative sorting under the surface of the curve (SUCRA) values, Dupilumab was the best performer in the NPS (0.92), SNOT-22 score (0.70), and NCS (0.93); Four different biologics outperformed placebo in the NPS, SNOT-22 score, and NCS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with CRSwNP, based on the efficacy (NPS, (SNOT-22) score, NCS) and, dupilumab is the most efficacious for CRSwNP.</p>","PeriodicalId":11952,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"559-569"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08903-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is a debate around the use of biological agents in the treatment of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps. Therefore, this study's purpose was to assess the effectiveness of various biologics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Methods: A systematic and manual search was conducted for all relevant studies from inception to December 20, 2023. Two independent authors carried out the search, screening, assessment, and data extraction. Network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14 software.

Results: Our analysis includes a comprehensive set of 19 studies. These studies compared the efficacy of four distinct biologic treatments. The results of reticulated Meta-analysis showed that Dupilumab (MD = - 1.85, 95% CI: - 2.47, - 1.24), Omalizumab (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI: - 1.90, - 0.70), Benralizumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.66, - 0.03) and Mepolizumab (MD = - 1.48, 95% CI: - 2.22, - 0.74) were superior to placebo from the nasal polyp score(NPS), Dupilumab (MD = - 12.56, 95% CI: - 22.49,- 2.63) was superior to placebo from the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22(SNOT-22)score, and Dupilumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.08, - 0.59) and Omalizumab (RR = - 0.51, 95% CI: - 0.83, - 0.19) were superior to placebo from the nasal congestion severity(NCS). In terms of cumulative sorting under the surface of the curve (SUCRA) values, Dupilumab was the best performer in the NPS (0.92), SNOT-22 score (0.70), and NCS (0.93); Four different biologics outperformed placebo in the NPS, SNOT-22 score, and NCS.

Conclusion: In patients with CRSwNP, based on the efficacy (NPS, (SNOT-22) score, NCS) and, dupilumab is the most efficacious for CRSwNP.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同生物制剂治疗伴有鼻息肉的慢性鼻炎的疗效:网络荟萃分析。
背景:目前,围绕使用生物制剂治疗伴有鼻息肉的慢性鼻窦炎存在争议。因此,本研究旨在评估各种生物制剂在治疗伴有鼻息肉的慢性鼻窦炎中的有效性:对从开始到 2023 年 12 月 20 日的所有相关研究进行了系统的人工检索。两位独立作者进行了检索、筛选、评估和数据提取。使用 STATA 14 软件进行网络荟萃分析:我们的分析包括 19 项综合研究。这些研究比较了四种不同生物疗法的疗效。网状 Meta 分析结果显示,杜匹单抗(MD = - 1.85,95% CI:- 2.47,- 1.24)、奥马珠单抗(MD = - 1.30,95% CI:- 1.90,- 0.70)、苯拉珠单抗(MD = - 0.84,95% CI:- 1.66,- 0.03)和美博利珠单抗(MD = - 1.48,95% CI:- 2.22,- 0.74)在鼻息肉评分(NPS)上优于安慰剂,杜匹单抗(MD = - 12.56,95% CI:- 22.49,- 2.63)优于安慰剂;杜匹单抗(MD = - 0.84,95% CI:- 1.08,- 0.59)和奥马珠单抗(RR = - 0.51,95% CI:- 0.83,- 0.19)优于安慰剂。从曲线表面下累积排序(SUCRA)值来看,杜比鲁单抗在NPS(0.92)、SNOT-22评分(0.70)和NCS(0.93)方面表现最佳;四种不同的生物制剂在NPS、SNOT-22评分和NCS方面的表现均优于安慰剂:结论:在CRSwNP患者中,根据疗效(NPS、(SNOT-22)评分、NCS),dupilumab对CRSwNP最有效。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
537
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of European Union of Medical Specialists – ORL Section and Board Official Journal of Confederation of European Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery "European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology" publishes original clinical reports and clinically relevant experimental studies, as well as short communications presenting new results of special interest. With peer review by a respected international editorial board and prompt English-language publication, the journal provides rapid dissemination of information by authors from around the world. This particular feature makes it the journal of choice for readers who want to be informed about the continuing state of the art concerning basic sciences and the diagnosis and management of diseases of the head and neck on an international level. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology was founded in 1864 as "Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde" by A. von Tröltsch, A. Politzer and H. Schwartze.
期刊最新文献
Democratizing cancer detection: artificial intelligence-enhanced endoscopy could address global disparities in head and neck cancer outcomes. Faster recovery in patients with facial nerve palsy treated with contralateral botulinum toxin injection: a case-control study. Intratympanic steroid as salvage therapy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Survival analysis of laryngeal squamous cell cancer, considering different treatment modalities and other factors influencing survival - a monocentric retrospective investigation. The SAPIENS 3D-printed temporal bone model: a real tool for advanced otologic surgery education.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1