Role of Monoclonal Antibodies in the Management of Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Mohamed M G Mohamed, Ghassan Kamel, Edward Charbek
{"title":"Role of Monoclonal Antibodies in the Management of Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Mohamed M G Mohamed, Ghassan Kamel, Edward Charbek","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-597OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Acute exacerbations are associated with progressive decline in lung function and quality of life. After recognition of the role of type 2 inflammation in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic COPD, there was increased interest in studying monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic agent. Multiple randomized controlled trials showed promising results, yet no consensus exists. <b>Objectives:</b> Our study aims to summarize the current evidence regarding the role of monoclonal antibodies in the management of patients with eosinophilic COPD. <b>Methods:</b> We systematically searched multiple databases using prespecified search terms. We included only randomized controlled trials that compared monoclonal antibodies versus placebo in patients with objective evidence of eosinophilic COPD receiving standard-of-care therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the annualized rate of COPD exacerbation. Absolute changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were secondary outcomes. We also reported serious adverse effects and all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was conducted via random effects model using RevMan software. <b>Results:</b> We identified and included eight double blinded, placebo-controlled trials with a total of 4,512 patients and a median follow up of 52 weeks. The patients' mean age was 65 ± 8 years, with 85% male. Seventy percent of patients were former smokers, with a mean of 43 ± 25 pack-years of smoking history. The majority of patients were receiving triple inhaled therapy. The mean serum eosinophil count at enrollment was 398 ± 297 cells/μl. The monoclonal antibodies studied were dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, astegolimab, and itepekimab. Compared with placebo, patients who received monoclonal antibodies had a significantly decreased annualized COPD exacerbation rate (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.86; <i>P</i> < 0.001). The serious adverse effect rate was significantly lower in the monoclonal antibody arm compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93; <i>P</i> = 0.004). The all-cause mortality rates were not statistically different between the groups (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.3; <i>P</i> = 0.6). Dupilumab showed a trend of improved efficacy over mepolizumab and benralizumab. <b>Conclusions:</b> In patients with eosinophilic COPD receiving standard-of-care therapy, the use of monoclonal antibodies led to a significant reduction in annualized COPD exacerbation rate compared with placebo. Monoclonal antibodies have an acceptable tolerability and safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"768-775"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-597OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Acute exacerbations are associated with progressive decline in lung function and quality of life. After recognition of the role of type 2 inflammation in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic COPD, there was increased interest in studying monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic agent. Multiple randomized controlled trials showed promising results, yet no consensus exists. Objectives: Our study aims to summarize the current evidence regarding the role of monoclonal antibodies in the management of patients with eosinophilic COPD. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases using prespecified search terms. We included only randomized controlled trials that compared monoclonal antibodies versus placebo in patients with objective evidence of eosinophilic COPD receiving standard-of-care therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the annualized rate of COPD exacerbation. Absolute changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were secondary outcomes. We also reported serious adverse effects and all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was conducted via random effects model using RevMan software. Results: We identified and included eight double blinded, placebo-controlled trials with a total of 4,512 patients and a median follow up of 52 weeks. The patients' mean age was 65 ± 8 years, with 85% male. Seventy percent of patients were former smokers, with a mean of 43 ± 25 pack-years of smoking history. The majority of patients were receiving triple inhaled therapy. The mean serum eosinophil count at enrollment was 398 ± 297 cells/μl. The monoclonal antibodies studied were dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, astegolimab, and itepekimab. Compared with placebo, patients who received monoclonal antibodies had a significantly decreased annualized COPD exacerbation rate (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.86; P < 0.001). The serious adverse effect rate was significantly lower in the monoclonal antibody arm compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93; P = 0.004). The all-cause mortality rates were not statistically different between the groups (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.3; P = 0.6). Dupilumab showed a trend of improved efficacy over mepolizumab and benralizumab. Conclusions: In patients with eosinophilic COPD receiving standard-of-care therapy, the use of monoclonal antibodies led to a significant reduction in annualized COPD exacerbation rate compared with placebo. Monoclonal antibodies have an acceptable tolerability and safety profile.

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
单克隆抗体在治疗嗜酸性粒细胞慢性阻塞性肺病中的作用:随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。
背景:慢性阻塞性肺病仍然是全球发病和死亡的主要原因。急性加重与肺功能和生活质量的逐渐下降有关。在认识到 2 型炎症在嗜酸性粒细胞慢性阻塞性肺病发病机制中的作用后,人们对单克隆抗体作为治疗药物的研究兴趣大增。多项随机对照试验(RCT)显示了良好的效果,但目前尚未达成共识。我们的研究旨在总结目前有关单克隆抗体在嗜酸性粒细胞慢性阻塞性肺病患者治疗中作用的证据:我们使用预先指定的检索词对多个数据库进行了系统检索。我们仅纳入了对有客观证据表明患有嗜酸性粒细胞慢性阻塞性肺病并接受标准治疗的患者进行单克隆抗体与安慰剂比较的研究性临床试验。主要研究结果是慢性阻塞性肺疾病的年恶化率。FEV1和SGRQ评分的绝对变化是次要结果。我们还报告了严重不良反应和全因死亡率。统计分析通过RevMan软件的随机效应模型进行:我们确定并纳入了 8 项双盲安慰剂对照试验,共有 4512 名患者参加,中位随访时间为 52 周。患者平均年龄为(65±8)岁,85%为男性。70%的患者曾经吸烟,平均吸烟时间为 43±25 包年。大多数患者正在接受三联吸入疗法。入组时的平均血清嗜酸性粒细胞数为 398±297 cells/µL。单克隆抗体包括杜匹单抗、美博利珠单抗、苯拉利珠单抗、阿斯替戈利单抗和伊替匹单抗。与安慰剂相比,接受单克隆抗体治疗的患者每年的慢性阻塞性肺疾病恶化率明显降低[RR 0.79; 95% CI (0.73, 0.86),PConclusion]:在接受标准治疗的嗜酸性粒细胞慢性阻塞性肺病患者中,与安慰剂相比,使用单克隆抗体可显著降低慢性阻塞性肺病的年恶化率。单克隆抗体具有可接受的耐受性和安全性。
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
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Temporal Trends and Mortality in Tracheobronchial Stenting in the United States: a national cohort study. Defining When to Refer in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: From Consensus to Practice. Indications, techniques, and safety of cryotherapy and cryobiopsy via flexible bronchoscopy in pediatric patients. Early-life liquefied petroleum gas cooking intervention and lung function in Guatemalan children: A randomized clinical trial. Beyond Rest-Based Staging in Interstitial Lung Disease: Where Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Adds Value.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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