Nachef Zahi, Krishnan Amita, Mashtare Terry, Zhuang Tingting, Mador M Jeffery
a Department of Internal Medicine-Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine , The State University of New York at Buffalo-School of Medicine , Buffalo , NY , USA.
b Department of Internal Medicine , The State University of New York at Buffalo-School of Medicine , Buffalo , NY , USA.
J Asthma. 2018 Jan;55(1):89-100. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2017.1306548. Epub 2017 May 1.
The purpose of this study is to examine the comparative efficacy of Omalizumab (OMA) and Mepolizumab (Mepo) in the treatment of severe asthma by performing a network meta-analysis.
Data Sources: A systematic review of the literature was performed through four databases from their inception to February 2016.
Randomized control trials and cohort studies were considered if they addressed the individual efficacy of OMA and Mepo in the treatment of asthma that was not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with or without other agents.
OMA was significantly better than Mepo in improving the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with a mean difference of 0.38 and a confidence interval of (0.21-0.55), p < 0.0001, without reaching the minimal clinically important difference of 0.5. No significant difference was seen in Asthma Control Questionnaire, forced expiratory volume in second 1 (FEV1), and Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR) improvement from baseline. Both medications were successful in reducing the calculated annualized rates of asthma exacerbations (AEs) vs placebo by approximately 50%. The heterogeneity score for the different comparisons were elevated except for the PEFR.
When compared indirectly via a network meta-analysis, the efficacy of OMA and Mepo was similar in the treatment of asthma that was not well controlled on at least high-dose ICS. The high heterogeneity observed and the different selection criteria for the use of the two drugs do not permit us to make any definitive recommendations for the preferential use of OMA vs Mepo in the patient populations studied. However, the current data do not suggest any major differences in efficacy.
本研究旨在通过进行网状Meta分析,检验奥马珠单抗(OMA)和美泊利单抗(Mepo)治疗重度哮喘的相对疗效。
数据来源:对四个数据库从创建至2016年2月进行文献系统综述。
如果随机对照试验和队列研究涉及OMA和Mepo在治疗使用或未使用其他药物的吸入性糖皮质激素(ICSs)控制不佳的哮喘中的个体疗效,则予以考虑。
OMA在改善哮喘生活质量问卷方面显著优于Mepo,平均差值为0.38,置信区间为(0.21 - 0.55),p < 0.0001,但未达到最小临床重要差异0.5。在哮喘控制问卷、第1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)和呼气峰值流速(PEFR)自基线的改善方面未观察到显著差异。与安慰剂相比,两种药物均成功将计算得出的哮喘急性加重(AE)年化率降低了约50%。除PEFR外,不同比较的异质性得分均升高。
通过网状Meta分析间接比较时,OMA和Mepo在治疗至少高剂量ICS控制不佳的哮喘方面疗效相似。观察到的高异质性以及两种药物使用的不同选择标准,使我们无法对所研究患者群体中优先使用OMA还是Mepo做出任何明确建议。然而,目前的数据并未表明疗效存在任何重大差异。