Allergy-Immunology Division and the Sinus and Allergy Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Jun;9(6):2461-2471.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.01.031. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
Among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biologics, such as anti-interleukin-4/interleukin-13 (dupilumab) and anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab), have demonstrated efficacy compared with intranasal corticosteroids (INCS). However, no head-to-head RCTs exist between biologics.
To perform an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the efficacy of biologics plus INCS versus placebo (INCS) as a common comparator.
Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were searched for RCTs of biologics in CRSwNP. Bucher ITCs were performed for outcomes at week 24: nasal polyp score (NPS) (range, 0-8), nasal congestion (NC) (range, 0-3), loss of smell (range, 0-3), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (range, 0-40), total symptom score (range, 0-12), 22-item sinonasal outcome test (range, 0-110), and responder analyses based on NPS or NC improvement of 1 point or greater.
Assessment of trial design, baseline characteristics, and outcome measures suggested that ITC was feasible with four phase 3 RCTs: dupilumab SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 (NCT02912468/NCT02898454) and omalizumab POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 (NCT03280550/NCT03280537). In the intent-to-treat population, dupilumab had significantly greater improvements from baseline to week 24 versus omalizumab across key outcomes: NPS (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval], -1.04 [-1.63 to -0.44]), NC (-0.35 [-0.60 to -0.11]), loss of smell (-0.66 [-0.90 to -0.42]), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (6.70 [4.67-8.73]), and total symptom score (-1.18 [-1.95 to -0.41]). Improvement in the 22-item sinonasal outcome test was greater in dupilumab versus omalizumab but was not statistically significant. Dupilumab patients were significantly more likely to achieve ≥1-point improvement in NPS (odds ratio [95% CI] = 3.58 [1.82-7.04]) and NC (2.13 [1.12-4.04]) versus omalizumab.
Although ITCs have limitations, these results demonstrated that dupilumab had consistently greater improvements in key CRSwNP outcomes versus omalizumab at week 24.
在慢性鼻-鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉(CRSwNP)患者中,生物制剂(如抗白细胞介素-4/白细胞介素-13(度普利尤单抗)和抗免疫球蛋白 E(奥马珠单抗))的随机临床试验(RCT)已证明与鼻内皮质类固醇(INCS)相比具有疗效。然而,生物制剂之间没有头对头 RCT。
通过间接治疗比较(ITC),评估生物制剂联合 INCS 与安慰剂(INCS)作为共同对照药物的疗效。
在 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 中搜索 CRSwNP 中生物制剂的 RCT。对第 24 周的结局进行 Bucher ITC:鼻息肉评分(NPS)(范围 0-8)、鼻塞(NC)(范围 0-3)、嗅觉丧失(范围 0-3)、宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试(范围 0-40)、总症状评分(范围 0-12)、22 项鼻-鼻窦结局测试(范围 0-110),以及基于 NPS 或 NC 改善 1 点或更多的应答者分析。
评估试验设计、基线特征和结局测量结果表明,四项 3 期 RCT 可行 ITC:度普利尤单抗 SINUS-24 和 SINUS-52(NCT02912468/NCT02898454)和奥马珠单抗 POLYP 1 和 POLYP 2(NCT03280550/NCT03280537)。在意向治疗人群中,度普利尤单抗与奥马珠单抗相比,在关键结局方面的改善具有显著统计学意义:NPS(最小二乘均数差值[95%置信区间],-1.04[-1.63 至-0.44])、NC(-0.35[-0.60 至-0.11])、嗅觉丧失(-0.66[-0.90 至-0.42])、宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试(6.70[4.67-8.73])和总症状评分(-1.18[-1.95 至-0.41])。度普利尤单抗在 22 项鼻-鼻窦结局测试中的改善优于奥马珠单抗,但无统计学意义。与奥马珠单抗相比,度普利尤单抗患者 NPS(优势比[95%CI],3.58[1.82-7.04])和 NC(2.13[1.12-4.04])改善 1 点以上的可能性显著更高。
尽管 ITC 存在局限性,但这些结果表明,在第 24 周时,度普利尤单抗在关键 CRSwNP 结局方面的改善明显优于奥马珠单抗。