Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

被引:37
|
作者
Chong, Lee-Yee [1 ]
Piromchai, Patorn [2 ]
Sharp, Steve [3 ]
Snidvongs, Kornkiat [4 ]
Philpott, Carl [5 ]
Hopkins, Claire [6 ]
Burton, Martin J. [7 ]
机构
[1] UK Cochrane Ctr, Oxford, England
[2] Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Med, Dept Otorhinolaryngol, Khon Kaen, Thailand
[3] Natl Inst Hlth & Care Excellence, Manchester, Lancs, England
[4] Chulalongkorn Univ, Fac Med, Dept Otolaryngol, Bangkok, Thailand
[5] Univ East Anglia, Norwich Med Sch, Dept Med, Norwich, Norfolk, England
[6] Guys Hosp, ENT Dept, London, England
[7] Cochrane UK, Summertown Pavil,18-24 Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, England
关键词
UNCONTROLLED PERSISTENT ASTHMA; TO-SEVERE ASTHMA; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; NASAL POLYPOSIS; EOSINOPHILIC ASTHMA; DUPILUMAB EFFICACY; ALLERGIC RHINITIS; CHRONIC SINUSITIS; IMPROVES FEV1; DOUBLE-BLIND;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in related inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis). Objectives To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Search methods The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 September 2019. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (currently, monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse events (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Main results We included eight RCTs. Of 986 adult participants, 984 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. Anti-IL-4Ra mAb (dupilumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (score 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, the SNOT-22 score was 19.61 points lower (better) in participants receiving dupilumab (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). Symptom severity measured on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.00 lower in those receiving dupilumab (95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). The risk of serious adverse events may be lower in the dupilumab group (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.75; 3 studies; 782 participants; low certainty). The number of participants requiring nasal polyp surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period is probably lower in those receiving dupilumab (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52; 2 studies; 725 participants; moderate certainty). Change in the extent of disease using the Lund Mackay computerised tomography (CT) score (0 to 24, higher = worse) was -7.00 (95% CI -9.61 to -4.39; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty), a large effect favouring the dupilumab group. The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (0 to 100, higher = better; MCID 8 points) was used to measure change in generic quality of life. The mean difference favouring dupilumab was 8.59 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.86; 2 studies; 706 participants; moderate certainty). There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 3 studies; 783 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL measured with the SNOT-22 at 25 weeks was 13.26 points lower (better) in participants receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in symptom severity: on a 0- to 10-point VAS symptom severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is diKerence in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether or not the overall risk that patients still need surgery at trial end is lower in the mepolizumab group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether mepolizumab reduces the extent of disease as measured by endoscopic nasal polyps score (scale range 0 to 8). The mean difference was 1.23 points lower in the mepolizumab group (MD -1.23, 95%-1.79 to -0.68; 2 studies; 137 participants; very low certainty). The difference in generic quality of life (EQ-5D) was 5.68 (95% CI -1.18 to 12.54; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty), favouring the mepolizumab group. This difference is smaller than the MCID of 8 points. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.73, 95% 0.36 to 1.47; 2 studies; 135 participants; low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three very small studies (65 participants) evaluated omalizumab. We are very uncertain about the effect of omalizumab on disease-specific HRQL, severe adverse events, extent of disease (CT scan scores), generic HRQL and adverse effects. Authors' conclusions In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, using regular topical nasal steroids, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo, and reduces the extent of the disease as measured on a CT scan. It probably also improves symptoms and generic HRQL and there is no evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events. It may reduce the need for further surgery. There may be little or no diKerence in the risk of nasopharyngitis.
引用
收藏
页数:114
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis
    Chong, Lee-Yee
    Piromchai, Patorn
    Sharp, Steve
    Snidvongs, Kornkiat
    Webster, Katie E.
    Philpott, Carl
    Hopkins, Claire
    Burton, Martin J.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, (03):
  • [2] Biologics for chronic Rhinosinusitis
    Pinggera, Leyla
    Innerhofer, Veronika
    Fischer, Natalie
    Riechelmann, Herbert
    [J]. LARYNGO-RHINO-OTOLOGIE, 2020, 99 (07) : 483 - 491
  • [3] Biologics and the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis
    Kern, Robert C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2013, 131 (01) : 117 - 118
  • [4] Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
    Bachert, Claus
    Zhang, Nan
    Cavaliere, Carlo
    Wen Weiping
    Gevaert, Elien
    Krysko, Olga
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2020, 145 (03) : 725 - 739
  • [5] The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
    Haloob, Nora
    Karamali, Katerina
    Hopkins, Claire
    [J]. BIODRUGS, 2023, 37 (04) : 477 - 487
  • [6] Is there a future for biologics in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis?
    Lam, Kent
    Kern, Robert C.
    Luong, Amber
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY, 2016, 6 (09) : 935 - 942
  • [7] Are biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis effective and safe?
    Rampersad, Anjali
    Banerjee, Nandini
    Hinks, Timothy S. C.
    [J]. CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY, 2021, 51 (07): : 870 - 872
  • [8] Biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis
    Laidlaw, Tanya M.
    Buchheit, Kathleen M.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2020, 124 (04) : 326 - 332
  • [9] Emerging biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis
    Pauwels, Bauke
    Jonstam, Karin
    Bachert, Claus
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2015, 11 (03) : 349 - 361
  • [10] The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
    Nora Haloob
    Katerina Karamali
    Claire Hopkins
    [J]. BioDrugs, 2023, 37 : 477 - 487