Although the conclusion is based only on 9 studies in total, the results suggest that dupilumab may have a role in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and should be compared to mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab in a direct, RCT

Although the conclusion is based only on 9 studies in total, the results suggest that dupilumab may have a role in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and should be compared to mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab in a direct, RCT. This network meta-analysis differs from the previously published network meta-analyses. calculated and converted to log rate ratios. Direct and indirect treatment estimates (for inter-drug differences) were analyzed using frequentist network meta-analysis methodology in R and treatments were ranked based on (randomized to in eosinophilic asthma patients and placebo)number of study participants randomized to in eosinophilic asthma patients analyzed in this meta-analysis and placebo, standard deviation, forced expiratory volume-in 1 s. placebo group, every, weekly *count in the last 12 months prior to inclusion. number of asthma exacerbations prior to participants enrolling in study, inhaled corticosteroids, long acting bronchodilator Direct Pairwise Meta-analysis Physique 2 shows the direct pairwise meta-analysis estimates of log rate ratios for all those drug classes (computed in CMA). Compared to placebo the log rate ratios (and their 95% CIs) for benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab were ? 0.52 [(? 0.90 to ? 0.14), confidence interval Network Meta-analysis Estimates Figure 3 shows the network evidence graph, which is a network laid out in two-dimensional plane, in which the nodes in the graph layout corresponded to the drug class and connecting lines displaying the treatment comparisons (thickness of lines indicating number of studies in each comparison). Table 2 (league table) presents the network meta-analysis estimates for inter-drug differences in log rate ratios for asthma exacerbations (calculated using R). The results are arranged in hierarchical and ranking order. While all drugs were superior to placebo, no inter-drug differences existed. Table 3, which is a comparison of direct and indirect treatment estimates (log rate ratios) to check for consistency of network meta-analysis, shows that no inconsistency existed in analyses. Corresponding forest plot for network meta-analysis is usually presented in Appendix (e-Fig. 2). Even though no inter-drug differences existed, based on the magnitude of effect (decreased log rate ratio for asthma exacerbation), ranking of treatments based on Number of studies providing direct evidence, direct evidence proportion, estimated treatment effect in network meta-analysis, estimated treatment effect derived from direct evidence, estimated treatment effect derived from indirect evidence Table 4 Ranking of treatments thead th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em -score /th th align=”left” valign=”top” colspan=”2″ rowspan=”1″ hr / /th /thead Dupilumab0.83Mepolizumab0.66Reslizumab0.62Benralizumab0.36Placebo0.00 Open in a separate window em P /em -scores are based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates Discussion With regards to their comparative effectiveness in reducing asthma exacerbations, this network meta-analysis shows no significant inter-drug differences Eniporide hydrochloride between benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab. Although the conclusion is based only on 9 studies in total, the results suggest that dupilumab may have a role in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and should be compared to mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab in a direct, RCT. This network meta-analysis differs from the previously published network meta-analyses. In the network meta-analysis by Casale et al. [19], Eniporide hydrochloride only benralizumab and reslizumab studies were analyzed, and in the matching-adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis by Bourdin et al. [20], only benralizumab, reslizumab, and mepolizumab were analyzed. In the network meta-analyses by Cabon et al. [6] and He et al. [4], only benralizumab, reslizumab, and mepolizumab were compared. While the former [6] attempted to analyze data separately for those with eosinophilic asthma, not all included studies had a uniform criteria for defining eosinophilic asthma [21], as such clinical asthma exacerbation had not been an a priori described result in the meta-analysis, as well as the evaluation integrated data from research with medication dosing that’s not medically utilized (e.g., learning mepolizumab at 75 mg, 250 mg, and 750 mg dosages). In the network meta-analysis by He et al. [4], not merely was eosinophilic asthma or medical asthma exacerbation described a priori, occurrence density prices (using person-time) weren’t reported, and medicines with irrelevant medical dosing were utilized (e.g., learning mepolizumab at 75 mg, 250 mg and 750 mg dosages, and merging benralizumab 0.3 mg/kg with additional dosages). The indirect treatment assessment by Busse et al. [5] do compare the certified dosages of benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab and described medical asthma exacerbation, aswell as parsed Eniporide hydrochloride out the info predicated on different bloodstream eosinophil matters. This network meta-analysis resembles the meta-analysis by Busse et al. in having stringent addition criteria for research but CR6 differs in a few additional respects: (1) this meta-analysis included dupilumab research, aswell as (2) utilized log of price ratios in analyses. The discussion for using logarithmic size instead of an arithmetic size is extracted from the plan of American Journal of Epidemiology (guidelines to writers), which areas, when plotting comparative measures of impact (e.g., comparative risks, relative chances), a Eniporide hydrochloride logarithmic size.