Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the comparative efficacy of biologics for asthma. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of biologics. METHODS: This study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of a biologic compared to a placebo or another biologic in patients with inadequately controlled asthma despite high-intensity treatment, published by January 6, 2022. Two researchers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. The outcomes of interest were the annual asthma exacerbation rate (AER), forced expiratory volume per second before bronchodilator use (preBD FEV1), the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) results. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and a random effects model was used to draw pooled incidence rate ratio or standardized mean differences. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 8376 participants were retrieved. All biologics included in this study were associated with significantly better effects than placebo in AER, preBD FEV1, and ACQ outcomes. Although there were no significant differences between the biologics in the overall study population, patients with eosinophil levels ≥300 cells/μL or eosinophilic asthma showed that dupilumab and tezepelumab were significantly better than anti-IL-5 biologics in improving preBD FEV1. Additionally, in patients with eosinophil levels ≥300 cells/μL, benralizumab, unlike reslizumab, performed significantly better than placebo in improving ACQ and AQLQ outcomes. CONCLUSION: The comparative effects of biologics can be considered with phenotypes and biomarkers to help clinicians select an appropriate treatment for inadequately controlled asthma.