Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32323067›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2020

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis.

W Colby Brown, Brent Senior

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Care for Patients with Type-2 Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Article
  14. A prospective study on the efficacy of dupilumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with type 2 inflammation.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2022
    Article
  15. Chronic Rhinosinusitis,Biomedicines · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W Colby BrownDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of North Carolina, CB 7070, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7070, USA.
Brent SeniorDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of North Carolina, CB 7070, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7070, USA. brent_senior@med.unc.edu.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent disease that results in significant healthcare-related costs as well as costs to society with lost productivity and time. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of patients who suffer with this disease will not find relief from current standard of care medications and surgery. With ongoing efforts to understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP has come the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, or "biologics," targeting specific elements of the inflammatory pathway in CRSwNP. Despite efficacy, these come at significant cost and, to date, no studies on the cost-efficacy of these biologics in CRSwNP have been published. RECENT

findingsMultiple studies have now demonstrated efficacy for biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP as a primary indication. However, the gains in quality of life and objective measures, while consistent, are small and, arguably, the clinical significance is still unclear. In addition, the high cost of these medications may be hard to justify when evaluated in cost-efficacy studies against standard of care therapy in CRSwNP. Furthermore, while the current literature is most robust in showing the benefit of the biologics in asthma, it does not fully support cost-efficacy for biologics. This review evaluates the current literature regarding efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of CRSwNP and considers this efficacy in light of the cost implications to individuals and society.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalBiological ProductsBiological TherapyChronic DiseaseCystic FibrosisHealth Care CostsHumansNasal PolypsRhinitisSinusitisTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalBiological ProductsBiologicsChronic rhinosinusitisCost-efficacyDupilumabMonoclonal antibodiesNasal polyps

Identifiers

PMID32323067
OpenAlexW3018851884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.