SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Anti-IL-5 therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-IL-5 therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Real-world effectiveness of biologic therapies in severe asthma patients ineligible for phase 3 randomised controlled trials of biologics: an analysis from the UK Severe Asthma Registry.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Biologics for eosinophilic COPD: current applications and future prospects.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Beyond inhaled medications: precision medicine and biologic therapies targeting the IL-33/TSLP/type 2 axis in COPD.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Role of IL-5 in eosinophil-associated diseases and prospects for multi-target therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Review
- Unraveling the Immune Landscape of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights into Inflammatory Cell Subtypes, Pathogenesis, and Treatment Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Εosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. What Do We Know So Far?Pulmonary therapy · 2025Review
- Eosinophilic inflammation: a key player in COPD pathogenesis and progression.Annals of medicine · 2024Review
- Management of Refractory Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Emerging Anti-Inflammatory COPD Treatments: Potential Cardiovascular Impacts.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Review
- Safety profile of drugs used in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2024Review
- Asthma-COPD Overlap in Clinical Practice (ACO_CP 2023): Toward Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Pathophysiology, Therapeutic Targets, and Future Therapeutic Alternatives in COPD: Focus on the Importance of the Cholinergic System.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) in Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Short-Term Variability and Potential Clinical Implications.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Towards the elimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Lancet Commission.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Review
- Article
- The Combined Value of Type2 Inflammatory Markers in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Journal Club: Biologics and Potential for Immune Modulation in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2022Article
- The Response to Biologics is Better in Patients with Severe Asthma Than in Patients with Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major cause of hospital admissions, disease-related morbidity and mortality. COPD is a heterogeneous disease with distinct inflammatory phenotypes, including eosinophilia, which may drive acute exacerbations in a subgroup of patients. Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin 5 (IL-5) or its receptor (IL-5R) have a role in the care of people with severe eosinophilic asthma, and may similarly provide therapeutic benefit for people with COPD of eosinophilic phenotype.
objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) compared with placebo in the treatment of adults with COPD. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. Our most recent search was 23 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing anti-IL-5 therapy with placebo in adults with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model.The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring antibiotics or oral steroids, hospitalisations due to exacerbation of COPD, serious adverse events, and quality of life. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN
resultsSix studies involving a total of 5542 participants met our inclusion criteria. Three studies used mepolizumab (1530 participants), and three used benralizumab (4012 participants). The studies were on people with COPD, which was similarly defined with a documented history of COPD for at least one year. We deemed the risk of bias to be generally low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. Mepolizumab 100 mg reduces the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 19% in those with an eosinophil count of at least 150/μL (rate ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.93; participants = 911; studies = 2, high-certainty evidence). When participants with lower eosinophils are included, mepolizumab 100 mg probably reduces the exacerbation rate by 8% (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; participants = 1285; studies = 2, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 300 mg probably reduces the rate of exacerbations by 14% in participants all of whom had raised eosinophils (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.06; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence was uncertain for a single small study of mepolizumab 750 mg. In participants with high eosinophils, mepolizumab probably reduces the rate of hospitalisation by 10% (100 mg, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24; participants = 911; studies = 2, moderate-certainty evidence) and 17% (300 mg, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 100 mg increases the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation compared to the placebo group, in people with the eosinophilic phenotype (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 981; studies 2, high-certainty evidence). When participants with lower eosinophils were included this difference was smaller and less certain (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.0; participants = 1285; studies 2, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 300 mg probably increases the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation in participants who all had eosinophilic phenotype (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). Benralizumab 100 mg reduces the rate of severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in those with an eosinophil count of at least 220/μL (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81; participants = 1512; studies = 2, high-certainty evidence). Benralizumab 10 mg probably reduces the rate of severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in those with an eosinophil count of at least 220/μL (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; participants = 765; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably little or no difference between the intervention and placebo for quality of life measures. Where there were differences the mean difference fell below the pre-specified minimum clinically significant difference. Treatment with mepolizumab and benralizumab appeared to be safe. All pooled analyses showed that there was probably little or no difference in serious adverse events, adverse events, or side effects between the use of a monoclonal antibody therapy compared to placebo. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found that mepolizumab and benralizumab probably reduce the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations in the highly selected group of people who have both COPD and higher levels of blood eosinophils. This highlights the importance of disease phenotyping in COPD, and may play a role in the personalised treatment strategy in disease management. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of monoclonal antibodies in the management of COPD in clinical practice. In particular, it is not clear whether there is a threshold blood eosinophil level above which these drugs may be effective. Studies including cost effectiveness analysis may be beneficial given the high cost of these therapies, to support use if appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.