Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34163180›Full record

ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2021

Response to Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma and Atopic Phenotypes.

Charlene M Prazma, Marco Idzko, Jo Anne Douglass, Arnaud Bourdin, Stephen Mallett, Frank C Albers, Steven W Yancey

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01691521 (MEA115588 A Randomised, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multi-centre Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Mepolizumab Adjunctive Therapy in Subjects With Severe Uncontrolled Refractory Asthma), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT01691521 phase3completednot on this map

MEA115588 A Randomised, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multi-centre Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Mepolizumab Adjunctive Therapy in Subjects With Severe Uncontrolled Refractory Asthma

TypeinterventionalSponsorGlaxoSmithKlineRan2012 to 2014Enrolled580ConditionsAsthmaArmsMepolizumab IV, Mepolizumab SC, IV Placebo, SC Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Charlene M PrazmaRespiratory Therapeutic Area, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Marco IdzkoDivision of Pneumology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jo Anne DouglassThe Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Arnaud BourdinDepartement de Pneumologie et Addictologie, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4645-5209
Stephen MallettClinical Statistics, GSK, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK.
Frank C AlbersRespiratory Medical Franchise, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7039-4621
Steven W YanceyRespiratory Therapeutic Area, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Research Triangle Park Foundation · USGlaxoSmithKline (Spain) · ESInserm · FRThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImproved understanding of characteristics that may influence treatment response across phenotypes may help guide treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of MENSA, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01691521). Patients aged ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. Outcomes assessed were the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Subgroup analyses were performed by baseline blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150-300, ≥300 cells/μL) within atopic subgroups (non-atopic [specific immunoglobulin E <0.35 kU/L], atopic [≥0.35-17.5 kU/L], strongly atopic [>17.5 kU/L]), and by house dust mite (HDM) sensitivity.

resultsOf 576 patients analyzed, 272 were non-atopic, 181 were atopic and 94 were strongly atopic; 29 had missing atopy data. In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 74%, 43% and 25% in the non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic subgroups. Similar reductions were observed in all atopic subgroups in other blood eosinophil count categories where there were sufficient patient numbers for analysis, except for non-atopic patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of <150 cells/μL. Improvements in ACQ-5 scores of -0.75, -0.73 and -0.78 with mepolizumab versus placebo were observed in non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL; consistent improvements in ACQ-5 were not observed in patients with blood eosinophil counts <150 or ≥150-300 cells/μL. Reductions in clinically significant exacerbations with mepolizumab versus placebo were also observed irrespective of sensitivity to HDMs.

conclusionMepolizumab was associated with a trend for reductions in clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, irrespective of atopic status or HDM sensitivity.

Indexed as

allergens and epitopesasthmaasthma treatmentsbiologicseosinophils

Identifiers

PMID34163180
PMCPMC8214022
OpenAlexW3167867833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.