SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Efficacy of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of dose and administration schedule on biologic efficacy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- New advances in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps from pathophysiology to biologic targeted therapy.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Evidence.Allergy · 2025Pooled it
- Real-world two-year outcomes of mepolizumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and coexisting severe asthma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Differences in Biologic Clinical Trials for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps-Are We Comparing Apples With Oranges?International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026Review
- The Therapeutic Role of Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP): A Review of the Current Evidence.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- A Literature Review of the Management of Nasal Polyps: Biologics Combined With Endoscopic Surgery.Cureus · 2025Review
- Current diagnostic and therapeutic management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Austria: insights and unmet needs from a nationwide survey.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ARIA-Italy multidisciplinary consensus on nasal polyposis and biological treatments: Update 2025.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is a debate around the use of biological agents in the treatment of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps. Therefore, this study's purpose was to assess the effectiveness of various biologics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
methodsA systematic and manual search was conducted for all relevant studies from inception to December 20, 2023. Two independent authors carried out the search, screening, assessment, and data extraction. Network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14 software.
resultsOur analysis includes a comprehensive set of 19 studies. These studies compared the efficacy of four distinct biologic treatments. The results of reticulated Meta-analysis showed that Dupilumab (MD = - 1.85, 95% CI: - 2.47, - 1.24), Omalizumab (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI: - 1.90, - 0.70), Benralizumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.66, - 0.03) and Mepolizumab (MD = - 1.48, 95% CI: - 2.22, - 0.74) were superior to placebo from the nasal polyp score(NPS), Dupilumab (MD = - 12.56, 95% CI: - 22.49,- 2.63) was superior to placebo from the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22(SNOT-22)score, and Dupilumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.08, - 0.59) and Omalizumab (RR = - 0.51, 95% CI: - 0.83, - 0.19) were superior to placebo from the nasal congestion severity(NCS). In terms of cumulative sorting under the surface of the curve (SUCRA) values, Dupilumab was the best performer in the NPS (0.92), SNOT-22 score (0.70), and NCS (0.93); Four different biologics outperformed placebo in the NPS, SNOT-22 score, and NCS.
conclusionIn patients with CRSwNP, based on the efficacy (NPS, (SNOT-22) score, NCS) and, dupilumab is the most efficacious for CRSwNP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39187717What 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.