ArticlePulmonary therapy2026
Dupilumab Versus Mepolizumab for COPD: Evaluating Efficacy Outcomes Using Placebo-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anti-type 2 monoclonal antibody therapy for eosinophilic COPD beyond triple therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis with strict eosinophil inclusion criteria.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Different Inflammatory Phenotypes and Immune Endotypes Drive Disease Heterogeneity in Asthma and COPD.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUp to 40% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exhibit elevated blood eosinophils, reflective of type 2 inflammation. Dupilumab and mepolizumab versus standard of care have demonstrated moderate-to-severe exacerbation reductions of 30-34% and 15-18%, respectively, over 52 weeks. This study compared their relative efficacy using indirect treatment comparison (ITC).
methodsA Bucher ITC was performed on 52-week phase 3 trials of dupilumab (BOREAS/NOTUS) and mepolizumab (MATINEE/METREX/METREO). The primary ITC endpoint was annualized moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates in patients from BOREAS + NOTUS versus MATINEE + METREX (modified intention-to-treat high stratum cohort, representing an eosinophilic phenotype); sensitivity analyses were performed using different combinations of mepolizumab data including MATINEE + METREX + METREO (100-mg arm). Other 52-week endpoints included mean difference in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
resultsThe primary ITC resulted in an RR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.66, 1.01), showing a numerical advantage for dupilumab versus mepolizumab in reducing moderate-to-severe exacerbation. Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings from the primary ITC (BOREAS + NOTUS vs. MATINEE + METREX + METREO: RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.68, 1.01]). Dupilumab demonstrated significantly greater FEV
conclusionThis ITC suggests potential clinical benefits of dupilumab over mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality of life in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation. Direct head-to-head trials are necessary to confirm these results and better guide treatment choices.
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.