SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Comparative efficacy of biologics for uncontrolled asthma patients with chronic rhinosinusitis or nasal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- 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
- Asthma and Sinonasal Diseases: Shared Clinical Comorbidities, Inflammatory Pathways and Management Strategies.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsthma patients with comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis or nasal polyps (CRS/NP) often experience poor asthma control. However, the comparative efficacies of biological therapies in this subgroup remain unclear.
methodsA comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on biological therapies targeting uncontrolled asthma that included CRS/NP data. The outcomes of interest were annual asthma exacerbation rate (AER), pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (pre-BD FEV1), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores, and sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22) scores. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed based on the presence or absence of CRS/NPs. Subsequently, random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted to perform indirect comparisons of the individual biological therapies.
resultsEleven eligible RCTs evaluating tezepelumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab were identified. Omalizumab and reslizumab were excluded because subgroup data were not available. Pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement effects of biological therapies on all outcomes in patients with CRS/NP than in those without CRS/NP (p < 0.01). In the network meta-analyses, for CRS/NP patients, tezepelumab showed the most pronounced reduction in AER (rate ratio 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09, 0.29), while benralizumab (mean difference [MD] 0.30 L; 95% CI 0.19, 0.40) exhibited the greatest improvement in pre-BD FEV1. Tezepelumab demonstrated the most substantial improvement in the ACQ scores (MD -0.80; 95% CI -1.25, -0.35), whereas mepolizumab (MD -11.80; 95% CI -19.75, -3.85) was associated with the greatest improvement in the SNOT-22 scores.
conclusionsIn the management of asthma with CRS/NP, it is crucial to select biological therapies that consider specific improvements in individual outcomes.
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.