ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
Which Is the Best Biologic for Nasal Polyps: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Indirect Treatment Comparison of Tezepelumab Versus Other Biologics in Severe Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding Nasal Polyposis: The Roles of Ion Channels, Inflammation, Ionocytes, and Prostaglandin E2-The IJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Use of Biological Therapies in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Current State of Knowledge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comorbid Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Asthma: Shared Risk Factors and Treatment Implications-An EAACI Task Force Report.Allergy · 2026Article
- Advance in biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- The alarmin-ILC2 axis as a candidate mechanism for persistent olfactory dysfunction in allergic rhinitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Which Is the Best Biologic for Nasal Polyps: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect comparative efficacy data for biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) remain limited, particularly for novel agents like tezepelumab, underscoring the need to identify optimal therapies for precision management.
objectiveTo rank the comparative efficacy and safety of dupilumab, tezepelumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab versus placebo for CRSwNP using network meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception through April 1, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with CRSwNP comparing biologics against placebo were eligible. PRISMA-NMA guidelines were followed. GRADE methodology was employed for evidence certainty assessment. Two investigators independently extracted data. Fixed-effect model network meta-analysis was performed, with treatments ranked via surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The primary outcomes were Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and safety metrics (proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse event). Secondary outcomes included Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), and Nasal Congestion Score (NCS).
resultsThirteen RCTs (n = 2304) evaluating four biologics versus placebo were included. Compared to placebo, NPS was significantly improved by dupilumab (WMD: -2.16, 95% CI [-2.44, -1.89]), omalizumab (WMD: 1.25, 95% CI [-1.52, -0.97]), mepolizumab (WMD: 0.90, 95% CI [-1.19, -0.62]), and tezepelumab (WMD: -1.50, 95% CI [-1.81, -1.19]). Dupilumab ranked first in efficacy outcomes (NPS, SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS, SUCRA ≥ 0.900, respectively). Tezepelumab ranked second in NPS (SUCRA: 0.720) and UPSIT (SUCRA: 0.749), while omalizumab ranked first in safety (SUCRA of adverse events: 0.064). GRADE assessments indicated that the certainty of the evidence was predominantly high for these key efficacy comparisons.
conclusionsDupilumab demonstrated the highest efficacy and safety profile. Tezepelumab showed comparable efficacy in NPS with omalizumab.
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.