Trial reportChest2026
Win Ratio Analysis to Clarify Clinical Benefits: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 BOREAS and NOTUS (Two Pivotal Studies to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Dupilumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe COPD With Type 2 Inflammation).
Trial report in Chest, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, 52-week Pivotal Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Dupilumab in Patients With Moderate-to-severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) With Type 2 Inflammation
A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, 52-week Pivotal Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Dupilumab in Patients With Moderate-to-severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) With Type 2 Inflammation
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials often assess multiple end points; however, many do not consider the value of composite end points. Although some evaluations of composite end points consider each outcome to be of equal importance, win ratio analysis ranks outcomes by clinical severity, prioritizing more serious events that have the biggest impact on patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does win ratio analysis, incorporating multiple clinician- and patient-relevant outcomes, show benefits for dupilumab over placebo in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsBOREAS and NOTUS (Two Pivotal Studies to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Dupilumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe COPD With Type 2 Inflammation)-phase 3, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials-enrolled patients with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and type 2 inflammation (screening blood eosinophil count ≥ 300 cells/μL) receiving inhaled triple or dual therapy (where inhaled corticosteroids were contraindicated). Patients were randomized to add-on dupilumab 300 mg (n = 938) every 2 weeks or matched placebo (n = 934) for 52 weeks. Win ratio analysis evaluated the relative efficacy of dupilumab vs placebo using data from the pooled intention-to-treat safety population. Hierarchical composite end points were occurrence of death, hospitalization, emergency department visits, exacerbations, lung function decline, symptoms, and quality of life. Win ratios were calculated to quantify treatment effects and to assess differences in event occurrence and timing between treatment arms.
resultsDupilumab showed a higher win ratio than placebo after consideration of key end points, reinforcing its clinical benefits. Dupilumab increased the likelihood of improved clinically significant outcomes by 31% (win ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.48). For any given untied pair of dupilumab vs placebo recipients, the estimated probability of a better outcome for dupilumab recipients was 57%.
interpretationOur results show that dupilumab improved patient- and clinician-important outcomes by reducing the risks of clinically significant severe outcomes, together with improving symptoms and lung function. This analysis provides meaningful insights into the value of composite end points and win ratio analysis that could guide future phase 3 trial designs. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03930732 and NCT04456673; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.
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.