ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Mepolizumab Versus Dupilumab in Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries with Asthma: A Real-World Cohort Study.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMepolizumab and dupilumab are biologic therapies used to manage uncontrolled asthma, though direct comparative real-world evidence between these two agents is limited. This study compared asthma-related hospitalizations and asthma exacerbations between mepolizumab and dupilumab among an older and clinically complex population of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with asthma.
methodsData from Komodo Research Database (01/01/2018-05/31/2025) were used to identify Medicare FFS beneficiaries with asthma and a first claim for mepolizumab or dupilumab on or after January 1, 2019 (index date), as well as a subgroup of patients adherent to the index biologic for ≥ 6 months. Cohorts were balanced using overlap weighting based on a propensity score model. Rates of asthma-related hospitalizations and asthma exacerbations were evaluated while on treatment as the number of events per patient-year (PPY) and compared between weighted cohorts using rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Rates of asthma-related hospitalizations were assessed for non-inferiority using a fixed-margin approach.
resultsOverall, 1055 and 1218 patients were included in the mepolizumab and dupilumab cohorts, respectively (mean age 70.1 and 67.4 years). Baseline characteristics were well balanced after weighting. Mepolizumab demonstrated non-inferiority to dupilumab for asthma-related hospitalizations within the overall population (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46, 1.08; p = 0.113; non-inferiority margin 1.10) and superiority to dupilumab within the adherent subgroup (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30, 0.99; p = 0.047). Mepolizumab was also associated with significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbations than dupilumab in the overall population (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72, 1.00; p = 0.047) and directionally favorable rates in the adherent subgroup (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63, 1.05; p = 0.116).
conclusionsAmong Medicare FFS beneficiaries, mepolizumab demonstrated comparable real-world effectiveness to dupilumab for asthma-related hospitalizations and was associated with significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbations, supporting mepolizumab as an effective treatment option for older, clinically complex patients with asthma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886433What 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.