, Volume 197, Issue 1, pp 105–106 | Cite as

Methodological Concerns of a Recent Network Meta-analysis Assessing Biologics for Eosinophilic Asthma

  • N. B. GunsoyEmail author
  • D. J. Bratton
  • R. Alfonso-Cristancho


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors are employees and own shares of GSK.


  1. 1.
    Iftikhar IH, Schimmel M, Bender W, Swenson C, Amrol D (2018) Comparative Efficacy of Anti IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 Drugs for treatment of eosinophilic asthma: a network meta-analysis. Lung 196(5):517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chupp GL, Bradford ES, Albers FC et al (2017) Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial. Lancet Respir Med 5(5):390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bel EH, Wenzel SE, Thompson PJ et al (2014) Oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect of mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 371(13):1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro M, Zangrilli J, Wechsler ME et al (2015) Reslizumab for inadequately controlled asthma with elevated blood eosinophil counts: results from two multicentre, parallel, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet Respir Med 3(5):355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. B. Gunsoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. J. Bratton
    • 2
  • R. Alfonso-Cristancho
    • 3
  1. 1.Value Evidence and OutcomesGlaxoSmithKlineUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Clinical StatisticsGlaxoSmithKlineUxbridgeUK
  3. 3.Value Evidence and OutcomesGlaxoSmithKlineUpper ProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations