Advertisement

Lung

, 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
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors are employees and own shares of GSK.

References

  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