Anti-interleukin 5 Therapy for Eosinophilic Asthma: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
- 344 Downloads
Recently, more and more clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the effects of anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibodies in eosinophilic asthma. However, a confirm conclusion has not been well established. We therefore sought to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the overall efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin 5 treatments in eosinophilic asthma. RCTs of anti-interleukin 5 treatments in eosinophilic asthma published up to June 2016 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library databases, and CBM, which reported pulmonary functions, quality-of-life scores, asthmatic exacerbations, and adverse events were included. Fixed-effect models were used to calculate mean difference, relative risks (RR), and 95 % CIs. Twelve studies involving 3340 patients were identified. Pooled analysis revealed significant improvements in FEV1 (nine trials, 1935 subjects; MD = 0.12; 95 % CI, 0.08–0.16), and Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire scores (five trials, 1334 subjects; MD = 0.23; 95 % CI, 0.13–0.34). Anti-interleukin 5 treatment was also associated with significantly decreased exacerbation risk than placebo (six trials, 875 subjects; RR = 0.52; 95 % CI, 0.46 to 0.59) and a lower incidence of adverse events (eight trials, 1754 subjects; RR = 0.93; 95 % CI, 0.89 to 0.97). Anti-interleukin 5 treatment is well tolerated and could significantly improve FEV1, quality of life, and reduced exacerbations risk in patients with eosinophilic asthma. Further trials are necessary to assess the baseline blood eosinophil count to identify the optimal patients of eosinophilic asthma that could benefit from anti-interleukin 5 therapy.
KeywordsEosinophilic asthma Anti-interleukin 5 Meta-analysis
We are grateful to the authors of the primary studies included in this meta-analysis. We thank Jiao-Qing Tang for his help and editorial advice during the preparation of the review.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study did not receive any funding.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Fa-Ping Wang and Xiao-Feng Xiong performed the literature searches, selected the studies, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript draft. Ting Liu and Su-Yun Li aided in the data analysis. Hui Mao and De-Yun Cheng designed the study and revised manuscript.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 6.Flood-Page P, Swenson C, Faiferman I, Matthews J, Williams M, Brannick L, Robinson D, Wenzel S, Busse W, Hansel TT, Barnes NC (2007) A study to evaluate safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with moderate persistent asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 176(11):1062–1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Castro M, Wenzel SE, Bleecker ER, Pizzichini E, Kuna P, Busse WW, Gossage DL, Ward CK, Wu Y, Wang B, Khatry DB, Merwe R, Kolbeck R, Molfino NA, Raible DG (2014) Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin 5 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, versus placebo for uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma: a phase 2b randomised dose-ranging study. Lancet Respir Med 2(11):878–890. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600%2814%2970201-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Higgins J, Green S (2013) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011Google Scholar
- 17.Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C (2009) Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 38(1):287–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C (2011) User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- 20.Castro M, Zangrilli J, Wechsler ME, Bateman ED, Brusselle GG, Bardin P (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):355–366. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00042-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Laviolette M, Gossage DL, Gauvreau G, Leigh R, Olivenstein R, Katial R, Busse WW, Wenzel S, Wu Y, Datta V, Kolbeck R, Molfino NA (2013) Effects of benralizumab on airway eosinophils in asthmatic patients with sputum eosinophilia. J Allergy Clin Immunol 132(5):1086–1096.e1085. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.05.020 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.The Global Asthma Report (2014) Auckland. Global Asthma Network, New Zealand, Available at: http://www.globalasthmareport.org/resources/Global_Asthma_Report_2014.pdf Google Scholar
- 28.Powell C, Milan SJ, Dwan K, Bax L, Walters N (2015) Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD010834Google Scholar
- 29.Leckie MJ, Ten Brinke A, Khan J, Diamant Z, O’Connor BJ, Walls CM, Mathur AK, Cowley HC, Chung KF, Djukanovic R, Hansel TT, Holgate ST, Sterk PJ, Barnes PJ (2000) Effects of an interleukin-5 blocking monoclonal antibody on eosinophils, airway hyper-responsiveness, and the late asthmatic response. Lancet (London, England) 356(SUPPL):2144–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Schatz M, Li Q, Chen W, Khatry D, Tran T, Zeiger R (2014) Elevated blood eosinophil level is a risk factor for exacerbations in adult persistent asthma. In: C33. Cytokines and asthma mediators. Am Thoracic Soc A4235–A4235Google Scholar
- 34.Malinovschi A, Fonseca JA, Jacinto T, Alving K, Janson C (2013) Exhaled nitric oxide levels and blood eosinophil counts independently associate with wheeze and asthma events in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey subjects. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 132 (4):821–827 e821–825. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.06.007Google Scholar
- 37.Ortega HG, Yancey SW, Mayer B, Gunsoy NB, Keene ON, Bleecker ER, Brightling CE, Pavord ID (2016) Severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab stratified by baseline eosinophil thresholds: a secondary analysis of the DREAM and MENSA studies. Lancet Respir Med 4(7):549–556. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30031-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar