Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is heterogeneous in both phenotypes and endotypes. Due to insufficient head-to-head comparison studies, it is hard to decide which biological to initiate. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab which can be used in the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma diagnosed with N-ERD.
METHODS: The population of this observational, cross-sectional study comprised of N-ERD patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 6 months for severe asthma. Outcomes included the asthma control test (ACT), and sino-nasal outcome test scores (SNOT-22), blood eosinophil counts at initiation of biological treatment (T0, baseline) and at the end of 6th months (T6). Adverse effects related to biological treatment and changes of oral corticosteroids dose was recorded.
RESULTS: The study included a total of 22 patients, of whom 11 received mepolizumab and 11 received omalizumab. The change in ACT, SNOT-22, eosinophil counts, and adverse effects related to biologicals were similar at T6 (p = 0.606, p = 0.168, p = 0.05, p = 0.053, respectively). However, when examining the SNOT-22 and ACT based on the cumulative distribution curve (SUCRA), mepolizumab (SUCRA value: 0.61, 0.72, respectively) demonstrated greater efficacy compared to omalizumab (SUCRA value: 0.19, 0.35, respectively). The oral corticosteroids discontinuation rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found both omalizumab and mepolizumab to be effective in treatment; however, we determined that mepolizumab may have a potential superiority in efficacy.
METHODS: The population of this observational, cross-sectional study comprised of N-ERD patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 6 months for severe asthma. Outcomes included the asthma control test (ACT), and sino-nasal outcome test scores (SNOT-22), blood eosinophil counts at initiation of biological treatment (T0, baseline) and at the end of 6th months (T6). Adverse effects related to biological treatment and changes of oral corticosteroids dose was recorded.
RESULTS: The study included a total of 22 patients, of whom 11 received mepolizumab and 11 received omalizumab. The change in ACT, SNOT-22, eosinophil counts, and adverse effects related to biologicals were similar at T6 (p = 0.606, p = 0.168, p = 0.05, p = 0.053, respectively). However, when examining the SNOT-22 and ACT based on the cumulative distribution curve (SUCRA), mepolizumab (SUCRA value: 0.61, 0.72, respectively) demonstrated greater efficacy compared to omalizumab (SUCRA value: 0.19, 0.35, respectively). The oral corticosteroids discontinuation rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found both omalizumab and mepolizumab to be effective in treatment; however, we determined that mepolizumab may have a potential superiority in efficacy.
摘要：
背景：非甾体类抗炎药加剧的呼吸系统疾病（N-ERD）在表型和终态上都是异质性的。由于头对头比较研究不足，很难决定启动哪种生物。这项研究旨在比较奥马珠单抗和美泊利单抗的疗效，后者可用于治疗诊断为N-ERD的严重嗜酸性粒细胞性哮喘患者。
方法：这个观察人群，横断面研究包括N-ERD患者,这些患者接受奥马珠单抗或美泊利单抗治疗严重哮喘至少6个月.结果包括哮喘控制测试（ACT），和鼻窦结果测试评分（SNOT-22），生物治疗开始时(T0,基线)和第6个月结束时(T6)的血嗜酸性粒细胞计数.记录与生物治疗相关的不良反应和口服糖皮质激素剂量的变化。
结果：该研究共包括22名患者，其中11人接受了美泊利单抗治疗,11人接受了奥马珠单抗治疗.ACT的变化，SNOT-22嗜酸性粒细胞计数,与生物制剂相关的不良反应在T6时相似(分别为p=0.606,p=0.168,p=0.05,p=0.053).然而,当根据累积分布曲线(SUCRA)检查SNT-22和ACT时，美泊利单抗(SUCRA值:分别为0.61、0.72)与奥马珠单抗(SUCRA值:分别为0.19、0.35)相比显示出更高的疗效。两组患者的口服糖皮质激素停药率相似(p=0.05)。
结论：我们发现奥马珠单抗和美泊利单抗均可有效治疗；然而，我们确定美泊利单抗在疗效方面可能具有潜在优势.
方法：这个观察人群，横断面研究包括N-ERD患者,这些患者接受奥马珠单抗或美泊利单抗治疗严重哮喘至少6个月.结果包括哮喘控制测试（ACT），和鼻窦结果测试评分（SNOT-22），生物治疗开始时(T0,基线)和第6个月结束时(T6)的血嗜酸性粒细胞计数.记录与生物治疗相关的不良反应和口服糖皮质激素剂量的变化。
结果：该研究共包括22名患者，其中11人接受了美泊利单抗治疗,11人接受了奥马珠单抗治疗.ACT的变化，SNOT-22嗜酸性粒细胞计数,与生物制剂相关的不良反应在T6时相似(分别为p=0.606,p=0.168,p=0.05,p=0.053).然而,当根据累积分布曲线(SUCRA)检查SNT-22和ACT时，美泊利单抗(SUCRA值:分别为0.61、0.72)与奥马珠单抗(SUCRA值:分别为0.19、0.35)相比显示出更高的疗效。两组患者的口服糖皮质激素停药率相似(p=0.05)。
结论：我们发现奥马珠单抗和美泊利单抗均可有效治疗；然而，我们确定美泊利单抗在疗效方面可能具有潜在优势.
