Introduction: Compared with the placebo, biologics are beneficial in reducing nasal polyp mass and safe in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, there lacks a head-to-head randomized trial comparing biologics. We aimed to determine the best biologic for CRSwNP. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021226766). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on December 29, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing biologics in adult patients for CRSwNP were included. Results: Nine RCTs with 1,190 patients comparing 3 different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab) and the placebo were included. Dupilumab had the best efficacy in terms of nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score, and nasal congestion score (NCS) for surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.900, 0.916, 1.000, and 0.807, respectively. Omalizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS for SUCRA values of 0.606, 0.500, and 0.693, respectively. Mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of NPS for SUCRA values of 0.563 and had the highest risk of adverse events (AEs) for SUCRA values of 0.746. Conclusion: This is the first NMA that compared different biologics in patients with CRSwNP. Based on the efficacy (NPS) and safety (AEs), dupilumab is the best choice and omalizumab is the second best option for CRSwNP. Although mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy, it had the highest risk of AEs.

1.
Shi JB, Fu QL, Zhang H, Cheng L, Wang YJ, Zhu DD, et al. Epidemiology of chronic rhinosinusitis: results from a cross-sectional survey in seven Chinese cities.
Allergy
. 2015;70(5):533–9.
2.
Kim JH, Cho C, Lee EJ, Suh YS, Choi BI, Kim KS. Prevalence and risk factors of chronic rhinosinusitis in South Korea according to diagnostic criteria.
Rhinology
. 2016;54(4):329–35.
3.
Hastan D, Fokkens WJ, Bachert C, Newson RB, Bislimovska J, Bockelbrink A, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis in Europe: an underestimated disease. A GA2LEN study.
Allergy
. 2011;66(9):1216–23.
4.
Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020.
Rhinology
. 2020;58(2):82–111.
5.
Bachert C, Zhang N, Cavaliere C, Weiping W, Gevaert E, Krysko O. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2020;145(3):725–39.
6.
Naclerio R, Baroody F, Bachert C, Bleier B, Borish L, Brittain E, et al. Clinical research needs for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in the New Era of biologics: a national institute of allergy and infectious diseases workshop.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
. 2020;8(5):1532–e1.
7.
Bachert C, Marple B, Hosemann W, Cavaliere C, Wen W, Zhang N. Endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: pathology and possible therapeutic implications.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
. 2020;8(5):1514–9.
8.
Bachert C, Zhang N, Hellings PW, Bousquet J. Endotype-driven care pathways in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2018;141(5):1543–51.
9.
Bachert C, Zhang N. Medical algorithm: diagnosis and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
Allergy
. 2020;75(1):240–2.
10.
Ren L, Zhang N, Zhang L, Bachert C. Biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps – state of the art.
World Allergy Organ J
. 2019;12(8):100050.
11.
Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials.
Lancet
. 2019;394(10209):1638–50.
12.
Bachert C, Mannent L, Naclerio RM, Mullol J, Ferguson BJ, Gevaert P, et al. Effect of subcutaneous dupilumab on nasal polyp burden in patients with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis: a randomized clinical trial.
JAMA
. 2016;315(5):469–79.
13.
Bachert C, Sousa AR, Lund VJ, Scadding GK, Gevaert P, Nasser S, et al. Reduced need for surgery in severe nasal polyposis with mepolizumab: randomized trial.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2017;140(4):1024–e14.
14.
Gevaert P, Van Bruaene N, Cattaert T, Van Steen K, Van Zele T, Acke F, et al. Mepolizumab, a humanized anti-IL-5 mAb, as a treatment option for severe nasal polyposis.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2011;128(5):989–8.
15.
Gevaert P, Calus L, Van Zele T, Blomme K, De Ruyck N, Bauters W, et al. Omalizumab is effective in allergic and nonallergic patients with nasal polyps and asthma.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2013;131(1):110–e1.
16.
Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2020;146(3):595–605.
17.
Pinto JM, Mehta N, DiTineo M, Wang J, Baroody FM, Naclerio RM. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anti-IgE for chronic rhinosinusitis.
Rhinology
. 2010;48(3):318–24.
18.
Fokkens WJ, Lund V, Bachert C, Mullol J, Bjermer L, Bousquet J, et al. EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma.
Allergy
. 2019;74(12):2312–9.
19.
Wu Q, Yuan L, Wang X, Qiu H, Zheng R, Yang Q. Which is the best monoclonal antibodies for nasal polyposis: dupilumab, mepolizumab, or omalizumab? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021226766 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226766.
20.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.
Ann Intern Med
. 2015;162(11):777–84.
21.
Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis.
PLoS One
. 2014;9(7):e99682.
22.
Chong LY, Piromchai P, Sharp S, Snidvongs K, Philpott C, Hopkins C, et al. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2020;2(2):CD013513.
23.
Hong CJ, Tsang AC, Quinn JG, Bonaparte JP, Stevens A, Kilty SJ. Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody therapy for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review.
Syst Rev
. 2015;4:166.
24.
Lipworth B, Chan R, Kuo CR. Omalizumab or dupilumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2021;147(1):413.
25.
Peters AT, Han JK, Hellings P, Heffler E, Gevaert P, Bachert C, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
The J Allergy Clin Immunol In Pract
. 2021 Jun;9(6):2461–71.e5.
26.
Cardell LO, Stjärne P, Jonstam K, Bachert C. Endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis: impact on management.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2020;145(3):752–6.
27.
Castro M, Corren J, Pavord ID, Maspero J, Wenzel S, Rabe KF, et al. Dupilumab efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma.
N Engl J Med
. 2018;378(26):2486–96.
28.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
FDA approves first treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration; 2019.
29.
Codispoti CD, Mahdavinia M. A call for cost-effectiveness analysis for biologic therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol
. 2019;123(3):232–9.
30.
Matsuno O, Minamoto S. Rapid effect of benralizumab for severe asthma with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Pulm Pharmacol Ther
. 2020;64:101965.
31.
Weinstein SF, Katial RK, Bardin P, Korn S, McDonald M, Garin M, et al. Effects of reslizumab on asthma outcomes in a subgroup of eosinophilic asthma patients with self-reported chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
. 2019;7(2):589–e3.
32.
Lou H, Wang C, Zhang L. Endotype-driven precision medicine in chronic rhinosinusitis.
Expert Rev Clin Immunol
. 2019;15(11):1171–83.
33.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.