Introduction: The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) remain unresolved, and relevant meta-analyses are lacking. Additionally, mepolizumab has been evaluated in far fewer patients, and the evidence is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify evidence gaps that will guide future investigation of therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 signaling (anti-IL-5Rα or anti-IL-5) for CRSwNP. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis that were registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021276867). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on September 2, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing anti-IL-5 treatments (anti-IL-5Rα or anti-IL-5) in adult patients for CRSwNP were included. Results: Seven RCTs with 799 patients evaluating the efficacy and safety of treatments targeting IL-5 pathway (benralizumab [anti-IL-5Rα], mepolizumab, and reslizumab [anti-IL-5]) were included. The overall pooled meta-analysis showed that anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better nasal polyp score (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−0.87, −0.55]; p < 0.00001). Anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better nasal congestion score (WMD: −1.73; 95% CI: [−2.29, −1.16]; p < 0.00001). Anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) score (WMD: −11.30; 95% CI: [−14.77, −7.83]; p < 0.00001). The overall pooled meta-analysis showed that anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score (WMD: 2.09; 95% CI: [0.42, 3.77]; p = 0.01). Anti-IL-5 treatments significantly reduced the loss of smell score in the overall pooled meta-analysis (WMD: −1.38; 95% CI: [−1.97, −0.79]; p < 0.00001). In the overall pooled meta-analysis, anti-IL-5 treatments showed no difference with the placebo in the risk of adverse events (AEs; risk ratio [RR]: 1.01; 95% CI: [−0.93, 1.09]; p = 0.83) and serious AEs (SAEs; RR: 0.73; 95% CI: [0.40, 1.34]; p = 0.32). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified that anti-IL-5 treatments significantly improved the size of nasal polyps, health-related quality of life, and sense of smell in moderate to severe CRSwNP, and they were safe and well tolerated.

Keywords:
Nasal polyps, Anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, Benralizumab, Mepolizumab, Reslizumab, Meta-analysis
1.
Lange B, Holst R, Thilsing T, Baelum J, Kjeldsen A. Quality of life and associated factors in persons with chronic rhinosinusitis in the general population: a prospective questionnaire and clinical cross-sectional study.
Clin Otolaryngol
. 2013;38:474–80.
2.
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;58:1–464.
3.
Wang X, Zhang N, Bo M, Holtappels G, Zheng M, Lou H, et al. Diversity of T cytokine profiles in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: a multicenter study in Europe, Asia, and Oceania.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2016;138:1344–53.
4.
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;8:1532–49.
5.
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;8:1514–9.
8.
Chong LY, Piromchai P, Sharp S, Snidvongs K, Philpott C, Hopkins C, et al. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2021;3:CD013513.
9.
Wu Q, Yuan L, Qiu H, Wang X, Huang X, Zheng R, et al. Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BMJ Open
. 2021;11:e047344.
10.
Canonica GW, Harrison TW, Chanez P, Menzella F, Louis R, Cosio BG, et al. Benralizumab improves symptoms of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma with a diagnosis of nasal polyposis.
Allergy
. 2022;77:150–61.
11.
Takabayashi T, Asaka D, Okamoto Y, Himi T, Haruna S, Yoshida N, et al. A phase II, multicenter, randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of benralizumab, a humanized anti-IL-5R alpha monoclonal antibody, in patients with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis.
Am J Rhinol Allergy
. 2021;35:861–70.
12.
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;140:1024–31.
13.
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;128:989–95.
14.
Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, et al. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Respir Med
. 2021;9:1141–53.
15.
Wu Q, Wang Q.
Efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibodies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps:
a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomised controlled trials
. PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021276867. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021276867.
16.
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;162:777–84.
17.
Tversky J, Lane AP, Azar A. Benralizumab effect on severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP): a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
Clin Exp Allergy
. 2021;51(6):836–44.
18.
Gevaert P, Lang-Loidolt D, Lackner A, Stammberger H, Staudinger H, Van Zele T, et al. Nasal IL-5 levels determine the response to anti-IL-5 treatment in patients with nasal polyps.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
. 2006;118:1133–41.
19.
Chowdhury NI, Mace JC, Bodner TE, Alt JA, Deconde AS, Levy JM, et al. Investigating the minimal clinically important difference for SNOT-22 symptom domains in surgically managed chronic rhinosinusitis.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
. 2017;7:1149–55.
20.
Lund VJ, Kennedy DW. Staging for rhinosinusitis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
. 1997;117:S35–40.
21.
Wu Q, Zhang Y, Kong W, Wang X, Yuan L, Zheng R, et al. Which is the best biologic for nasal polyps: dupilumab, omalizumab, or mepolizumab? A network meta-analysis.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol
. 2021:1–10.
22.
Agache I, Song Y, Alonso-Coello P, Vogel Y, Rocha C, Solà I, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review for the EAACI guidelines.
Allergy
. 2021;76:2337–53.
23.
Codispoti CD, Mahdavinia M. A call for cost-effectiveness analysis for biologic therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol
. 2019;123:232–9.
24.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of inter- ventions
. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
25.
Briegel I, Felicio-Briegel A, Mertsch P, Kneidinger N, Haubner F, Milger K. Hypereosinophilia with systemic manifestations under dupilumab and possibility of dual benralizumab and dupilumab therapy in patients with asthma and CRSwNP.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
. 2021;9:4477–9.
© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
2022
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.