A recent Cochrane meta-analysis51 including 13 studies on 6000 participants (4 with mepolizumab, 4 with reslizumab, and 5 with benralizumab) helps the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard therapies in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control on the basis that these treatments roughly halve the pace of asthma exacerbations with this human population. the clinical good thing about reslizumab was higher. Furthermore, it has also been observed that in individuals with unsatisfactory response to mepolizumab, reslizumab is able to significantly improve the medical and biological Lanabecestat guidelines. The aim of customized medicine is to provide the right drug to the right patient at the right dose at the right moment. The biological treatments that were developed to modify specific pathological pathways not only provide us with the tools for the management of asthma individuals but also clarify the biological mechanisms involved in its pathogenesis. = 0.0541). A subgroup analysis of individuals with comorbid nose polyps recognized a significantly higher improvement in ACQ-7 scores in the active group than in placebo group (?1.0 vs ?0.1, = 0.0119). The minimal important difference (MID) of 0.5,33 which represents the smallest change perceived as beneficial Bmpr2 by individuals,34 was achieved in 59% of individuals in the reslizumab group and in 40% of individuals in the placebo group (odds percentage: 2.06, = 0.0973). The results of the two parallel studies explained by Hart et al25 showed the significant effect of reslizumab on the primary outcome (rate of recurrence of asthma exacerbations) techniques in parallel with the effect on Benefits. As a matter of fact, the scores of Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ),35 ACQ-7,32 and Asthma Sign Energy Index (ASUI)36 display a significantly higher improvement ( 0.05) in the active group compared with placebo. Moreover, compared to placebo group, a higher percentage of individuals in the reslizumab group reached the MID37 in AQLQ (study 1: 74% vs 65%, = 0.03; study 2: 73% vs 62%, = 0.02) and in ACQ-7 (study 1: 76% vs 63%, = 0.0002; study 2: 77% vs 61%, = 0.0002). Corren et al28 showed the mean switch of ACQ-7 score was moderate from baseline to the end of the study (week 16) and the variations between reslizumab and placebo organizations did not reach statistical significance. However, the percentage of individuals who reached the MID was significantly higher with reslizumab than with placebo (71% vs 57%, = 0.01). Moreover, a secondary analysis in the subgroup of individuals having a blood eosinophil count of 400 cells/mL recognized a small but significant improvement with reslizumab treatment compared with placebo treatment (0.272 vs 0.002, = 0.0436), related to the improvement in FEV1. Both reslizumab 0.3 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg29 significantly improved asthma control (ACQ-7) Lanabecestat and frequency and severity of symptoms (ASUI) compared with placebo. Both the tools recognized a Lanabecestat greater magnitude of improvement in the group treated with reslizumab 3 mg/kg. At the end of the study, MID of ACQ-7 was reached by a similar percentage of individuals in the reslizumab and placebo organizations, without any significant difference among the organizations. Improvements in AQLQ scores versus placebo were observed for reslizumab 3 mg/kg (1.138 vs 0.779, = 0.0241) but not for reslizumab 0.3 mg/kg (1.057 vs 0.779, = 0.0822). A greater proportion of individuals in the active groups compared to placebo group accomplished the MID of AQLQ at the study end. The difference versus placebo was significant for reslizumab 3 mg/kg (64% vs 48%, = 0.0189) but not for reslizumab 0.3 mg/kg (59% vs 48%, 0.05). Placement of reslizumab in biological treatment of asthma Reslizumab given by IV perfusion offers demonstrated a notable effect, compared to placebo, in reducing exacerbations and in triggering significant improvements in pulmonary function in adult individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma (baseline levels of eosinophils 400 cells/L) that remains inadequately controlled despite becoming treated with high doses of ICS + long-acting beta-agonists and/or oral corticoids.22,27C29 It should be noted that clinical trials on mepolizumab and reslizumab have produced similar results, but the analyzed populations have never been exactly the same. However, in the absence of any direct comparisons, it is impossible to establish the variations (or otherwise) between these two medicines, although reslizumab, unlike subcutaneous mepolizumab, could be limited by the need for IV administration but could provide a higher sense of care to the patient. Moreover, no specific studies have confirmed the effect of reslizumab on reducing the use of oral corticoids, whereas these data are available in the case of mepolizumab.38,39 These limitations must be regarded as before selecting treatment. More recently, however, a study investigated 10 prednisone-dependent asthmatics (blood eosinophils 300 cells/L and sputum eosinophils 3%) who experienced previously received mepolizumab (100 mg subcutaneous dose Q4W) for at least 1 year and.
A recent Cochrane meta-analysis51 including 13 studies on 6000 participants (4 with mepolizumab, 4 with reslizumab, and 5 with benralizumab) helps the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard therapies in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control on the basis that these treatments roughly halve the pace of asthma exacerbations with this human population