Dupilumab for the treatment of severe asthma：a rapid health technology assessment
- VernacularTitle:度普利尤单抗治疗重度哮喘的快速卫生技术评估
- Author:
Huayu WANG
1
;
Shichao DONG
1
;
Wei SUN
2
;
Ying WANG
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University，Tianjin 300211，China
2. Dept. of Respiratory，the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University，Tianjin 300211，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
dupilumab;
severe asthma;
rapid health technology assessment;
effectiveness;
safety;
cost-effectiveness
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(6):648-654
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy， safety and cost-effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of severe asthma with rapid health technology assessment （HTA）， and to provide evidence-based evidence for clinical treatment. METHODS Retrieved from PubMed，Cochrane Library，CNKI，Wanfang， VIP database， and other related websites of HTA. HTA reports， systematic review/meta-analysis， and economic studies of dupilumab in the treatment of severe asthma were collected. Researchers independently identified literature， extracted data， and assessed the quality of included studies. Qualitative description was performed. RESULTS A total of 15 pieces of literature were included， involving 9 systematic reviews/meta-analyses and 6 economic studies. In terms of effectiveness， dupilumab was significantly better than placebo. Compared with other biological drugs， in the patients with severe asthma aged 12 years and above， for those with eosinophil （EOS） ≥300 cells/μL， dupilumab ranked first in improving forced expiratory volume in one second （FEV1）， outperforming tezepelumab， benralizumab， and mepolizumab. It ranked second in reducing acute exacerbations， surpassed only by tezepelumab， while its effect on improving asthma control questionnaire score was relatively lower， being better only than benralizumab. For those with 150 cells/μL ≤EOS＜300 cells/μL， dupilumab was superior to mepolizumab in reducing asthma exacerbation， while the effect on FEV1 was weaker than benralizumab and mepolizumab. In terms of safety， there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between dupilumab and placebo or other biological drugs， while the incidence of injection site reactions of dupilumab was significantly higher than placebo. In terms of cost-effectiveness， the research results of different countries were not consistent， and there was a lack of research data from China. CONCLUSIONS Dupilumab is an effective and safe choice in the treatment of severe asthma， and its cost-effectiveness requires further research based on China’s medical environment to be determined.
