Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) versus standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma‐related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE.
All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualised asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50−0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47−0.73); omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42−0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty, however none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug‐related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6‐12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualised exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45‐0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 ‐1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) ‐0.45 (95% CI ‐0.58 to ‐0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD ‐0.41 (95%CI ‐0.66 to ‐0.15)].