Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well‐recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic 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 for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6‐11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug‐related adverse events (AE) and drug‐related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long‐term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor α, is approved as add-on maintenance treatment for inadequately controlled type 2 severe asthma. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled severe asthma. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations.Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs including 2735 subjects >12 years old and 24-52 weeks of follow-up were included. Dupilumab reduced with high certainty severe asthma exacerbations (Incidence rate ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.45-0.59) and the percentage use of oral corticosteroid use (mean difference (MD) −28.2 mg/d; 95% CI −40.7 to −15.7). Asthma control (ACQ-5), quality of life (AQLQ) and rescue medication use [puffs/d] improved, without reaching the minimal important clinical difference: ACQ-5 MD −0.28 (95% CI −0.39 to −0.17); AQLQ MD +0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.37); and rescue medication MD −0.35 (95% CI −0.73 to +0.02). FEV 1 increased (MD +0.15; 95% CI +0.11 to +0.18) (moderate certainty). There was an increased rate of dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) (moderate certainty) and of drug-related serious AEs (low certainty). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus standard therapy was 464 000$/ QALY (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

No abstract

Background: Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people’s meat choices. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach. Results: Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 73 studies: 59 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. Conclusions: Regardless of people’s general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.

BACKGROUNDIt has been suggested that chronic pancreatitis (CP) may be an independent risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). At the same time, it seems that congestive heart failure (CHF) and CP share the responsibility for the development of important clinical conditions such as sarcopenia, cachexia and malnutrition due to development of cardiac cachexia and pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI), respectively.AIMTo explore the evidence regarding the association of CP and heart disease, more specifically CVD and CHF.METHODSA systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science and Google Scholar was performed by two independent investigators to identify eligible studies where the connection between CP and CVD was investigated. The search was limited to articles in the English language. The last search was run on the 1st of May 2019. The primary outcomes were: (1) Incidence of cardiovascular event [acute coronary syndrome (ACS), chronic coronary disease, peripheral arterial lesions] in patients with established CP; and (2) Incidence of PEI in patients with CHF.RESULTSOut of 1166 studies, only 8 were eligible for this review. Studies regarding PEI and CHF showed an important incidence of PEI as well as associated malabsorption of nutritional markers (vitamin D, selenium, phosphorus, zinc, folic acid, and prealbumin) in patients with CHF. However, after substitution of pancreatic enzymes, it seems that, at least, loss of appetite was attenuated. On the other side, studies investigating cardiovascular events in patients with CP showed that, in CP cohort, there was a 2.5-fold higher incidence of ACS. In another study, patients with alcohol–induced CP with concomitant type 3c diabetes had statistically significant higher incidence of carotid atherosclerotic plaques in comparison to patients with diabetes mellitus of other etiologies. Earlier studies demonstrated a marked correlation between the clinical symptoms in CP and chronic coronary insufficiency. Also, statistically significant higher incidence of arterial lesions was found in patients with CP compared to the control group with the same risk factors for atherosclerosis (hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia). Moreover, one recent study showed that PEI is significantly associated with the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with CP.CONCLUSIONCurrent evidence implicates a possible association between PEI and malnutrition in patients with CHF. Chronic pancreatic tissue hypoxic injury driven by prolonged splanchnic hypoperfusion is likely to contribute to malnutrition and cachexia in patients with CHF. On the other hand, CP and PEI seem to be an independent risk factor associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.