-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2021Skin aging has been defined to encompass both intrinsic and extrinsic aging, with extrinsic aging effected by environmental influences and overlaying the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Skin aging has been defined to encompass both intrinsic and extrinsic aging, with extrinsic aging effected by environmental influences and overlaying the effects of chronological aging. The risk factors of skin aging have been studied previously, using methods of quantifying skin aging. However, these studies have yet to be reviewed. To better understand skin aging risk factors and collate the available data, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. We conducted our systematic review in compliance with Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched in October 2020 using specific search strategies. Where odds ratios were reported, meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. Otherwise, significant factors were reported in this review. We identified seven notable risk factors for various skin aging phenotypes: age, gender, ethnicity, air pollution, nutrition, smoking, sun exposure. This review's results will guide future works, such as those aiming to examine the interaction between genetic and environmental influences.
Topics: Age Factors; Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Humans; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Skin; Skin Aging; Smoking; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 34764376
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01573-z -
Allergy May 2020Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of...
Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.
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 FEV , 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, FEV . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Child; Humans; Middle Aged; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 32034960
DOI: 10.1111/all.14221 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Aug 2022According to the latest reports from WHO, the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections is increasing worldwide, resulting in increased morbidity and... (Review)
Review
According to the latest reports from WHO, the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections is increasing worldwide, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality and a rising pressure on health-care systems. However, the development of new antibiotics is an expensive and time-consuming process, urging scientists to seek alternative antimicrobial strategies. Over the past few decades, the concept of therapeutic administration of bacteriophages (also known as phages) has gained popularity worldwide. Although conceptually promising, the widespread implementation of phage therapy in routine clinical practice is restricted by the scarcity of safety and efficacy data obtained according to the strict standards of the applicable clinical trial regulations. In this systematic review, we list clinical data published between Jan 1, 2000 and Aug 14, 2021 on the safety and efficacy of phage therapy for difficult-to-treat bacterial infections, and provide an overview of trials and case studies on the use of phage therapy in several medical disciplines.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Bacteriophages; Humans; Phage Therapy
PubMed: 35248167
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00612-5 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2023Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by... (Review)
Review
Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by itching, photophobia, white mucous discharge, lacrimation, foreign body sensation, and pain due to corneal involvement of shield ulcers. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is categorized within ocular diseases. The diagnosis is clinical, as no sure biomarkers pathognomonic of the disease have yet been identified. The VKC therapy relies on different types of drugs, from antihistamines and topical steroids to cyclosporine or tacrolimus eye drops. In extremely rare cases, there is also the need for surgical treatment for the debridement of ulcers, as well as for advanced glaucoma and cataracts, caused by excessive prolonged use of steroid eye drops. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA guideline recommendations. We searched the PubMed database from January 2016 to June 2023. Search terms were Vernal, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and VKC. We initially identified 211 articles. After the screening process, 168 studies were eligible according to our criteria and were included in the review. In this study, we performed a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of currently available diagnostic methods, management of VKC, and its treatments.
Topics: Humans; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Ulcer; Cyclosporine; Tacrolimus; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37658939
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... 2019There is no recent systematic review on the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic patients despite many new studies on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is no recent systematic review on the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic patients despite many new studies on the subject. All past reviews have several limitations such as not including any patient with a T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in patients with a proven IgE- or T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy. To measure the association between R1 side chain similarity on cephalosporins and penicillins and the risk of cross-reactivity.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1980 to March 2019. Studies had to include at least 10 penicillin-allergic subjects whose allergy had been confirmed by a positive skin test (ST) or drug provocation test (DPT) result. Cross-reactivity had to be assessed to at least 1 cephalosporin or carbapenem through ST or DPT. Both random-effects and fixed-effect models were used to combine data. A bioinformatic model was used to quantify the similarity between R1 side chains.
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies on cephalosporin cross-reactivity involving 1269 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity varied with the degree of similarity between R1 side chains: 16.45% (95% CI, 11.07-23.75) for aminocephalosporins, which share an identical side chain with a penicillin (similarity score = 1), 5.60% (95% CI, 3.46-8.95) for a few cephalosporins with an intermediate similarity score (range, 0.563-0.714), and 2.11% (95% CI, 0.98-4.46) for all those with low similarity scores (below 0.4), irrespective of cephalosporin generation. The higher risk associated with aminocephalosporins was observed whether penicillin allergy was IgE- or T-cell-mediated. Eleven observational studies on carbapenem cross-reactivity involving 1127 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity to any carbapenem was 0.87% (95% CI, 0.32-2.32).
CONCLUSIONS
Although it remains possible that these meta-analyses overestimated the risk of cross-reactivity, clinicians should consider the increased risk of cross-reactivity associated with aminocephalosporins, and to a lesser extent with intermediate-similarity-score cephalosporins, compared with the very low risk associated with low-similarity-score cephalosporins and all carbapenems when using beta-lactams in patients with a suspected or proven penicillin allergy.
Topics: Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Cross Reactions; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 31170539
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.038 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.
CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Biological Products
PubMed: 36538979
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.021 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.
METHODS
For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).
RESULTS
The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Eczema; Asthma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37678577
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.029 -
JAMA Jun 2021The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Flare Up; Xerostomia
PubMed: 34009257
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7872