-
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2023A better understanding of the most recent scientific literature in the use of biological therapy in the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
A better understanding of the most recent scientific literature in the use of biological therapy in the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy.
RECENT FINDINGS
A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of food allergy. The findings support the potential use of omalizumab as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. The potential use of other biologics in the management of food allergy is subject of speculation.
SUMMARY
Different biological therapies are under evaluation for food allergic patients. The advance in literature will guide for a personalized treatment in the near future. However, additional research is needed to better understand the best candidate for each treatment, the optimal dose and timing.
Topics: Animals; Female; Cattle; Humans; Omalizumab; Biological Products; Immunoglobulin E; Food Hypersensitivity; Milk Hypersensitivity; Desensitization, Immunologic
PubMed: 37185824
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000900 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Jan 2024The heterogeneity of existing studies, along with the fact that there are no published head-to-head trials, are the main reasons for the lack of guidelines regarding the... (Review)
Review
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab: A systematic review of the current knowledge towards an attempt to compare agents' efficacy.
BACKGROUND
The heterogeneity of existing studies, along with the fact that there are no published head-to-head trials, are the main reasons for the lack of guidelines regarding the selection of the proper biologic in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps. The aim of this study is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab in CRS treatment. We also attempt to proceed to an indirect comparison of the agents and try to answer the tricky question: which agent to select and why?
METHODS
An extensive search in English literature was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database/Library. Eligibility criteria included papers with full text published in English, adult population studies, clearly described intervention protocol, and documented primary and secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
The studies included numbered 37. All agents provided significant improvement in polyp size, sinuses opacification, severity of symptoms, need for surgery and systemic corticosteroids use. Analysis of available systematic reviews, meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison studies showed that dupilumab appeared to be the most beneficial agent, in terms of primary and secondary outcomes. However, these results are of relatively low level of evidence due to several methodological limitations.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the present analysis showed a moderate supremacy of dupilumab, there is still no evidence-based answer to the question "which biologic agent is the most effective in CRS treatment?" Improved statistical methodology, head-to-head trials, and real-life studies could lead to more robust conclusions, establishing the real role of the specific biologic agents.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Rhinosinusitis; Sinusitis; Chronic Disease; Biological Products; Rhinitis; Quality of Life; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
PubMed: 37394893
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23234 -
Journal of Medical Economics 2022To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Eosinophils; Humans; Omalizumab
PubMed: 35570578
DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2074195 -
Rhinology Dec 2021Allergic rhinitis (AR), an IgE mediated inflammatory disease, significantly impacts quality of life of a considerable proportion of the general population. Omalizumab, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis (AR), an IgE mediated inflammatory disease, significantly impacts quality of life of a considerable proportion of the general population. Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been evaluated for both seasonal and perennial AR. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in inadequately controlled AR.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search of RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of omalizumab in AR. We synthesized evidence for clinical improvement of AR symptoms, quality of life, reduction of the use of rescue medication, and adverse events.
RESULTS
The systematic search returned 289 articles, of which 12 RCTs were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. Omalizumab reduced the Daily Nasal Symptom Severity Score (DNSSS) by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.41 points with large heterogeneity; omalizumab significantly reduced the DNSSS both in the 3 cedar pollen-induced AR trials by -0.97 points and to a lower extent in the remaining five non-cedar trials by -0.19 points. Omalizumab also improved the Daily Ocular Symptom Severity Score (DOSSS) by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.30 points with large heterogeneity; the Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.45 points with no heterogeneity and the mean daily consumption of rescue antihistamines by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.21 with large heterogeneity. No statistically significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events was observed between omalizumab and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Our findings further support the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the management of patients with allergic rhinitis inadequately controlled with a conventional treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Nose; Omalizumab; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34714895
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin21.159 -
International Journal of Dermatology Aug 2023Biologic agents (also termed biologics) have become an important adjuvant-targeted treatment option in autoimmune blistering disease. We evaluated the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Biologic agents (also termed biologics) have become an important adjuvant-targeted treatment option in autoimmune blistering disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of newly licensed biologics for the management of pemphigoid using a meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies involving pemphigoid patients treated with biological agents (rituximab, dupilumab, omalizumab, or mepolizumab) were searched. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the short-term efficacy, adverse event (AE), relapse, and long-term survival. A total of seven studies involving 296 patients were identified. The pooled RRs for short-term effectiveness, AE, relapse, and long-term survival rate in patients treated with biological agents versus systemic corticosteroids were 1.37 (95% CI 0.95-1.97; I = 82%; P = 0.09), 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.73; I = 13%; P = 0.005), 1.36 (95% CI 0.95-1.96; I = 16.8%; P = 0.19), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.95-1.21; I = 48.1%; P = 0.53), respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis revealed that the RRs of efficacy were 2.10 (95% CI 1.61-2.75; I = 0%; P < 0.00001) for rituximab and 2.07 (95% CI 1.61-2.67; I = 0%; P < 0.00001) for sample size greater than 30. Compared with conventional therapy, biologics treatment was significantly associated with fewer adverse events (P < 0.05), but no significant differences were found for efficacy and relapse (P > 0.05). The findings demonstrate that a biologics-containing regimen could minimize the occurrence of AEs and might display a comparable efficacy and recurrence to that of receiving systemic corticosteroids.
Topics: Humans; Rituximab; Biological Factors; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Chronic Disease; Biological Products; Recurrence
PubMed: 37212599
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16678 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Aug 2023Omalizumab is the only biological agent approved for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but no biomarker is well established for predicting clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is the only biological agent approved for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but no biomarker is well established for predicting clinical response to omalizumab.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to determine the association between baseline total serum IgE levels and the effects of omalizumab in patients with CSU.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant studies from inception to August 23, 2022. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022355592). No language restrictions were applied. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Ten interventional studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial, were included in the final meta-analysis, and a total of 866 patients with CSU were included. A pooled analysis showed significantly higher serum total IgE levels in complete responders (CRs) than in nonresponders (NRs) (mean difference [MD]: 56.509 IU/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.230-88.789) and in partial responders (PRs) than in NRs (MD: 62.688 IU/mL; 95% CI: 32.949-92.427), but no significant difference was detected between CRs and PRs. The mean total IgE levels for CRs, PRs, and NRs were 163.154, 179.926, and 51.535 IU/mL, respectively. Further, the serum total IgE levels in early CRs were significantly higher compared with late CRs (MD: 55.194 IU/mL; 95% CI: 13.402-96.986). The sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method validated the robustness of all findings.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis provide convincing evidence that pretreatment total serum IgE levels in patients with CSU are associated with clinical responses to omalizumab.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Anti-Allergic Agents; Urticaria; Immunoglobulin E; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Urticaria; Chronic Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37263348
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.05.033 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine two critical outcomes of omalizumab therapy, asthma exacerbation rate, the reduction of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and the improvement of the lung function as a secondary outcome using the following keywords in the MEDLINE database: "anti-IgE, severe asthma, children, and randomized controlled trial." We specifically selected papers that included moderate-to-severe asthma patients and collected data on children and adolescents.
RESULTS
Four RCT studies (total number of patients = 1,239) were included in the analysis. The reported data on exacerbations showed an overall improvement in the exacerbation rate with a decreased use of inhaled steroids and some other minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review confirms the known findings that omalizumab therapy decreases asthma exacerbation rate and reduces background therapy inhaled steroid dose. Therefore, add-on therapy with omalizumab shows a good efficacy and safety profile, thus proving to be a useful additional therapeutic option.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023396785.
PubMed: 36937051
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.1033511 -
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disease. Current treatment strategies are limited by their efficacy and/or side effect profile and the need for...
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disease. Current treatment strategies are limited by their efficacy and/or side effect profile and the need for safer and effective alternatives is undeniable. We aimed to conduct a systematic review focusing on the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in BP patients. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for English and French articles published from inception to July 1, 2021, using search terms "omalizumab" OR "Xolair" OR "IGE025" OR "olizumab" AND "bullous pemphigoid." Screening and data extraction was performed by two raters independently. The primary outcome was complete response (CR), and secondary outcomes were partial response (PR), flare-ups, adverse events/vital status. In total, 22 articles were included, with a total of 56 patients. All patients had a refractory BP with mean disease duration of 13.5 ± 20.2 months (Standard Deviation (SD)) and failed 3.1 ± 1.6 therapies and many remained corticosteroids dependent. Overall, 87.5% of patients responded to treatment (55.4% CR and 32.1% PR), 7.1% discontinued the protocol and only 5.4% were non responders. A third of patients were able to discontinue all other therapies and most others were able to discontinue or taper systemic corticosteroids to <10 mg daily. Flare-ups occurred in 57.7% of patients upon discontinuation of omalizumab and/or steroid tapering, most patients recaptured response thereafter. Omalizumab was well tolerated by most patients. Omalizumab appears to be a promising treatment for BP with a good response rate and safety profile. However, several limitations were identified in current literature, and highlight the need for randomized controlled trials of omalizumab in BP.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous
PubMed: 35379011
DOI: 10.1177/12034754221089267 -
Allergy May 2020Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews...
Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.
Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs 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 annualized 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); and 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 annualized 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)].
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Child; Humans; Omalizumab; Quality of Life
PubMed: 32064642
DOI: 10.1111/all.14235 -
JAMA Dermatology Nov 2021The comparative benefits and harms of all available treatments for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have not been established. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The comparative benefits and harms of all available treatments for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have not been established.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate different treatment effects of pharmacologic treatments among patients with H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 19, 2021, with no language restrictions. Gray literature from Google Scholar, ongoing trial registers, and preprint reports was added to the searches of electronic databases.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments among adolescent or adult patients with CSU who had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines were screened for inclusion independently by 2 investigators.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently extracted study data according to the predefined list of interests. A random-effects model was used to calculate the network estimates reported as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes that reflect the patient's perspective included changes in urticaria symptoms from baseline and unacceptability of treatment (all-cause dropouts).
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized clinical trials with 2480 participants that compared 18 different interventions or dosages and placebo were included. The standardized mean differences for change in urticaria symptoms were -1.05 (95% CI, -1.37 to -0.73) for ligelizumab, 72 mg; -1.07 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.75) for ligelizumab, 240 mg; -0.77 (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.63) for omalizumab, 300 mg; and -0.59 (95% CI, -1.10 to -0.08) for omalizumab, 600 mg. No significant differences in treatment unacceptability were observed. With respect to benefits and harms, the network estimates illustrated that the most efficacious treatments were achieved with ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg (large beneficial effect) and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg (moderate beneficial effect).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings in this meta-analysis suggest that the biologic agents ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg, and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg, can be recommended as effective treatments for patients with CSU who have had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines. Head-to-head trials with high methodologic quality and harmonized design and outcome definitions are needed to help inform subsequent international guidelines for the management of CSU.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Chronic Urticaria; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Omalizumab; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria
PubMed: 34431983
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3237