-
Discovery Medicine Jun 2023Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against immunoglobulin E., which can specifically bind to in blood and inhibit the release of inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against immunoglobulin E., which can specifically bind to in blood and inhibit the release of inflammatory mediators to improve the symptoms of -mediated asthma effectively. This meta-analysis was used to retrieve the studies in recent years to provide a clinical reference for the omalizumab in treating allergic asthma (AA).
METHODS
The databases Ovid, Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library of clinical trials, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) (China), and Wangfang Data (China) were searched for all studies on omalizumab involvement in treating allergic childhood asthma up to January 2022. Effectiveness, rate of exacerbation within 24 weeks (and 52 weeks), and the incidence of adverse reactions and serious adverse reactions were used as the primary data analysis indicators.
RESULTS
Seven eligible pieces of literature were included. Meta-analysis indicated that omalizumab could significantly improve the treatment efficacy in children with asthma [ (Risk Ratio) = 1.24, 95% CI (Confidential Interval) (1.09, 1.41), = 3.30, = 0.001], reduced the incidence of significant clinical exacerbation in children with asthma within 24 weeks [ = 0.55, 95% CI (0.35, 0.85), = -2.67, = 0.001], reduced the incidence of significant clinical exacerbation in children with asthma within 52 weeks [ = 0.52, 95% CI (0.39, 0.71), = -4.2, < 0.0001], and the incidence of total serious adverse reactions was not statistically different from placebo [ = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.03), = 0.71, = 0.479], the incidence of serious adverse reactions was significantly decreased [ = 0.53, 95% CI (0.36, 0.77), = -3.35, = 0.001].
CONCLUSIONS
In treating (immunoglobulin E)-mediated asthma in children, adding oral (or subcutaneous) omalizumab to a glucocorticoid regimen can enhance the effectiveness of treatment, reduce the probability of significant exacerbation during treatment, and reduce the incidence of serious adverse reactions.
Topics: Child; Humans; Omalizumab; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Asthma; Immunoglobulin E
PubMed: 37272090
DOI: 10.24976/Discov.Med.202335176.24 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive multisystem disorder with an approximate prevalence of 1 in 3500 live births. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is a lung... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive multisystem disorder with an approximate prevalence of 1 in 3500 live births. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is a lung disease caused by aspergillus-induced hypersensitivity with a prevalence of 2% to 15% in people with cystic fibrosis. The mainstay of treatment includes corticosteroids and itraconazole. The treatment with corticosteroids for prolonged periods of time, or repeatedly for exacerbations of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, may lead to many adverse effects. The monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has improved asthma control in severely allergic asthmatics. The drug is given as a subcutaneous injection every two to four weeks. Since allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is also a condition resulting from hypersensitivity to specific allergens, as in asthma, it may be a candidate for therapy using anti-IgE antibodies. Therefore, anti-IgE therapy, using agents like omalizumab, may be a potential therapy for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an updated version of the review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of anti-IgE therapy for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Last search: 09 September 2021. We searched two ongoing trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO trials platform). Date of latest search: 16 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing anti-IgE therapy to placebo or other therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included study. They planned to perform data analysis using Review Manager.
MAIN RESULTS
Only one study enrolling 14 participants was eligible for inclusion in the review. The double-blind study compared a daily dose of 600 mg omalizumab or placebo along with twice daily itraconazole and oral corticosteroids, with a maximum daily dose of 400 mg. Treatment lasted six months but the study was terminated prematurely and complete data were not available. We contacted the study investigator and were told that the study was terminated due to the inability to recruit participants into the study despite all reasonable attempts. One or more serious side effects were encountered in six out of nine (66.67%) and one out of five (20%) participants in omalizumab group and placebo group respectively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of anti-IgE (omalizumab) therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. There is a need for large prospective randomized controlled studies of anti-IgE therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with both clinical and laboratory outcome measures such as steroid requirement, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis exacerbations and lung function.
Topics: Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antifungal Agents; Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34550603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010288.pub5 -
Journal of Investigational Allergology... Dec 2023Impairment of smell is more commonly related to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) than without, especially when asthma and/or NSAID-exacerbated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Impairment of smell is more commonly related to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) than without, especially when asthma and/or NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease and type 2 inflammation are also present. Therapeutic options include intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, surgery, and, more recently, biological therapy. We summarize current knowledge on the effect of biologics on olfaction in patients with CRSwNP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2001 to June 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: adult patients with CRS treated with dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab; and studies published in English reporting outcomes for sense of smell based on psychophysical and/or subjective tools. We excluded reports that did not assess CRSwNP, loss of smell evaluated with a method other than those accepted in the inclusion criteria, review articles, and expert opinions. No funding was received.
RESULTS
Dupilumab has demonstrated rapid and sustained long-term improvement in smell in clinical trials and in real life. Omalizumab improves smell at 24 weeks. This improvement is maintained in the long-term, although it is not clinically relevant. Mepolizumab and benralizumab improved smell in the long term based on a subjective scale. No studies examining the improvement in smell in patients with CRSwNP treated with reslizumab were found. Indirect comparisons by meta-analysis consistently conclude that dupilumab is the most effective biologic for improving impaired sense of smell.
CONCLUSION
Dupilumab seems to be more efficacious for improving the sense of smell than omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Smell; Rhinosinusitis; Chronic Disease; Sinusitis; Rhinitis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37669083
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0939 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Feb 2022Cold urticaria is a subtype of chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) associated with significant morbidity and a risk for anaphylaxis. Few studies have assessed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cold urticaria is a subtype of chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) associated with significant morbidity and a risk for anaphylaxis. Few studies have assessed the prevalence, management, and prevalence of associated anaphylaxis of cold urticaria.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the prevalence of cold urticaria among CIndU and chronic urticaria (CU) cases, to assess the management of cold urticaria, and to determine the prevalence of associated anaphylaxis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies pertaining to cold urticaria and/or CIndU published in the past 10 years. We conducted meta-analyses to evaluate the prevalence of cold urticaria among CIndU and CU cases, the management of cold urticaria with H1-antihistamines and omalizumab, and the prevalence of associated anaphylaxis.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 14 in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cold urticaria among patients with CU and CIndU was 7.62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.45% to 15.99%; I = 98%) and 26.10% (95% CI, 14.17% to 43.05%; I = 97%), respectively. Cold urticaria was managed by H1-antihistamines in 95.67% (95% CI, 92.47% to 97.54%; I = 38%) of patients and omalizumab in 5.95% (95% CI , 2.55% to 13.27%; I = 83%) of patients. The pooled prevalence of anaphylaxis among patients with cold urticaria was 21.49% (95% CI, 15.79% to 28.54%; I = 69%).
CONCLUSIONS
Cold urticaria constitutes an appreciable proportion of CIndU and CU cases and is predominantly managed with H1-antihistamines; few patients receive omalizumab. Anaphylaxis is common, and an epinephrine autoinjector prescription may be considered.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Chronic Disease; Chronic Urticaria; Humans; Omalizumab; Prevalence; Urticaria
PubMed: 34673287
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.012 -
Dermatologic Therapy Nov 2020To examine the effectiveness of omalizumab on disease activity and quality of life in patients with cholinergic urticaria (CholU). Further, a systematic review of the...
To examine the effectiveness of omalizumab on disease activity and quality of life in patients with cholinergic urticaria (CholU). Further, a systematic review of the literature was performed to identify all studies of use of omalizumab in CholU. A total of 23 patients (63.9%) were refractory to updosed non-sedating antihistamines and initiated omalizumab in the observation period. Among these, an improvement of 10.8 UAS7 points (4.6-17.0), P = .002, was seen at 6 months follow up. DLQI and disease bother score VAS also improved significantly from before initiating treatment with omalizumab to follow-up; 7.0 points (3.6-10.3), P < .001 and 3.1 points (1.5-4.8), P = .001, respectively. The overall mean drug survival time for omalizumab (discontinued due to any cause) was 30.6 months (22.2-39.0). A total of five patients (21.7%) reported suspected side effects (headache, muscle pain, fatigue and injection site reactions) during treatment with omalizumab until 6 months follow-up. The systematic literature review identified 58 additional antihistamine refractory patients with CholU treated with omalizumab. The available studies reported that omalizumab is effective in patients with CholU and improves their disease-related quality of life. Omalizumab is safe, reduces disease activity and improves disease-related quality of life in patients with CholU.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Cholinergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Omalizumab; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria
PubMed: 32654349
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14010 -
Biomolecules Jan 2023A recent report showed that most pediatric cases of non-eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) (non-EoE EGIDs) are persistent and...
Dupilumab Leads to Clinical Improvements including the Acquisition of Tolerance to Causative Foods in Non-Eosinophilic Esophagitis Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders.
A recent report showed that most pediatric cases of non-eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) (non-EoE EGIDs) are persistent and severe compared with those of EoE, thus requiring further effective therapeutic approaches. In this study, we present the first case based on a systematic search of non-EoE EGID for which tolerance to causative foods and histological and symptomatic improvements were achieved following dupilumab administration, after elimination diets and omalizumab and mepolizumab treatments. Driven by this case, we investigated the efficacies of biological treatments in non-EoE EGID cases based on the patient studied herein, and other patients identified in the conducted systematic review. Seven articles, including five different biologics, were reviewed. Both clinical efficacies and impact differences among the targeted molecules are demonstrated in this study. Our findings show that dupilumab may affect mechanisms that can suppress symptoms induced by offending foods that are different from those induced by other biologics as identified in the conducted systematic review. Additional studies are required to address the unmet needs of non-EoE EGID treatments.
Topics: Child; Humans; Biological Products; Esophagitis; Treatment Outcome; Immune Tolerance
PubMed: 36671497
DOI: 10.3390/biom13010112 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Feb 2023Omalizumab which downregulates the immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor site on plasmacytoid dendritic cells and thereby increases interferon-α (INF-α) production, may... (Review)
Review
Omalizumab which downregulates the immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor site on plasmacytoid dendritic cells and thereby increases interferon-α (INF-α) production, may shorten the duration of viral infections by enhancing the antiviral immunity. A systematic review was conducted to investigate whether previous anti-IgE treatment with omalizumab could protect against SARS-CoV-2 disease ("COVID-19") (infection, disease duration, and severity), and whether IFN-α upregulation could be involved. The research included articles published from March 2020 to January 2022. An accurate search was performed on bibliographic biomedical database (MEDLINE - Pubmed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, BIOMED CENTRAL, Google scholar, COCHRANE LIBRARY, ClinicalTrial.gov) including cohorts, case reports and reviews. Different methods were used, based on the study design, to assess the quality of eligible studies. Several authors link omalizumab to a possible protection against viruses, but they often refer to studies carried out before the pandemic and with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) (eg, rhinoviruses -RV). Few cases of COVID-19 patients treated with omalizumab have been recorded, and, in most of them, no increased susceptibility to severe disease was observed. According to these data, the current indication is to continue omalizumab therapy during the pandemic. Moreover, although omalizumab may enhance the antiviral immune response even for SARS-CoV-2, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. It would be helpful to establish a registry of omalizumab-treated (or in treatment) patients who have developed COVID-19. Finally, randomized controlled trials could be able to demonstrate the effect of omalizumab in protecting against severe SARS-CoV-2, through IFN-α upregulation or other immunological pathways.
PubMed: 36644451
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100741 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in related inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (currently, monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse events (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs. Of 986 adult participants, 984 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (score 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, the SNOT-22 score was 19.61 points lower (better) in participants receiving dupilumab (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). Symptom severity measured on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.00 lower in those receiving dupilumab (95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). The risk of serious adverse events may be lower in the dupilumab group (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.75; 3 studies; 782 participants; low certainty). The number of participants requiring nasal polyp surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period is probably lower in those receiving dupilumab (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52; 2 studies; 725 participants; moderate certainty). Change in the extent of disease using the Lund Mackay computerised tomography (CT) score (0 to 24, higher = worse) was -7.00 (95% CI -9.61 to -4.39; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty), a large effect favouring the dupilumab group. The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (0 to 100, higher = better; MCID 8 points) was used to measure change in generic quality of life. The mean difference favouring dupilumab was 8.59 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.86; 2 studies; 706 participants; moderate certainty). There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 3 studies; 783 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL measured with the SNOT-22 at 25 weeks was 13.26 points lower (better) in participants receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in s ymptom severity: on a 0- to 10-point VAS symptom severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether or not the overall risk that patients still need surgery at trial end is lower in the mepolizumab group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether mepolizumab reduces the extent of disease as measured by endoscopic nasal polyps score (scale range 0 to 8). The mean difference was 1.23 points lower in the mepolizumab group (MD -1.23, 95% -1.79 to -0.68; 2 studies; 137 participants; very low certainty). The difference in generic quality of life (EQ-5D) was 5.68 (95% CI -1.18 to 12.54; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty), favouring the mepolizumab group. This difference is smaller than the MCID of 8 points. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.73, 95% 0.36 to 1.47; 2 studies; 135 participants; low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three very small studies (65 participants) evaluated omalizumab. We are very uncertain about the effect of omalizumab on disease-specific HRQL, severe adverse events, extent of disease (CT scan scores), generic HRQL and adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, using regular topical nasal steroids, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo, and reduces the extent of the disease as measured on a CT scan. It probably also improves symptoms and generic HRQL and there is no evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events. It may reduce the need for further surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. In similar patients, mepolizumab may improve both disease-specific and generic HRQL. It is uncertain whether it reduces the need for surgery or improves nasal polyp scores. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. It is uncertain if there is a difference in symptom severity and the risk of serious adverse events. We are uncertain about the effects of omalizumab.
Topics: Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Polyps; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102112
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub2 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... 2020Omalizumab is approved for treating severe allergic asthma from age 6, but the definition of severe asthma including a systematic assessment to rule out... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of omalizumab in children, adolescents, and adults with severe allergic asthma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and call for new trials using current guidelines for assessment of severe asthma.
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is approved for treating severe allergic asthma from age 6, but the definition of severe asthma including a systematic assessment to rule out difficult-to-treat asthma has changed since the drug was approved in 2003.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of two critical (exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment) and eight important clinical outcomes in children, adolescents and adults, and specifically searched papers for systematic assessment of severe asthma.
RESULTS
Adults: seven studies (n = 2159) ascertaining exacerbation rate showing a 37% (95% CI 21-50) reduction in favor of omalizumab, larger than the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 25%. Only one open-label study (n = 82) was identified assessing the percentage of patients experiencing reduction of OCS-maintenance treatment showing a significantly greater decrease in the omalizumab group (- 45% vs. + 18.3%, p = 0.002). Children and adolescents: four studies (n = 1551) reported data on exacerbations (no meta-analysis conducted), showed overall improvements in exacerbation rate and some passed MCID. No OCS studies were identified. No included studies provided systematic assessment of severe asthma according to current guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
Omalizumab provides clinically relevant improvements in exacerbation rate among children, adolescents, and adults and in OCS-reduction among adults. New studies incorporating a guideline-approached definition of severe asthma are warranted.
PubMed: 32565844
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-020-00442-0 -
Giornale Italiano Di Dermatologia E... Aug 2019Omalizumab, has been used for almost two decades, mainly in allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria for which it is highly beneficial. Smaller studies have...
INTRODUCTION
Omalizumab, has been used for almost two decades, mainly in allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria for which it is highly beneficial. Smaller studies have evaluated the effects of omalizumab in atopic dermatitis (AD). Current treatments options, such as cyclosporine and azathioprine have limited effect on AD and numerous side effects. The recently introduced biologic dupilumab (anti-IL4) shows promising results, however with conjunctivitis as a prevalent side effect. We evaluate the current evidence for the use of omalizumab in AD.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Systematic literature searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify any study (case reports, case series, and controlled trials) evaluating the effect of treatment with omalizumab in AD.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirty-four studies (12 single case studies, 15 case series, 5 prospective studies and 2 small pilot randomized placebo-controlled trials [RCTs]), including a total of 214 patients with median of 3, ranging from 1-35 patients were identified. A total of 169 patients (79.0%) experienced a beneficial effect from treatment, ranging from little to complete response, whereas 45 patients (21.0%) reported no or negative effect from omalizumab treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Omalizumab is a safe and well-tolerated treatment with some clinical benefit in AD patients. However, the lack of larger RCTs and possible publication bias limit the recommendation of omalizumab for use in clinical practice for AD. Newer and more effective treatments exist and should be prioritized.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Omalizumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30717578
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-0488.19.06302-8