-
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 -
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 -
Skin Research and Technology : Official... May 2024Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four databases were searched from the database's creation to April 8, 2023. Several keywords such as omalizumab and urticarias were used to retrieve related studies. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in R 4.2.1 software and Stata 15.1 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Ver. 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
In total, 2331 patients were included. Five indexes were employed to assess, including weekly Itch Severity Score (ISS7), weekly Hive Severity Score (HSS7), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse events (AE). A 300 mg dose of omalizumab was the optimum dose to treat CIU, followed by the 150 mg dose. Furthermore, 600 mg of omalizumab only showed a significant difference from the placebo in HSS7. No significant statistical difference was observed in AE. Meta-regression analysis revealed that time, as a covariate, was statistically significant in the comparison of omalizumab 150 mg with placebo.
CONCLUSION
300 mg of omalizumab was the optimum dosage to treat CIU patients, with a 150 mg dose also exhibiting good efficacy. Further studies are required to explore the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.
Topics: Omalizumab; Humans; Chronic Urticaria; Anti-Allergic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quality of Life; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
PubMed: 38776128
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13749 -
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 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Feb 2024Increasing evidence supports the united airway disease concept for the management of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases, particularly in patients with asthma and...
BACKGROUND
Increasing evidence supports the united airway disease concept for the management of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases, particularly in patients with asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, evidence for a combined approach in asthma and CRSwNP is scarce.
OBJECTIVE
In this systematic review, we focused on the role of biologics in the lung function and quality of life in patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of 3 electronic databases using 2 search strategies to identify studies published from January 2010 to March 2022. Quality assessment was performed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme.
RESULTS
Of 1030 studies identified, 48 original studies reporting data of benralizumab (12), dupilumab (14), mepolizumab (10), omalizumab (13), and reslizumab (2) were analyzed. Primary diagnosis was mostly asthma or CRSwNP, with only 15 studies, mainly observational, performed in populations with united airway disease. In total, 18 studies reported data on quality of life (mostly 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score), 8 on lung function (mostly FEV), and 22 on both outcomes. Significant FEV and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score improvements were consistently observed after 24-week treatment, and thereafter, mostly in real-world studies that included variable proportions of patients with asthma/CRSwNP.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of biologics in patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP was overall associated with significant improvements in lung function and quality of life. However, we observed a high heterogeneity of populations and outcome measurements across studies. Notwithstanding the need of larger studies, our results reinforce the joint management of asthma and CRSwNP as united airway disease in clinical practice.
PubMed: 37915724
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacig.2023.100174 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Due to comorbidities and associated safety risks, the management of severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric and adolescent patients poses significant challenges.
IMPORTANCE
Due to comorbidities and associated safety risks, the management of severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric and adolescent patients poses significant challenges.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
On Feb 29, 2024, a systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central). No date restrictions were applied. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, large case series, and meta-analyses were assessed to evaluate the efficacy (or effectiveness) and/or safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents.
FINDINGS
A preliminary search yielded 1457 results, from which 19 unique articles with a total of 3741 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, the available data for each systemic medication are limited, and the overall quality of the included studies on conventional systemic treatments is relatively low. When Dupilumab was used as a standalone treatment, 30%-40% of infants and toddlers aged 6 months to 2 years achieved EASI-75, while 50% of patients aged 2 to 6 years achieved EASI-75. In children aged 6 to 12 years, 33.0%-59.0% of atopic dermatitis patients achieved EASI-75, and when combined with topical corticosteroids (TCS), 69.7%-74.6% achieved EASI-75. Long-term data showed EASI-75 rates ranging from 75.0% to 94.0% for this age group. For adolescents aged 12 to 18 years, 40%-71% of patients achieved EASI-75 within 12 to 16 weeks, and by week 52, 80.8% of patients achieved EASI-75.Abrocitinib treatment resulted in 68.5%-72.0% of patients achieving EASI-75. Omalizumab treatment at week 24 showed a percentage change in SCORAD scores of -12.4%. In the Methotrexate treatment group, there was a SCORAD change of -26.25% at week 12, while the Cyclosporine A group had a SCORAD change of -25.01%. Patients treated with IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin) showed a -34.4% change in SCORAD percentage scores at week 4, which further decreased by 47.12% at week 24. Patients receiving 4mg of Baricitinib and TCS had a 52.5% rate of EASI-75 at 16 weeks, and patients receiving different doses of upadacitinib had a 63-75% rate of EASI-75 at 16 weeks. The rate of EASI-75 at 16 weeks was around 28% in patients who received various doses of Tralokinumab.The most common adverse events observed were nasopharyngitis, respiratory events and dermatitis atopic.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Awareness of adverse events and concomitant medications is crucial, and appropriate dosing and frequent laboratory and clinical monitoring are also essential. More real-world evidence and prospective cohort studies analyzing the effectiveness and safety of systemic therapies in children and adolescents are of paramount importance for optimizing personalized, effective, and safe management of the growing population of patients with atopic dermatitis in this age group.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Child; Adolescent; Child, Preschool; Treatment Outcome; Severity of Illness Index; Infant; Female; Male; Dermatologic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
PubMed: 38812522
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1367099 -
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory... 2024With the rise of targeted treatments for asthma, treatment with omalizumab is a new option. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
With the rise of targeted treatments for asthma, treatment with omalizumab is a new option.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the improvement of pulmonary function with additional omalizumab treatment in patients (⩾6 years old) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
Observational studies of randomized controlled trials of add-on omalizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, published from the establishment till August 2022, were retrieved from WAN FANG DATA, PubMed, CNKI, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation were performed on the literature that met the inclusion criteria, using RevMan 5.3 to analyze the data.
RESULTS
A total of 11 randomized controlled clinical trials were included, involving a total of 3578 patients with asthma, 1856 patients in the omalizumab group, and 1722 patients in the control group. The improvement in Forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percentage of predicted normal and Forced expiratory volume in 1 s was more pronounced in the omalizumab-treated group [MD = 3.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.89-5.94, = 0.0002; MD = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.05-0.13, < 0.0001], while the improvement in Morning Peak expiratory flow rate was not statistically different between the two groups (MD = 3.64, 95% CI: -22.17-29.45, = 0.78).
CONCLUSION
Additional omalizumab treatment showed some improvement in lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID:CRD42022378498.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Forced Expiratory Volume; Lung; Omalizumab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38235607
DOI: 10.1177/17534666231221771