-
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 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Feb 2019Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis....
Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Treatment is dictated by the severity of skin and systemic involvement and the underlying systemic disease. This is a comprehensive systematic review of the efficacy of current UV treatment options. We searched for relevant studies in 7 databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. In total, 261 eligible studies and 789 unique patients with UV were included in the systematic review. Most patients with UV are adult women with chronic (≥6 weeks) and systemic disease. UV is mostly idiopathic but can be associated with drugs, malignancy, autoimmunity, and infections. It usually resolves with their withdrawal or cure. Corticosteroids are effective for the treatment of skin symptoms in more than 80% of patients with UV. However, their long-term administration can lead to potentially serious adverse effects. The addition of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive agents often allows corticosteroid tapering and improves the efficacy of therapy. Biologicals, including omalizumab, as well as corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil, plasmapheresis, colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and cyclosporine, can be effective for both skin and systemic symptoms in patients with UV. H-antihistamines, montelukast, danazol, H-antihistamines, pentoxifylline, doxepin, and tranexamic acid are not effective in most patients with UV. As of yet, no drugs have been approved for UV, and management recommendations are based mostly on case reports and retrospective studies. Prospective studies investigating the effects of treatment on the signs and symptoms of UV are needed.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Animals; Biological Therapy; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Omalizumab; Skin; Urticaria; Vasculitis
PubMed: 30268388
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.09.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021This 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 other 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 (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (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 effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 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 of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 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 disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease 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 a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bias; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33710614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub3 -
International Journal of Dermatology Jan 2017Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the high-affinity Fc receptor of IgE, registered for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria... (Review)
Review
Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the high-affinity Fc receptor of IgE, registered for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and severe allergic asthma. We present a case series of nine patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated off-label with omalizumab and a systematic review of the existing literature. Patients were selected consecutively from a tertiary dermatological referral center during a 5-year period. All patients were treated with omalizumab at a starting dose of 300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks. 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. Based on physicians' assessment, 50% of our patients had a good or excellent response to treatment with omalizumab; a further 12.5% had a moderate response, while 37.5% experienced no response or deterioration of symptoms during treatment. Treatment was generally well tolerated. Twenty-six studies with a median of four patients each (range 1-21), comprising 174 patients, were included in the systematic review. Summed over all studies, a total of 129 patients (74.1%) experienced a beneficial effect of treatment ranging from little to complete response. Omalizumab appears to be a safe and well tolerated, however expensive, treatment with some clinical benefit in patients with severe recalcitrant AD. Recommendation for use in clinical practice awaits evidence from larger randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Allergic Agents; Dermatitis, Atopic; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Off-Label Use; Omalizumab; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 27337170
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.13353 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.
Topics: Cetirizine; Cyproheptadine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Loratadine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urticaria
PubMed: 25397904
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006137.pub2 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2022Compared with the placebo, biologics are beneficial in reducing nasal polyp mass and safe in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Compared with the placebo, biologics are beneficial in reducing nasal polyp mass and safe in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, there lacks a head-to-head randomized trial comparing biologics. We aimed to determine the best biologic for CRSwNP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021226766). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on December 29, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing biologics in adult patients for CRSwNP were included.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with 1,190 patients comparing 3 different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab) and the placebo were included. Dupilumab had the best efficacy in terms of nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score, and nasal congestion score (NCS) for surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.900, 0.916, 1.000, and 0.807, respectively. Omalizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS for SUCRA values of 0.606, 0.500, and 0.693, respectively. Mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of NPS for SUCRA values of 0.563 and had the highest risk of adverse events (AEs) for SUCRA values of 0.746.
CONCLUSION
This is the first NMA that compared different biologics in patients with CRSwNP. Based on the efficacy (NPS) and safety (AEs), dupilumab is the best choice and omalizumab is the second best option for CRSwNP. Although mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy, it had the highest risk of AEs.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Network Meta-Analysis; Omalizumab; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 34607329
DOI: 10.1159/000519228 -
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 -
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 -
Omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and GRADE assessment.The British Journal of Dermatology Aug 2015Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the occurrence of hives, angio-oedema or both for a period of at least 6 weeks. Many patients remain symptomatic... (Review)
Review
Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the occurrence of hives, angio-oedema or both for a period of at least 6 weeks. Many patients remain symptomatic despite treatment with H1 antihistamines, even at higher doses. This systematic review assessed the quality of the evidence for the effects of omalizumab as treatment in patients with CSU. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 7 August 2014. Three review authors independently carried out study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Two review authors analysed the data. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included 1116 participants, were evaluated. All the RCTs were judged as having a low risk of bias. There was a statistically significant improvement in measures of disease activity and quality of life following treatment with omalizumab when compared with placebo [mean difference (MD) -11·58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13·39 to -9·77 and MD -13·12, 95% CI -16·30 to -9·95, respectively]. Complete response and partial response were more frequent after treatment with omalizumab [risk ratio (RR) 6·44, 95% CI 3·95-10·49 and RR 4·08, 95% CI 2·98-5·60, respectively]. There was no difference in the proportion of participants reporting adverse events between the omalizumab and placebo treatment groups (RR 1·05, 95% CI 0·96-1·16). There was high-quality evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab 300 mg per month for the treatment of CSU for up to 6 months.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria
PubMed: 25891046
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13845 -
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