-
The Journal of Asthma : Official... Sep 2023This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP ( = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I=86.18%) and SP ( = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs ( = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.
Topics: Humans; Asthma; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Omalizumab; Biological Therapy
PubMed: 36825403
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2023.2183407 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved for the treatment of asthma in the United States.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the incidence of ADAs and their impact on reported clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies, and nonrandomized studies of biologics in patients with asthma indexed in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and July 9, 2022, were carried out. The primary outcomes were treatment-emergent ADAs (incidence) and ADA prevalence.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. ADA incidence over follow-up was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.60-4.55) and was highest in the benralizumab studies (8.35%), with a risk ratio of 4.9 (2.69-8.92) when compared with placebo, and lowest in the omalizumab studies (0.00%). Incidence was 7.61% in the dupilumab studies, 4.39% in reslizumab, 3.63% in mepolizumab, and 1.12% in the tezepelumab studies. Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0.00% to 10.74% and was highest for benralizumab (7.12%). Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was higher in the benralizumab every 8 weeks (8.17%) versus every 4 weeks arms (5.81%). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses by study type and length of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 2.9% of individuals in the included studies developed ADAs over study follow-up period. The incidence was highest in the benralizumab group and lowest in the omalizumab group. The subcutaneous route and longer dosing intervals were associated with higher ADA development.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Omalizumab; Incidence; Asthma; Biological Products; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36716995
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.046 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case series and cohort studies; however, evidence to support its routine clinical use is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with ABPA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search across standard databases using specific key words until May 13, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness (exacerbations, oral corticosteroid [OCS] use, lung function, and patient-reported asthma control) and safety of pre- and post-omalizumab treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for treatment duration and underlying disease.
RESULTS
In total, 49 studies (n = 267) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 14 case series (n = 186) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Omalizumab treatment significantly reduced the annualized exacerbation rate compared with pretreatment (mean difference, -2.09 [95% CI, -3.07 to -1.11]; P < .01). There was a reduction in OCS use (risk difference, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.84]; P < .01), an increase in termination of OCS use (risk difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24-0.82]; P < .01), and a reduction in OCS dose (milligrams per day) (mean difference, -14.62 [95% CI, -19.86 to -9.39]; P < .01) in ABPA patients receiving omalizumab. Omalizumab improved FEV % predicted by 11.9% (95% CI, 8.2-15.6; P < .01) and asthma control, and was well-tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS
Omalizumab treatment reduced exacerbations and OCS use, improved lung function and asthma control in patients with ABPA, and was well-tolerated. The results highlight the potential role of omalizumab in the treatment of ABPA.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary; Cystic Fibrosis; Asthma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 36581073
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.012 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
Dermatologic Therapy Dec 2022This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of omalizumab in the treatment of refractory-to-antihistamines chronic induced urticaria (CIndU) in comparison with that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of omalizumab in the treatment of refractory-to-antihistamines chronic induced urticaria (CIndU) in comparison with that of refractory-to-antihistamines chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). We retrieved interventional studies and observational studies on omalizumab efficacy to CIndU patients and efficacy comparison between CSU and CIndU both refractory to H1-antihistamines in electronic databases (accessed till May 2022). The odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with a random-effect model in this meta-analysis. The majority of patients with different CIndU subtypes gained complete or partial response and good safety after omalizumab treatment. A total of five studies with 355 CSU patients and 103 CIndU patients were included for the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of omalizumab in the treatment of CSU and CIndU (OR -0.83, 95% CI [0.84, 2.21], P > 0.05). Based on the validity of omalizumab in the treatment of various CIndU subtypes and non-differential efficacy between CSU and CIndU, it is reasonable to list omalizumab as a third-line treatment of refractory CIndU.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Anti-Allergic Agents; Urticaria; Chronic Disease; Chronic Urticaria; Histamine Antagonists; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36222320
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15928 -
American Journal of Otolaryngology 2022The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is challenging due to disease recurrence and adverse effects. Both surgical and medical treatment... (Review)
Review
The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is challenging due to disease recurrence and adverse effects. Both surgical and medical treatment modalities impact the quality of patients' lives. Monoclonal antibody treatment has recently been used successfully in CRS with limited reported adverse events. We aimed to review the literature to shed more light on the safety and adverse events associated with the biological therapy of CRSwNP. A comprehensive systematic review was conducted on the safety of different biological treatments when used for managing CRSwNP. We have included 13 studies in the present systematic review, including 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cross-sectional study. The total sample size for the included studies was 2282 patients. Six studies investigated the safety and adverse events of dupilumab; three investigated omalizumab, three investigated mepolizumab, and only one investigated reslizumab. Some studies have reported that adverse events were common with these types of drugs. However they were not specific and self-limited. Headaches, injection site reactions, and pharyngitis were the most common adverse events found among the reported adverse events. The Dupilumab trial reported pharyngitis in 225 patients (22.4 %) followed by erythema in 9.4 %, headache in 8.1 %, epistaxis in 5.1 %, and asthma in 1.7 % of patients. Trials which used omalizumab reported headaches, nasal pharyngitis, injection-site reactions to be the most common adverse events with estimated prevalence rates of 8.1 %, 5.9 %, and 5.2 %, respectively. Mepolizumab and reslizumab studies reported that 40 % of patients were complicated by nasal polyps/congestion/pharyngitis/infections, 14 had a headache (15.5 %), two developed asthma (2.2 %), and only one patient (1.1 %) had epistaxis as an adverse event. Although the literature's current investigations indicate the safety of the biologic treatment modalities, further studies are needed as some uncertainty among the trials have been reported.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Polyps; Rhinitis; Omalizumab; Epistaxis; Sinusitis; Chronic Disease; Biological Therapy; Asthma; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biological Products; Headache; Pharyngitis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36057193
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103615 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious...
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse events. Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab should be explored as alternative treatment options to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab treatment outcomes in bullous pemphigoid.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library search were conducted on March 10, 2022. A total of 75 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Use of rituximab (n=122), omalizumab (n=53) and dupilumab (n=36) were reported in 211 patients with BP. Rituximab led to complete remission in 70.5% (n=86/122) and partial remission in 23.8% (n=29/122) of patients within 5.7 months, with a recurrence rate of 20.5% (n=25/122). 9.0% (n=11/122) of patients died and infection (6.6%, n=8/122) was the most common adverse event. Omalizumab led to complete remission in 67.9% (n=36/53) and partial remission in 20.8% (n=11/53) of patients within 6.6 months, with a recurrence rate of 5.7% (n=3/53). 1.9% (n=1/53) of patients died and thrombocytopenia (1.9%, n=1/53) was observed as the most common adverse event. Dupilumab led to complete remission in 66.7% (n=24/36) and partial remission in 19.4% (n=7/36) of patients within 4.5 months of treatment without any reported adverse events, with a recurrence rate of 5.6% (n=2/36).
CONCLUSIONS
Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab have similar clinical benefits for BP patients. However, rituximab resulted in higher recurrence rates, adverse events, and mortality rates.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022316454.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35769474
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.928621 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Jan 2022Optimal therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections is unclear. Current standard of care consists of antistaphylococcal antibiotics... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Ceftriaxone versus antistaphylococcal antibiotics for definitive treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Optimal therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections is unclear. Current standard of care consists of antistaphylococcal antibiotics (ASAs) such as nafcillin, oxacillin and cefazolin. Ceftriaxone has been evaluated due to its advantage as a once-daily outpatient regimen. However, questions remain regarding its efficacy compared with ASAs. We aimed to conduct a review and synthesis of available literature for outcomes of patients treated with ceftriaxone or ASAs for MSSA infections. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science (1990 to June 2021). Risk of bias for cohort studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model for outcomes of those receiving ceftriaxone versus ASAs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I index. From 459 identified studies, 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis totalling 1640 patients. Definitive therapy with ceftriaxone was associated with a lower risk of toxicity requiring therapy alteration (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.88; I = 0%). There was no difference in terms of 90-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.46-1.88; I = 9%), hospital readmission (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57-1.64; I = 0%) or infection recurrence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63-1.72; I =0%). Current evidence suggests there is no difference in efficacy between ceftriaxone and ASAs for MSSA infection, with a lower risk of toxicity with ceftriaxone. Within the limitations of available retrospective studies, ceftriaxone is a consideration for definitive therapy of MSSA infection. [Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021259086].
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Ceftriaxone; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; gamma-Globulins
PubMed: 34839007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106486