Effect of monoclonal antibodies on olfactory dysfunction caused by chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 893-900
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Tsetsos ◽  
Konstantinos Markou ◽  
Iordanis Konstantinidis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Nasal Polyps ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047344
Author(s):  
Qingwu Wu ◽  
Lianxiong Yuan ◽  
Huijun Qiu ◽  
Xinyue Wang ◽  
Xuekun Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Polyps ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.

scholarly journals CGRP-antibodies, topiramate and botulinum toxin type A in episodic and chronic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110181
Author(s):  
Florian Frank ◽  
Hanno Ulmer ◽  
Victoria Sidoroff ◽  
Gregor Broessner
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Botulinum Toxin ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Botulinum Toxin Type A ◽  
Type A ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Botulinum Toxin Type ◽  
Odds Ratios

Background The approval of monoclonal antibodies for prevention of migraine has revolutionized treatment for patients. Oral preventatives are still considered first line treatments as head-to-head trials comparing them with antibodies are lacking. Methods The main purpose of this study was to provide a comparative overview of the efficacy of three commonly prescribed migraine preventative medication classes. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE until 20 March 2020. We included RCTs reporting the 50% response rates for topiramate, Botulinum Toxin Type A and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP(r). Studies were excluded if response rates were not reported, treatment allocation was unclear, or if study quality was insufficient. Primary outcome measure were the 50% response rates. The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the random effects model. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020222880). Findings We identified 6552 reports. Thirty-two were eligible for our review. Studies assessing monoclonal antibodies included 13,302 patients and yielded pooled odds ratios for the 50% response rate of 2.30 (CI: 2.11–2.50). Topiramate had an overall effect estimate of 2.70 (CI: 1.97–3.69) with 1989 included patients and Botulinum Toxin Type A achieved 1.28 (CI: 0.98–1. 67) with 2472 patients included. Interpretation Topiramate, botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies showed higher odds ratios in achieving a 50% response rate compared to placebo. Topiramate numerically demonstrated the greatest effect size but also the highest drop-out rate.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Improves Sleep Quality in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Sukato ◽  
Jason M. Abramowitz ◽  
Marina Boruk ◽  
Nira A. Goldstein ◽  
Richard M. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Endoscopic Sinus Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Sinus Surgery ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Poor Sleep

Objective Up to 75% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) suffer with poor sleep quality and reduced quality of life. Endoscopic sinus surgery has demonstrated encouraging results in improving sleep function. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the change in sleep quality after surgery for CRS. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords “sinusitis” or “rhinosinusitis” and “sleep.” Studies were included only when adults underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and were evaluated pre- and postoperatively by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), the sleep domain of Sino-Nasal Outcome Test–22, or the sleep domain of Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Results The database search yielded 1939 studies, of which 7 remained after dual-investigator screening. The standardized mean differences (95% CI) for the ESS, PSQI, and AHI were −0.94 (−1.63 to −0.26), −0.80 (−1.46 to −0.14), and −0.20 (−0.32 to −0.07), indicating large, moderate to large, and small improvements, respectively. All analyses displayed high heterogeneity ( I2 = 95%-99%). Conclusion Sleep quality, as measured by the ESS and PSQI surveys, shows substantial improvement after surgery for CRS, with smaller improvement seen for AHI. Generalizability of our results is limited by high heterogeneity among studies and by broad confidence intervals that cannot exclude small to trivial changes. The findings of this meta-analysis provide insight into the effect of CRS-related endoscopic sinus surgery on sleep quality, which should guide future research direction and counseling of patients in the clinical setting.

Surgical therapy vs continued medical therapy for medically refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zara M. Patel ◽  
Andrew Thamboo ◽  
Luke Rudmik ◽  
Jayakar V. Nayak ◽  
Timothy L. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Surgical Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document