Denosumab in the treatment on structural damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Cai ◽  
Anhang Zhang ◽  
Bokai Cheng ◽  
Qiligeer Bao ◽  
Shuxia Wang
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Bone Erosion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Space ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease, which can cause cartilage and bone damage as well as disability. The effects of denosumab in patients with RA have been analyzed in several clinical studies. These results provide strong evidence to suggest that denosumab significantly inhibited the progression of bone erosion, increased BMD in patients with RA. We undertook a meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy and safety of denosumab in the treatment on structural damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and collected randomized controlled trials of denosumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the database was established until January 19, 2021.Literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis after quality assessment.Results: Five eligible studies were included in the primary meta-analysis. Denosumab significantly inhibited the increase of the modified Sharp erosion score(MD=-0.62, 95%CI＝-0.91～-0.33,P＜0.0001)、modified total Sharp score(MD=-0.78, 95%CI＝1.23～-0.33,P=0.0007)compared to placebo groups at 12 months. In addition, denosumab also significantly increased lumbar spine BMD (3.73, 95% CI 2.00, 5.46, P<0.0001) compared to placebo or bisphosphonates. There was no evidence of an effect of denosumab on joint space narrowing. Adverse events, serious adverse events were similar between denosumab and placebo arms.Conclusion: Results suggest that denosumab inhibits the progression of structural damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis, with no increase in the rates of adverse events as compared with control group. Preliminary research suggests that denosumab is reasonable and promising options for preventing and treating structural destruction in rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registration: We registered our study with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021239783); no other meta-analysis focusing on denosumab use for structural damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis were found in the PROSPERO database.

scholarly journals The safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of COVID-19-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junwu Wang ◽  
Pengzhi Shi ◽  
Dong Chen ◽  
Shuguang Wang ◽  
Pingchuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
Mesenchymal Stem Cells ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safe Method ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
The Difference

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) therapy is considered one of the most promising treatments in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the safety and effectiveness of MSCs in the treatment of COVID-19-associated pneumonia patients need to be systematically reviewed and analyzed. Two independent researchers searched for the relevant studies published between October 2019 and April 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WAN FANG, and CNKI databases. A total of 22 studies involving 371 patients were included in the present study. MSCs were administered in 247 participants, and MSCs were allogeneic from umbilical cord, adipose tissue, menstrual blood, placenta, Wharton's jelly, or unreported sources. Combined results found that MSCs group significantly reduced the incidence of adverse events (OR = 0.43, 95%CI. = 0.22~0.84, P = 0.01) and mortality (OR = 0.17, 95%CI. = 0.06~0.49, P < 0.01), and the difference compared with control group was statistically significant. No MSCs treat-related serious adverse events were reported. The lung function and radiographic outcomes, and biomarker levels of inflammation and immunity all showed improvement trends. Therefore, MSCs therapy is an effective and safe method in the treatment of COVID-19-associated pneumonia and shows advantages in less adverse events and mortality. However, a standard and effective MSCs treatment program needs to be developed.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 237-245
Author(s):  
Mohammad Tasavon Gholamhoseini ◽  
Vahid Yazdi-Feyzabadi ◽  
Reza Goudarzi ◽  
Mohammad Hossein Mehrolhassani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Positive Effects

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in adult patients with COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv databases were searched using a search strategy tailored to each database. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklists were used for the studies' qualitative assessment. The outcomes studied were mortality, all adverse events, serious adverse events, and clinical improvement. The quantitative synthesis was conducted using fixed and random effects models in the CMA 2.2. Heterogeneity was tested using the I-squared (I2) measure. Results: In general, six studies, including five randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were found eligible. Comparison of the findings related to both groups receiving remdesivir (10-day remdesivir group) and placebo/control group showed that remdesivir treatment had no significant effect on mortality at day 14 of the treatment (RR=0.769; 95% CI :0.563-1.050; p=0.098), and all adverse events (RR= 1.078; 95% CI: 0.908-1.279; p= 0.392). However, remdesivir had a significant effect on clinical improvement at day 14 compared to placebo/control (OR= 1.447; 95% CI: 1.005-2.085; p= 0.047) and reduced serious adverse events (RR= 0.736; 95% CI: 0.611-0.887; p= 0.001). Conclusion: Remdesivir has positive effects on clinical improvement, and reduction of the risk of serious adverse events. However, it does not influence the mortality at day 14 of treatment.

Can platelet-rich plasma enhance the effect of meniscus repair?:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulei Xie ◽  
Shan Wang ◽  
Ju Yang ◽  
Anli Hu ◽  
Qing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscus Repair ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meniscus Injury

Abstract Background: Studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can enhance the effect of meniscus repair, but some studies have suggested different views on the role of PRP.Purpose: To determine whether PRP can enhance the effect of meniscus repair with respect to pain reduction and improved functionality and cure rate in patients with meniscus injury.Methods: By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and the CNKI database from their inception till December 1, 2020, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs reporting the results of the Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Lysholm score, healing rate, and adverse events. The risk of bias is assessed using Cochrane’s collaborative tools. The summary results are expressed with effect size and 95% confidence interval, and sensitivity and subgroup analysis were performed.Results: The meta-analysis included eight RCTs and 431 patients. In general, compared with the control group, use of PRP during meniscus surgery significantly improved the VAS (SMD: -0.40, P=0.002, 95%CI: -0.66 to -0.15) and Lysholm score (MD: 4.86, P=0.0009, 95%CI: 1.98–7.75) of patients with meniscus injury, but the PRP enhancement technique showed no benefit in improving the cure rate of meniscus repair (risk ratio [RR]: 1.22, P=0.06, 95%CI: 0.99–1.51). No serious adverse events were reported in any study. Conclusion: PRP deserves further consideration as an enhancement program for meniscus repair. However, the evidence still needs to be interpreted carefully because of the quantity and quality of the included studies.

scholarly journals Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Efficacy and Safety of PEGPH20 in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Solipuram ◽  
Harish Gopalakrishna ◽  
Gayatri Naira ◽  
Akhila Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor that had an estimated 57,600 new cases and 47,050 deaths in 2020 in the US alone. Recent studies have targeted tumor microenvironment (TME) for better delivery of systemic chemotherapy like PEGPH20, which degrades hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix (ECM). A meta-analysis of these Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the efficacy of PEGPH20 was performed. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library without language limitations from inception to July 30, 2020. A total of 59 articles was identified, and 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), deaths from adverse events, thromboembolic events, serious adverse events (SAE), and febrile neutropenia. Results: There was no statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR= 0.94; 95%CI (0.79, 1.11)) in the PEGPH20 group when compared to the standard treatment/placebo group. There was no significant difference among OS (HR= 0.99, 95%CI (0.83, 1.17), deaths from adverse events (RR=0.97; 95%CI (0.54, 1.73)), thromboembolic events (RR= 1.49; 95%CI (0.92, 2.44)), and febrile neutropenia (RR= 0.88; 95%CI (0.45, 1.72), however, there was statistically significant increase in SAE (RR = 1.59; 95%CI (1.01, 2.52) in the PEGPH20 group compared to the placebo group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that PEGPH20 did not improve the PFS or OS. Moreover, there is an increased incidence of serious adverse events with the use of PEGPH20 compared to standard therapies.

Safety and Efficacy of Fremanezumab for the Prevention of Migraine: a Meta-analysis from Random Clinical Trails

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bixi Gao ◽  
Nan Sun ◽  
Yanbo Yang ◽  
Yue Sun ◽  
Mingjia Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neurological Diseases ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Therapeutic Drugs ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Calcitonin Gene ◽  
Clinical Trails

Abstract Background Fremanezumab (TEV-48125) is a fully humanized immunoglobulin G isotype 2a selective monoclonal antibody that potently binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). It is one of novel therapeutic drugs for the prevention of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological diseases worldwide. Several clinical trails have been conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of fremanezumab, but there is no systematic review of existing literature has been performed. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for prevention of migraine. Method Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2001 to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs with 3379 patients were finally included in our study. Result We pooled 3379 patients from 5 RCTs, the primary endpoints were mean monthly migraine and headache days, baseline to week 12. We found that fremanezumab led to a significant reduction in migraine days (P < 0.0001) and headache days (P < 0.0001) during 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, after using fremanezumab, the risk of at least one adverse event (P=0.001) or related to the trail regimen (P=0.0005) significantly increase compared with placebo. Conclusions Fremanezumab has good efficacy for the prevention of migraine. The administration of fremanezumab can cause some mild adverse events but not serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Adverse events of exercise therapy in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Niemeijer ◽  
Hans Lund ◽  
Signe Nilssen Stafne ◽  
Thomas Ipsen ◽  
Cathrine Luhaäär Goldschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative risk (RR) of serious and non-serious adverse events in patients treated with exercise therapy compared with those in a non-exercising control group.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPrimary studies were identified based on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews investigating the effect of exercise therapy.Eligibility criteriaAt least two of the authors independently evaluated all identified reviews and primary studies. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared any exercise therapy intervention with a non-exercising control. Two authors independently extracted data. The RR of serious and non-serious adverse events was estimated separately.Results180 Cochrane reviews were included and from these, 773 primary studies were identified. Of these, 378 studies (n=38 368 participants) reported serious adverse events and 375 studies (n=38 517 participants) reported non-serious adverse events. We found no increase in risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.96 (95%CI 0.90 to 1.02, I2: 0.0%) due to exercise therapy. There was, however, an increase in non-serious adverse events (RR=1.19 (95%CI 1.09 to 1.30, I2: 0.0%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome for non-serious adverse events was 6 [95%CI 4 to 11).ConclusionParticipating in an exercise intervention increased the relative risk of non-serious adverse events, but not of serious adverse events. Exercise therapy may therefore be recommended as a relatively safe intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014819.

scholarly journals Effect of yoga on sleep quality and insomnia in women with sleep problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weili Wang ◽  
Kuang-Huei Chen ◽  
Ying-Chieh Pan ◽  
Szu-Nian Yang ◽  
Yuan-Yu Chan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives To examine the effectiveness and safety of yoga for women with sleep problems by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods Medline/PubMed, Clincalkey, ScienceDirect, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched throughout the month of June 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing yoga groups with control groups in women with sleep problems were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated risk of bias by using the risk of bias tool suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration for programming and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The main outcome measure was sleep quality or the severity of insomnia, which was measured using subjective instruments, such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia severity index (ISI), or objective instruments, such as polysomnography, actigraphy, and safety of the intervention. For each outcome, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. Results Nineteen studies including 1832 participants were included in this systematic review. Meta-analyses revealed positive effects of yoga using PSQI or ISI scores in 16 randomized control trials (RCTs) compared with the control group in improving sleep quality in women, PSQI (SMD = −0.54; 95% CI = −0.89 to −0.19 ; P = 0.003). However, three RCTs revealed no effects of yoga compared with the control group in reducing the severity of insomnia in women using ISI (SMD = −0.13; 95% CI = −0.74 to 0.48; P = 0.69). Seven RCTs revealed no evidence for effects of yoga compared with the control group in improving sleep quality for women with breast cancer using PSQI (SMD = −0.15 ; 95% CI = −0.31 to 0.01; P = 0.5). Four RCTs revealed no evidence for the effects of yoga compared with the control group in improving the sleep quality for peri-or postmenopausal women using PSQI (SMD = −0.31; 95% CI = −0.95 to 0.33; P = 0.34).Yoga was not associated with serious adverse events. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis found that yoga intervention in some groups of women was beneficial in managing sleep problems. Despite certain disadvantages in methodology in the included studies, yoga may be recommended as a complementary therapy to women.

scholarly journals Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinky Kotecha ◽  
Alexander Light ◽  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Cristian Fiori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenjie Yu ◽  
Kaijian Wang ◽  
Xinyan Cui ◽  
Ling Lu ◽  
Jianfei Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document