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.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of interleukin-6-receptor inhibitors in the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis

BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kharel ◽  
Suraj Shrestha ◽  
Rajeev Ojha ◽  
Neha Guragain ◽  
Rakesh Ghimire
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neuromyelitis Optica ◽  
Interleukin 6 ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Interleukin 6 Receptor

Abstract Background Interleukin-6-receptor inhibitors like Tocilizumab and Satralizumab are showing promising results in the treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of various Interleukin-6-receptor inhibitors in the management of NMO/NMOSD. Methods PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched for suitable studies. Change in Annualized Relapse Ratio (ARR), Change in Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) s, the proportion of relapse-free patients and proportion of patients with adverse events, including serious adverse events and mortality were the parameters considered for the meta-analysis for Tocilizumab. Mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was used to quantify the change in ARR and change in EDSS before and after treatment. A forest plot was prepared to indicate the efficacy and adverse effects outcomes. The results were compared with those of Satralizumab included in two trials. Results A total of nine studies with 202 patients were included in our study. Tocilizumab found a good proportion (76.95% CI: 0.61–0.91; p < 0.001) of relapse free patients at follow up. It also significantly reduced mean ARR (mean difference: -2.6, 95% CI: − 2.71 to − 1.68; p < 0.001) and but did not show significant difference in change in EDSS score (mean difference = − 0.79, 95% CI: − 1.89 to − 0.31; p = 0.16). Also, the toxicity profile of Tocilizumab was acceptable considering the proportions of patients with adverse events 56% (95% C.I.;0.27–0.85, I2 = 88.95%, p < 0.001), proportions of patients with serious adverse events 11% (95% C.I.; 0.05 to 0.17, I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) and zero treatment related deaths. SAkura studies for Satralizumab showed similar relapse free patients (70% to 80%) and reduction of ARR and EDSS from baseline. Some studies of Tocilizumab have shown to reduce pain and fatigue while trials of Satralizumab had non-significant findings. Conclusion Interleukin-6-receptor inhibitors therapy showed a promising result with good efficacy and acceptable adverse events profile for treatment of NMOSD.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of IL-6 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders. A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kharel ◽  
Suraj Shrestha ◽  
Rajeev Ojha ◽  
Neha Guragain ◽  
Rakesh Ghimire
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neuromyelitis Optica ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Subcutaneous Administration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Relapse Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract BackgroundInterleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitors like Tocilizumab and Satralizumab are showing promising results in the treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of various IL-6 inhibitors in the management of NMO/NMOSD.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched for suitable studies. Change in Annualized Relapse Ratio (ARR), Change in Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) s, the proportion of relapse-free patients, on trial relapse risk, and proportion of patients with adverse events, including serious adverse events and mortality were the parameters considered for the meta-analysis. Mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was used to quantify the change in ARR and change in EDSS-before and after treatment. While pooled risk ratio between the intervention group and placebo group was used in Randomized Controlled Trial (RCTs). A forest plot was prepared to indicate the efficacy outcomes.Results A total of nine studies with 202 patients were included in our meta-analysis. IL-6 inhibitors found a good proportion (75%,95% CI: 0.62–0.89; p<0.001) of relapse free patients at follow up. It also significantly reduced mean ARR (mean difference: -2.6 95% CI: -2.71 to -1.68; p<0.001) and on trial relapse risk (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32‐0.66; P< 0.001) but did not show significant difference in change in EDSS score (mean difference=-0.79, 95% CI: -1.89 to -0.31; p=0.16). Also, the toxicity profile of IL-6 inhibitors was acceptable considering the proportions of patients with adverse events (72%, 95% C.I.;0.59-0.84, I2=85.29%, p<0.001), proportions of patients with serious adverse events (18%;95% C.I.; -3.68 to 4.04, I2=0%, p=0.93) and zero treatment related deaths. In subgroup analysis, we found subcutaneous administration to be superior (81%;95% CI:0.74-0.82) than intravenous route (67%; 95% CI:0.67-0.89) in relapse free maintenance.ConclusionIL-6 inhibitor therapy showed significant benefits in reducing mean ARR, relapse risk and increasing the number of relapse-free patients with acceptable adverse events profile.

scholarly journals The association between immune-related adverse events and the prognosis of solid cancer patients treated with immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592098054
Author(s):  
Huilin Xu ◽  
Ximing Xu ◽  
Wei Ge ◽  
Jinju Lei ◽  
Dedong Cao
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Good Survival ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Early Effect ◽  
Overall Response

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment and reported to be associated with good survival. This study evaluated the association between onset timing of irAEs and survival of cancer patients treated with ICIs. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to retrieve clinical studies assessing the relationship between irAEs and survival in cancer patients with ICIs. The overall response rate for treatment response and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup analysis in terms of cancer type, ICIs type, region, specific irAEs, accordingly. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. The HRs for OS and PFS in cancer patients with versus without irAEs were 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44, 0.74; p < 0.0001], and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.67; p < 0.00001), respectively. The odds ratio for overall response in cancer patients with irAEs was 4.72 (95% CI: 3.48, 6.40; p < 0.00001) compared with those without irAEs. Subgroup analyses suggested that the prognostic role of irAEs was associated with cancer types and region, but not irAEs types. The landmark analysis of OS revealed that there is a non-proportional (early) effect of irAEs on OS in ICI-treated cancer patients (landmark >12 weeks, HROS = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.30; p = 0.46). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the occurrence of irAEs could be a prognostic factor for cancer patients who were treated with ICIs.

The Relationship between Use of Low Molecular Weight Heparin during Pregnancy and Risk of Peripartum Adverse Events: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaorong Y ◽  
◽  
Shan L ◽  
Shengji S ◽  
Tao S ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Premature Delivery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fetal Complications

Introduction: To summarize the trials investigated on relationship between low molecular weight heparin use during pregnancy and peripartum adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) on maternal and fetal complications. Methods: Electronic research was performed in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE through October 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of maternal and fetal complications during peripartum period. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. Results: 11 articles were finally included. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in abortion, premature delivery, stillbirth, preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage events between pregnant women who used LMWH and those who not. Conclusion: Using LMWH in pregnant women does not increase pregnancy related maternal and fetal complications.

Comparison between Ologen implant and Mitomycin C in trabeculectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyan Liu ◽  
Yali Du ◽  
Min Lei ◽  
Leyi Zhuang ◽  
Peng Lv
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Collagen Matrix ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Alternative Choice

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the biodegradable collagen matrix (Ologen) implant in trabeculectomy. Research design and methods We searched Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases to find studies that met our pre-stated inclusion criteria. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also reviewed. The search was finished by February 2019. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. Either a fixed or a random-effects model was used to calculate the overall combined risk estimates. The efficacy measures were the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for the intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR) and the glaucoma medications reduction, the odds ratio (OR) for the success rate and adverse events. Results Fifteen randomized controlled trials involved 682 eyes were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically differences between two groups in the IOPR at any time postoperatively. The MD of the IOPR was [MD= -0.45,95% Confidence Interval (CI), (-2.36,1.46), P=0.65] at one day, [MD= -0.82,95% CI, (-1.97, 0.33), P=0.16] at one week, [MD= -1.33, 95% CI,(-3.12, 0.47), P=0.15] at one month, [MD= 0.11,95% CI, (-1.87, 2.08), P=0.92] at three months, [MD= -0.60,95% CI, (-2.27, 1.06), P=0.48] at six months, [MD= -0.33,95% CI, (-1.99, 1.32), P=0.69] at one year, [MD= -0.13,95% CI, (-1.90, 1.65), P=0.89] at two years, [MD= 2.54,95% CI, (-2.83, 7.90), P=0.35] at three years, [MD= 3.04,95% CI, (-3.95, 10.03), P=0.39] at five years. There was no statistically significant difference between the Ologen groups and MMC groups concerned the complete success rate [OR=1.19, 95%CI, (0.83, 1.71), P=0.35]. With regard to the adverse events, no obvirously significance was observed. Seven studies reported the change of antiglaucoma medications. We found that the change of antiglaucoma medications is higher in MMC groups than that in Ologen groups [MD=-0.18, 95%CI, (-0.33, -0.03), P=0.02]. There is no significant difference in complications between the two groups. Conclusions From the current evidence, Ologen may be an alternative choice for trabeculectomy when considering the efficacy and safety. However, MMC might be the preferred choice concerned cost-effectiveness.

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 The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease caused by allergic individuals exposed to allergens. Western medicine therapy for treating AR causes obvious adverse events, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM for treating AR. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from inception to April 5, 2020, were searched without any language restriction. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. The primary outcomes were the total effective rate and the TNSS. The secondary outcomes included TNNSS, RQLQ, VAS, serum IgE, IgA, or IgG level, and adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected; methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 software. Results. A total of 18 RCTs were included, including 1600 patients. The results of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect in a total effective rate of T = TFM (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.03, 1.12]; P=0.45; I2 = 0%) and T = TFM + other treatments (RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.11, 1.25]; P=0.03; I2 = 53%). In addition, TFM intervention also showed significant difference in total symptom score (T = TFM + other treatments) (MD = −1.42; 95% CI [−1.55, −1.29]; P=0.03; I2 = 60%) in patients with AR. Conclusion. Existing evidence shows that TFM is safe and effective for AR. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, we should draw our conclusions with caution. Therefore, clinical researchers should carry out more large-sample, multicentre, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials in the future to verify the clinical efficacy of TFM in treating AR.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab and Evolocumab on Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Xiaoyue Ge ◽  
Tiantian Zhu ◽  
Hao Zeng ◽  
Xin Yu ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Familial Hypercholesterolemia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Apolipoprotein A1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Apo B ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. The aim of this study was to provide the first study to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of PCSK9-mAbs in the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Methods. A computer was used to search the electronic Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase databases for clinical trials using the following search terms: “AMG 145”, “evolocumab”, “SAR236553/REGN727”, “alirocumab”, “RG7652”, “LY3015014”, “RN316/bococizumab”, “PCSK9”, and “familial hypercholesterolemia” up to November 2020. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and publication bias was evaluated by a contour-enhanced funnel plot and the Harbord modification of the Egger test. After obtaining the data, a meta-analysis was performed using R software, version 4.0.3. Results. A meta-analysis was performed on 7 clinical trials (926 total patients). The results showed that PCSK9-mAbs reduced the LDL-C level by the greatest margin, WMD −49.14%, 95% CI: −55.81 to −42.47%, on FH versus control groups. PCSK9-mAbs also significantly reduced lipoprotein (a) (Lp (a)), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein-B (Apo-B), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels and increased HDL-C and apolipoprotein-A1 (Apo-A1) levels of beneficial lipoproteins. Moreover, no significant difference was found between PCSK9-mAbs treatment and placebo in common adverse events, serious events, and laboratory adverse events. Conclusion. PCSK9-mAbs significantly decreased LDL-C and other lipid levels with satisfactory safety and tolerability in FH treatment.

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