BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.
METHODS: Four databases were searched from the database\'s creation to April 8, 2023. Several keywords such as omalizumab and urticarias were used to retrieve related studies. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in R 4.2.1 software and Stata 15.1 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Ver. 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS: In total, 2331 patients were included. Five indexes were employed to assess, including weekly Itch Severity Score (ISS7), weekly Hive Severity Score (HSS7), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse events (AE). A 300 mg dose of omalizumab was the optimum dose to treat CIU, followed by the 150 mg dose. Furthermore, 600 mg of omalizumab only showed a significant difference from the placebo in HSS7. No significant statistical difference was observed in AE. Meta-regression analysis revealed that time, as a covariate, was statistically significant in the comparison of omalizumab 150 mg with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: 300 mg of omalizumab was the optimum dosage to treat CIU patients, with a 150 mg dose also exhibiting good efficacy. Further studies are required to explore the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).
OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.
METHODS: The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS: This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered \"high\" in 6 of 46 analyses, \"moderate\" in 23 of 46 analyses, and \"low\"/\"very low\" in 17 of 46 analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

暂无摘要。

Individuals with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) experience significant sleep disturbances and are at risk of anxiety and depression.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common dermatological disorder characterized by sudden and unpredictable onset of pruritic wheals and/or angioedema, for more than six weeks. It is a mast cell-mediated histaminergic disorder, considerably worsening patients\' quality of life. Current treatment options include anti-histamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine, in a step-wise algorithmic approach, aimed at complete symptom control. Patients do not respond uniformly to these therapeutic options due to phenotypic and endotypic heterogeneity, and often remain uncontrolled/poorly controlled. Recent research is focused on identifying certain biomarkers to predict therapeutic response and facilitate patient-targeted personalized treatment, for maximum benefit. The current article summarizes various biomarkers explored to date, and also elaborates their role in predicting therapeutic response to anti-histamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine, in CSU patients. High disease activity, elevated CRP/ESR and elevated D-dimer are the most important predictors of non/poor-response to antihistamines. Low and very low baseline IgE, elevated CRP/ESR, ASST+, BAT/BHRA+, basopenia, eosinopenia, and elevated D-dimer are predictors of poor and good response to omalizumab and cyclosporine, respectively. Additionally, normal or slightly elevated baseline IgE and FceR1 overexpression are predictors of a faster response with omalizumab. However, none of these predictors have so far been completely validated and are not yet recommended for routine use. Thus, large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these predictive biomarkers and identify new ones to achieve the goal of personalized medicine for CSU.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated atopic disease that occurs due to inhaled antigens in the immediate phase. Misdiagnosis, insufficient treatment, or no treatment at all are frequent problems associated with the widespread condition known as chronic allergic rhinitis. AR symptoms include runny, itchy, stuffy, and sneezing noses. Asthma and nasal polyps, for example, sometimes occur simultaneously in patients. In order for people living with AR to be as comfortable and productive as possible, treatment should center on reducing their symptoms. The online sources and literature, such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Medline, were reviewed to gather information regarding therapeutic modalities of AR and evidence-based treatments for the disease as the objectives of the present study. An increasing number of people are suffering from AR, resulting in a heavy financial and medical burden on healthcare systems around the world. Undertreating AR frequently results in a decline in quality of life. Treatment compliance is a critical challenge in the administration of AR. Innovative therapies are needed for RA to provide patients with symptom alleviation that is less expensive, more effective, and longer duration of action. Evidence-based guidelines are helpful for managing AR illness. Treating AR according to evidence-based standards can help in disease management. AR treatment includes allergen avoidance, drug therapy, immunotherapy, patient education, and follow-up. However, AR treatment with intranasal corticosteroids is more popular. Hence, in this review article, treatment options for AR are discussed in depth. We also discussed the incidence, causes, and new treatments for this clinical condition.

Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy.
This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.
The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval.
CRD42022373015.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is a valuable alternative treatment for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). The effectiveness and safety of this medication have not been confirmed. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab for ABPA.
METHODS: This study involved a retrospective chart review. The main indicators used were asthma control test (ACT) scores, lung function parameters, doses of corticosteroids, acute exacerbation, hospitalization rates, total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and blood eosinophil counts. Related adverse events were also reviewed to evaluate the safety of omalizumab.
RESULTS: Fourteen patients with ABPA were included, of whom 10 (71%) concurrently had allergic rhinitis (AR). There were improvements in the mean percentages of the forced vital capacity, percentages of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and ACT score after omalizumab administration (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.01, respectively). After the initiation of omalizumab administration, the median corticosteroid dose, acute exacerbation rate, hospitalization rate, and mean blood eosinophil count decreased when compared with the baseline values (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.05, respectively). A reduction in the total serum IgE level was observed in patients with ABPA without AR compared with that in patients with AR (p < 0.05). One patient reported a concurrent skin rash, which spontaneously resolved without medication.
CONCLUSIONS: It is safe and effective to prescribe omalizumab to patients with ABPA, irrespective of whether they have AR. Dose adjustment of omalizumab is safe after disease control. The total serum IgE level might be a predictor of the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients without AR.