‘Real-world’ effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe asthma affects 5–10% of the 350 million people with asthma worldwide. Findings from the authors’ previous meta-analysis supported omalizumab use as an adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma. The publication of fourteen new articles necessitates an update of the meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of acute allergic asthma in adults by calculating pooled effects estimates from data in published articles.

Methods: Articles on omalizumab effectiveness in ‘real-world’ settings were identified. Effect sizes, including point estimates of the proportion of patients who met a given criteria, mean improvements relative to baseline, and change in the proportion of patients requiring oral corticosteroids compared to baseline were extracted. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to pool effect sizes based on proportions. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) were calculated from means and standard deviations. Relative risk was calculated from changes in proportions. Variability within and between studies was evaluated.

Results: Omalizumab increases the percentage of individuals rated ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness Scale. Omalizumab also improves respiratory function, quality-of-life, and asthma control while reducing medication usage, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and adverse events.

Conclusion: ‘Real-world’ evidence continues to support the use of omalizumab as adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma.

KEYWORDS:

• Omalizumab
• effectiveness
• asthma
• adults
• meta-analysis

Declaration of interest

K MacDonald and I Abraham are associates of and hold equity in Matrix45. However, this meta-analysis was not funded by Matrix45 or any other entity. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.