Omalizumab in children with inadequately controlled severe allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many children with severe persistent allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma remain inadequately controlled despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA). RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children (6-<12 years) with perennial allergen sensitivity, and history of asthma exacerbations and symptoms despite treatment with ICS (fluticasone >or=500 microg x day(-1) or equivalent) plus a LABA. Patients received omalizumab (75-375 mg once or twice a month by subcutaneous injection, as determined from dosing tables) or placebo over 52 weeks (24-week fixed-steroid then 28-week adjustable-steroid phases). RESULTS: Out of 246 randomized patients (omalizumab, n = 166; placebo, n = 80), efficacy was analysed in 235 (omalizumab, n = 159; placebo, n = 76). Over the 24-week fixed-steroid phase, omalizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (worsening symptoms requiring doubling of baseline ICS dose and/or systemic steroids) by 34% versus placebo (0.42 vs 0.63, rate ratio 0.662; P = 0.047). Over 52 weeks, the exacerbation rate was reduced by 50% (P < 0.001). Omalizumab had an acceptable safety profile, with no statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences in adverse events observed between omalizumab and placebo. CONCLUSION: Add-on omalizumab is well-tolerated and reduces exacerbations in children (6-<12 years) with severe persistent allergic asthma, inadequately controlled despite high-dose ICS plus a LABA. It should be noted that the sample size was not based on providing statistical power in the severe subgroup, and no corrections were made for multiple comparisons; however, outcomes consistently favoured omalizumab.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".