Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among patients receiving omalizumab: Results from EXCELS, a prospective cohort study in moderate to severe asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: EXCELS, a postmarketing observational cohort study, was a commitment to the US Food and Drug Administration to assess the long-term safety of omalizumab in an observational setting, focusing predominantly on malignancies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine a potential association between omalizumab and cardiovascular (CV)/cerebrovascular (CBV) events in EXCELS. METHODS: Patients (≥12 years of age) with moderate to severe allergic asthma and who were being treated with omalizumab (n = 5007) or not (n = 2829) at baseline were followed up for ≤5 years. Analyses included overall CV/CBV events, but focused on the subset of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs), comprising CV death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and unstable angina. A prespecified analysis of the end point of ATE was conducted to control for available potential confounders. A blinded independent expert panel adjudicated all events. RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 cohorts had similar demographic characteristics, but severe asthma was more common in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab group (50% vs 23%). Omalizumab-treated patients had a higher rate of CV/CBV serious adverse events (13.4 per 1,000 person years [PYs]) than did non-omalizumab-treated patients (8.1 per 1,000 PYs). The ATE rates per 1,000 PYs were 6.66 (101 patients/15,160 PYs) in the omalizumab cohort and 4.64 (46 patients/9,904 PYs) in the non-omalizumab cohort. After control for available confounding factors, the hazard ratio was 1.32 (95% CI, 0.91-1.91). CONCLUSION: This observational study demonstrated a higher incidence rate of CV/CBV events in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab cohort. Differences in asthma severity between cohorts likely contributed to this imbalance, but some increase in risk cannot be excluded.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".