Influence of prolonged treatment with omalizumab on the development of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We investigated whether prolonged treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria. Design Systematic review and meta‐analysis of intervention and observational studies. Randomized controlled trials were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, comparative observational studies were assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale, and non‐comparative observational studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and grey literature for eligible studies to November 2017. All searches were updated in January 2019. Eligibility criteria for included studies Randomized, quasi‐randomized, controlled clinical trials and observational studies were included if they involved patients ≥ 12 years with moderate‐to‐severe persistent asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria treated with omalizumab for ≥ 40 weeks. Eligible comparators included standard of care, placebo, cromoglycate or no treatment. Results One hundred and sixty seven unique studies were eligible for inclusion; however, only twelve (7.2%, n = 11 758) reported any outcome of interest, none of which involved patients with urticaria. 195 cancer events were reported. We found no statistically significant increase in the odds of study‐emergent solid epithelial cancer in patients randomized to long‐term treatment with omalizumab compared to standard of care (Peto OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.11, 3.74, I 2 = 41%). Less than one per cent of participants of non‐comparative observational studies (n = 2350) were diagnosed with a solid epithelial tumour (meta‐proportion: 0.86% [95% CI: 0.24, 1.86%, I 2 = 56%]). In the only comparative observational study reporting on cancer, the proportion of study‐emergent solid epithelial tumour events was nearly identical in both study groups (omalizumab: 2.3%, standard of care: 2.2%). Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to determine whether long‐term treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in these patient populations. PROSPERO registration # CRD 42018082211.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".