Benefits and harms of aspirin desensitization for aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aspirin desensitization is increasingly recommended for the treatment of aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). The objective of this study is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of aspirin desensitization in patients with AERD. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to January 5, 2019. We included randomized trials and comparative observational studies in any language. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate independently. Results Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolled 233 patients with AERD. Compared to placebo, aspirin desensitization (mean daily dose 800 mg) improved quality of life (risk ratio [RR] 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 3.06; heterogeneity measure [I2] = 0%; risk difference [RD] +24%; 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT‐22] scale [0 to 110, higher worse]; mean difference [MD] −10.27 [95% CI, −6.39 to −14.15]; moderate‐certainty); and respiratory symptoms (RR 2.20 [95% CI, 1.55 to 2.73], I2 = 34%, RD +36%; American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO) scale [0 to 20, higher worse]; MD −2.56 [95% CI,−1.12 to −3.92]; high‐certainty). Aspirin desensitization increased adverse events severe enough to cause treatment discontinuation (major bleeding, gastritis, asthma exacerbation, or rash causing drug discontinuation, RR 4.39 [95% CI, 1.43 to 13.50], I2 = 0%, RD +11%, moderate‐certainty), and gastritis (RR 3.84 [95% CI, 1.12 to 13.19], I2 = 0%, RD +9%, low‐certainty). Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Two available observational studies were not informative because they lacked adjustment for confounders and/or contemporaneous controls. Conclusion In patients with AERD, moderate‐certainty and high‐certainty evidence shows that aspirin desensitization meaningfully reduces symptoms of rhinosinusitis and improves quality of life, but results in a significant increase in adverse events.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".