Comparative efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a skin condition that significantly impairs quality of life. While omalizumab remains the standard treatment for patients who have failed antihistamines, emerging therapies show promise in randomized control trials (RCTs). This study aims to compare the relative efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and remibrutinib in CSU. METHODS: Four databases were searched for RCTs evaluating omalizumab (75/150/300 mg Q4W), dupilumab (300 mg Q2W), or remibrutinib (25 mg BID) in CSU. Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Itch Severity Score (ISS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; DLQI 0/1), disease control (UAS7 ≤ 6), and symptom remission (UAS7 = 0) were assessed at weeks 12/24. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis were conducted in R. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (4,913 patients) were included. Omalizumab 300 mg demonstrated the greatest efficacy in UAS7, ISS7, symptom remission, and disease control at both timepoints. Remibrutinib showed the greatest DLQI improvement and second-highest UAS7 reduction and odds of symptom remission. Dupilumab provided sustained itch relief but delayed efficacy. Lower omalizumab doses lacked durability at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab 300 mg, followed by remibrutinib, exhibited the highest effect sizes across major outcomes for CSU. Newer therapies such as remibrutinib and dupilumab appear generally effective, offering promising tools for CSU patients who may not respond to standard treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.037 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".