Omalizumab for severe allergic asthma in clinical trials and real-life studies: What we know and what we should address
Abstract Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for the assessment of any therapeutic intervention. Real-life (R-L) studies are needed to verify the provided results beyond the experimental setting. This review aims at comparing RCTs and R-L studies on omalizumab in adult severe all...
Saved in:
Published in | Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics Vol. 31; pp. 28 - 35 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Elsevier Ltd
01.04.2015
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Abstract Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for the assessment of any therapeutic intervention. Real-life (R-L) studies are needed to verify the provided results beyond the experimental setting. This review aims at comparing RCTs and R-L studies on omalizumab in adult severe allergic asthma, in order to highlight the concurring results and the discordant/missing data. The results of a selective literature research, including “omalizumab, controlled studies, randomized trial, real-life studies” as key words are discussed. Though some similarities between RCTs and R-L studies strengthen omalizumab efficacy and safety outcomes, significant differences concerning study population features, follow-up duration, local adverse events and drop-out rate for treatment inefficacy emerge between the two study categories. Furthermore the comparative analysis between RCTs and R-L studies highlights the need for further research, concerning in particular long-term effects of omalizumab and its impact on asthma comorbidities. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 |
ISSN: | 1094-5539 1522-9629 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.pupt.2015.01.006 |