Omalizumab is effective in allergic and nonallergic patients with nasal polyps and asthma
Abstract
Background Adult patients with nasal polyps often have comorbid asthma, adding to the serious effect on the quality of life of these patients. Nasal polyps and asthma might represent a therapeutic challenge; inflammation in both diseases shares many features, such as airway eosinophilia, local IgE formation, and a T(H)2 cytokine profile. Omalizumab is a human anti-IgE mAb with proved efficacy in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab could be a treatment option for patients with nasal polyps and asthma. Objective The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of omalizumab in patients with nasal polyps and comorbid asthma. Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of allergic and nonallergic patients with nasal polyps and comorbid asthma (n = 24) was conducted. Subjects received 4 to 8 (subcutaneous) doses of omalizumab (n = 16) or placebo (n = 8). The primary end point was reduction in total nasal endoscopic polyp scores after 16 weeks. Secondary end points included a change in sinus computed tomographic scans, nasal and asthma symptoms, results of validated questionnaires (Short-Form Health Questionnaire, 31-item Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measuring Instrument, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), and serum/nasal secretion biomarker levels. Results There was a significant decrease in total nasal endoscopic polyp scores after 16 weeks in the omalizumab-treated group (-2.67, P = .001), which was confirmed by means of computed to…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Biological treatments have a potentially major effect on nasal obstruction and the size of nasal polyps in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
“These biological treatments have a potentially major effect on NO and the size of NP.”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [180]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 744
- Authors
- Gevaert, P., Calus, L., Van Zele, T., Blomme, K., De Ruyck, N., Bauters, W., Hellings, P., Brusselle, G., De Bacquer, D., van Cauwenberge, P., & Bachert, C.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University Hospital (BE)
- Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gevaert, Philippe
- Venue
- Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-116.e1
- ISSN
- 0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105880697
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 34.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
- Keywords
- omalizumab, nasal polyps, asthma, allergic rhinitis, anti-IgE therapy, airway eosinophilia, quality of life, sinusitis, polyp recurrence
- MeSH terms
- Omalizumab, Adult, Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic, Asthma, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Polyps, Treatment Outcome, Anti-Allergic Agents, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review