Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 739

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials

Open access
Gevaert, Philippe, Omachi, Theodore A., Corren, Jonathan, Mullol, Joaquim, Han, Joseph, Lee, Stella E., Kaufman, Derrick, Ligueros-Saylan, Monica, Howard, Monet, Zhu, Rui, Owen, Ryan, Wong, Kit, Islam, Lutaf, Bachert, Claus·2020·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with CRSwNP and comorbid asthma previously. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine omalizumab safety and efficacy in CRSwNP in phase 3 trials (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2). METHODS: Adults with CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids were randomized (1:1) to omalizumab or placebo and intranasal mometasone for 24 weeks. Coprimary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, sense of smell, postnasal drip, runny nose, and adverse events. RESULTS: Patients in POLYP 1 (n = 138) and POLYP 2 (n = 127) exhibited severe CRSwNP and substantial quality of life impairment evidenced by a mean NPS higher than 6 and SNOT-22 score of approximately 60. Both studies met both the coprimary end points. SNOT-22 score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, sense of smell, postnasal drip, and runny nose were also significantly improved for omalizumab versus placebo. In POLYP 1 and POLYP 2, the mean changes from baseline at week 24 for omalizumab versus placebo were as follows: NPS, -1.08 versus 0.06 (P < .0001) and -0.90 versus -0.31 (P = .0140); Nasal Congestion Score, -0.89 versus -0.35 (P = .0004) and -0.70 versus -0.20 (P = .0017); and SNOT-22 score, -24.7 versus -8.6 (P < .0001) and -21.6 versus -6.6 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids, and it was well tolerated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 739

Metadata

Authors
Gevaert, P., Omachi, T. A., Corren, J., Mullol, J., Han, J., Lee, S. E., Kaufman, D., Ligueros-Saylan, M., Howard, M., Zhu, R., Owen, R., Wong, K., Islam, L., & Bachert, C.
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
146
Issue
3
Pages
595-605
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034146395
Cited by
739
References
3
FWCI
71.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032
The paper
Gevaert, P., Omachi, T. A., Corren, J., Mullol, J., Han, J., Lee, S. E., Kaufman, D., Ligueros-Saylan, M., Howard, M., Zhu, R., Owen, R., Wong, K., Islam, L., & Bachert, C. (2020). Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.