ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Anti-IgE therapy for asthma: an audit at atertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough anti-IgE therapy has been shown to offer numerous benefits, we suspect it is underutilized locally. To date, there are no studies on any aspect of its use in the Arab region. There is also no information on whether physicians follow current guidelines nor on patient response to this form of therapy.
objectiveAssess the use of omalizumab for patients with difficult asthma at a tertiary care center.
designRetrospective, descriptive.
settingTertiary care hospital. PATIENTS AND
methodsInformation was collected from medical records and interviews of all patients who received a minimum of 6 months of omalizumab, including data on practices of the prescribing physician (pulmonary versus allergy), indications, dose, subjective response, number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations, changes in asthma medications, adverse effects, and the setting for delivery of therapy.
main outcome measuresExtent to which current guidelines for prescribing omalizumab were followed. Patient subjective and objective responses to treatment as reflected by changes in the use of medications and lung function before and after therapy. SAMPLE SIZE: 50 patients.
resultsOf the 50 consecutive patients, 35 were female and the mean (SD) age was 46.3 (9.2) years. Only 28 patients (56 %) met all the criteria for the prescription of omalizumab as per current guidelines; 18 (64%) by pulmonary and 10 (36%) by allergy physicians (P less than .05). Pulmonary physicians performed more tests for conditions complicating or simulating asthma (P less than .05). The mean (SD) duration of treatment by omalizumab of 35 (22) months was longer in patients managed by allergists (42 [24] months) than pulmonary physicians (30 [21] months) (P greater than .05). Both physician groups prescribed a lower initial dose than recommended (P less than .05 recommended vs. prescribed). Patients reported a significant improvement in symptoms, reduction in the use of broncho-dilators and oral steroids and in the use of healthcare services (from 16.28 [7.9] to 2.08 [1.78], P less than .0001) mean values from sum of hospitalizations/year, ER visits/year, exacerbations/year, but not in other medications or pulmonary function tests (P greater than .05).
conclusionDespite several benefits, notably a reduction in utilization of health services and asthma medication, anti-IgE therapy is probably underutilized locally. Pulmonary physicians are more likely to follow the guidelines than allergy physicians. This study suggests that there is room for improvement in the prescription practices, particularly in dosing and the setting for delivery. Further multicenter prospective studies are required to identify gaps in the current practices and improve asthma management. LIMITATIONS: Too few patients met inclusion criteria, lack of control group, and use of a subjective assessment for patient symptoms as opposed to validated questionnaires. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.