Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39539920›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Efficacy of Biologic Therapies in the Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review.

Ibtihal Yamani, Khulud Bu Saeed, Amjaad Alsulami, Salam Sait, Abdulaziz H Althumali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluating the efficacy and safety of Stapokibart (CM310) in the treatment of uncontrolled seasonal allergic rhinitis based on real-world research.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Recent Studies and Prospects of Biologics in Allergic Rhinitis Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ibtihal YamaniOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, SAU.
Khulud Bu SaeedOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Alhada Armed Forces Hospital, Taif, SAU.
Amjaad AlsulamiOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, SAU.
Salam SaitOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, SAU.
Abdulaziz H AlthumaliOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Alhada Armed Forces Hospital, Taif, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic condition characterized by nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching, which significantly impacts quality of life. Traditional treatments, including antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids, often fall short in managing moderate-to-severe cases. Recently, biologic therapies such as omalizumab and dupilumab have emerged as potential alternatives. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologic therapies in the management of AR. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2000 and 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and post-hoc analyses that assessed the impact of biologics on AR symptoms. Data on study characteristics, population demographics, intervention details, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. The review included nine studies evaluating omalizumab and dupilumab. Omalizumab demonstrated significant improvements in nasal symptoms and quality of life, with notable efficacy in reducing symptoms and improving asthma control in patients with moderate-to-severe AR. Dupilumab also showed positive outcomes, particularly in patients with comorbid asthma and perennial AR, by reducing severe exacerbations and improving symptom scores. Biologic therapies, including omalizumab and dupilumab, offer promising alternatives for the management of AR, especially in cases that are severe or refractory to conventional treatments. The evidence supports their efficacy in improving symptoms and quality of life. Nevertheless, further research is required to address the limitations identified, including the need for long-term data and clarification of the mechanisms of action. These findings underscore the potential of biologics in advancing the treatment of AR and highlight the importance of ongoing research to optimize patient outcomes.

Indexed as

allergic rhinitisbiologic therapiesdupilumabomalizumaboutcomes

Identifiers

PMID39539920
PMCPMC11558228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.