ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025
Efficacy of omalizumab after discontinuation: a retrospective single-center observational study in children with severe asthma.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of genetic polymorphisms on omalizumab clinical response in pediatric severe asthma: a pilot study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Concomitant Asthma and Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Real-World Exploratory Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Biologic therapies for severe pediatric asthma: efficacy, safety, and biomarker-guided selection.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Age-specific efficacy of biologics in severe asthma: a pediatric perspective.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Biologic Therapies and Quality of Life in Pediatric Patients with Asthma: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical, functional, and laboratory course of children and adolescents with severe asthma after discontinuation of biologics.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Several trials documented safety and efficacy of omalizumab, but there are a few data about its effects after discontinuation. This study aims to evaluate the maintenance of efficacy of omalizumab in pediatric asthmatic patients one year after its suspension. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 17 subjects aged 6-18 years, divided into two groups: Group A (9 patients) who discontinued omalizumab after 18 months, and Group B (8 patients) who continued the therapy. Data on respiratory function (FEV1%), the number of exacerbations, need for hospitalizations, use of oral corticosteroids, and Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores were collected and analyzed at three time points: baseline (T0), after 18 months of treatment (T1), and 36 months (T2). Results: In Group A, significant differences were observed between T0 and T1, and T1 and T2, in FEV1% values, the number of exacerbations, the need for oral corticosteroids, and ACT scores. Group B showed significant differences in these parameters over time, with a notable reduction in exacerbations and improvement in ACT scores. The comparative analysis revealed that Group B had a higher number of exacerbations compared to Group A at T0 and greater use of oral cortico-steroids at T1. By T2, Group A had a higher ACT score than Group B at T0, whereas Group B showed higher ACT scores at T2 compared to Group A. Discussion: The study confirmed the efficacy and safety of omalizumab, with its benefits persisting one year after treatment discontinuation in terms of lung function, reduction in exacerbations, decreased need for oral corticosteroids, and improved quality of life. Further research is necessary.
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.