ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
FDA-Approved Biologics for CRSwNP: A Five-Year Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Biologics in CRSwNP: Related Events and Insights.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- CRSwNP in the biologics era: evaluating patient-reported quality of life outcomes.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Given the increasing utilization of biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP, it is important to characterize their adverse events (AEs). This study compares the AE profiles of FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP when adjusting for potential confounders, such as prescription indication, age, and sex. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed AEs reported in the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) from 2019Q1 to 2023Q2. AEs were categorized and compared between biologics for comparison of AE type and severity. Chi-square tests compared outcomes between groups and regression modeling identified predictors of a serious adverse event (SAE). Results: We identified ~79,000 AE logs consisting of ~226,000 individual adverse reactions (IARs). Most dupilumab IARs were dermatologic or administration/medical error related. Most mepolizumab were administration/medical error related or pulmonary. Most omalizumab were pulmonary or dermatologic. Compared to dupilumab, we found that mepolizumab (OR 3.61, 95% CI: 3.29-3.98) and omalizumab (OR 15.33, 95% CI: 13.98-16.81) had a greater odds of a reported AE being an SAE. Though more females reported having any AE, male sex, increasing age, and a prescription indication of asthma were associated with a significantly increased odds of an AE being an SAE. Conclusion: We found potential predictors associated with SAEs to FDA approved biologics including gender (male > female), age (increasing age), and prescription indication (asthma > asthma + CRSwNP > CRSwNP). This data is important to prescribers educating their patients to potential AEs.
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.