ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis of omalizumab versus dupilumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Dose-ranging Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Xolair® (Omalizumab) in Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU)/Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) Who Remain Symptomatic Despite Antihistamine Treatment (H1)
Master Protocol of Three Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo Controlled, Multi-center, Parallel-group Studies of Dupilumab in Patients With Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) Who Remain Symptomatic Despite the Use of H1 Antihistamine Treatment in Patients naïve to Omalizumab and in Patients Who Are Intolerant or Incomplete Responders to Omalizumab
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Omalizumab is a well-established treatment for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, and dupilumab is a newly approved treatment. However, the lack of head-to-head randomized trials makes it challenging to compare treatment outcomes between omalizumab and dupilumab. Objective: To overcome this limitation, we used matching-adjusted indirect comparison to assess the efficacy of omalizumab versus dupilumab in primary phase 3 trials. Methods: Pooled patient-level data from the omalizumab ASTERIA I/II trials (NCT01287117/01292473) were compared with published aggregate data from the dupilumab LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A trial (NCT04180488). Populations were matched using the distribution of baseline weekly urticaria activity score (UAS7) in LIBERTY. Efficacy outcomes (UAS7; itch severity score [ISS7]) were then recalculated for the ASTERIA I/II trials using the matched cohorts. Least squares mean differences between treatments were determined by 2-sample Results: Improvements in both disease activity and itch severity were statistically significantly greater for omalizumab versus dupilumab (least squares mean [95% confidence interval] difference: UAS7, -7.6 [-13.0, -2.2], Conclusions: Despite limitations, our matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis highlights that omalizumab is an effective treatment option for appropriate patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.
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.