ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2026
Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2026. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmalizumab and mepolizumab are effective biologic therapies for severe asthma. However, their comparative effectiveness in patients eligible for both treatments remains unclear in routine care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in these patients.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with asthma who were treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. Eligible patients had a blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL (or ≥ 300 cells/μL within the prior year), total Immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥ 30 IU/mL, and sensitization to a perennial inhalant allergen. The primary endpoint was the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for asthma exacerbation during the first year of treatment. Secondary endpoints were IRRs for emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, subgroup IRRs stratified by baseline eosinophil count (< 300 cells/μL vs. ≥ 300 cells/μL), and change in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Poisson regression models were adjusted for BMI, eosinophil count, and prior-year exacerbations; ER and hospitalization models additionally adjusted for prior ER visits and hospitalizations. Follow-up time was accounted for via an offset term.
resultsWe included 49 patients (omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24). Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab (IRR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.69). In the subgroup analyses, this effect was significant in patients with baseline eosinophil counts < 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-0.88) but not in those with baseline eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of ER visits or hospitalizations. The OCS dose was reduced in both groups, with no significant between-group difference in the mean dose reduction.
conclusionsIn patients eligible for both therapies, mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations more than omalizumab in real-world practice. Although ER visits, hospitalizations, and OCS-sparing were comparable, these findings may help inform biologic selection when exacerbation reduction is prioritized but require confirmation in larger multicenter studies.
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.