4.1 Article

Effect of omalizumab on biomarkers in middle ear effusion in patients with eosinophilic otitis media

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 134, 期 4, 页码 366-372

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2013.868601

关键词

Anti-IgE therapy; eosinophilic cationic protein; ECP; IgE; interleukin (IL)-4; IL-5

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conclusions: Eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) concentrations in middle ear effusion (MEE) in patients with eosinophilic otitis media (EOM) were significantly decreased at 3 months after the administration of omalizumab from the baseline level (p < 0.05). This study provides new evidence that omalizumab reduces eosinophilic inflammation in the middle ear and that the reduction of ECP may not be caused by suppression of interleukin (IL)-5 production in the middle ear mucosa. Objective: EOM is an intractable otitis media characterized by a highly viscous effusion containing eosinophils. We recently reported that anti-IgE therapy using omalizumab was efficacious in the treatment of EOM. To clarify the underlying mechanism, we determined changes in biomarkers in MEE related to eosinophilic inflammation after therapy. Methods: Nine patients with EOM received the anti-IgE agent omalizumab for 3 months. Among them, five patients continued anti-IgE therapy for longer than 1 year. Eight EOM patients without administration of omalizumab were also included in the study as controls. The concentrations of eosinophilic inflammatory markers such as ECP, IgE, IL-4, and IL-5 in MEE were measured before and after the administration of omalizumab. Results: After 3 months of omalizumab therapy, the ECP concentration in MEE was significantly reduced from the baseline level (p < 0.05), while no significant change of ECP in the serum was observed. The concentrations of IL-4 and IL-5 in MEE showed no significant change before and after the therapy in EOM patients treated with omalizumab.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据