Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115042›Full record

ReviewRespiratory research2018

The use of intravenous versus subcutaneous monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe asthma: a review.

Andrea Matucci, Alessandra Vultaggio, Romano Danesi

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Pharmacogenetics of childhood uncontrolled asthma.Expert review of clinical immunology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. NANOBODYInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Isoorientin ameliorates OVA-induced asthma in a murine model of asthma.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea MatucciImmunoallergology Unit, AOU Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. andrea.matucci@unifi.it.
Alessandra VultaggioImmunoallergology Unit, AOU Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Romano DanesiClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
University of Florence · ITUniversity of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonoclonal antibodies (mAbs) approved for use as add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma target the underlying pathogenesis of asthma. MAIN BODY: Omalizumab binds immunoglobulin E (IgE), thereby inhibiting its interaction with the high-affinity IgE receptor and reducing the quantity of free IgE available to trigger the allergic cascade. Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 mAbs mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab block the interaction between IL-5 and its receptor on eosinophils, thus targeting the eosinophilic pathway in asthma. Most mAbs are available as intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) formulations, as their high molecular weight and gastric degradation preclude oral administration. This review compares the pharmacology, efficacy, immunogenicity, injection- and infusion-related adverse drug reactions of subcutaneously administered omalizumab and mepolizumab with the intravenously administered reslizumab. In terms of pharmacokinetics, IV route of administration appears to be superior to the SC route due to quicker absorption, greater bioavailability, shorter time to maximum serum concentration and similar elimination half-life. Route of administration does not appear to translate into striking differences in efficacy and safety of mAbs used for the treatment of severe asthma, as all are generally considered to be effective and well tolerated. Hypersensitivity and administration-related reactions have been described with both IV and SC mAbs.

conclusionmABs are effective and have low immunogenicity due to their nature as humanised antibodies. Evidence on the use of mAbs in indications other than severe asthma suggest that both the SC and the IV routes of administrations have their respective advantages and disadvantages; but their full utility remains to be elucidated.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAdministration, IntravenousAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAntibodies, MonoclonalAsthmaHumansInjections, SubcutaneousRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAntibodies, MonoclonalEosinophilMepolizumabMonoclonal antibodiesOmalizumabReslizumabSevere asthma

Identifiers

PMID30115042
PMCPMC6097430
OpenAlexW2887531721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.