ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2021
"Real-life" management of patients with severe asthma in the biologics era: Can we do better?
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-Based Approach of Biologic Therapy in Bronchial Asthma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Packaging and Delivery of Asthma Therapeutics.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Rate and predictors of biologic initiation in patients with severe asthma: a retrospective cohort study.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscrepancies exist between guidelines and real-life practice in severe asthma. Objectives: To establish profiles for severe asthma patients according to their maintenance therapies and identify unmet needs.
methods2432 French lung specialists and allergists were invited to participate in a severe asthma survey between March and April 2018. Retrospective data were collected using an electronic case report form developed by IQVIA.
results71 respiratory physicians and/or allergists participated in the study, providing data for 736 severe asthma patients. The annual mean rates of hospitalization and exacerbation in the previous year were 0.65 (SD = 0.5) and 2.25 (SD = 1.0), respectively. One hundred one (13.7%) patients were treated with oral steroids; the mean dosage regimen was 16.1 mg per day (SD = 11.2). ICS-LABA-LAMA triple inhaled therapy was reported for 288 patients (39%); 231 patients (31.4%) had one biologic in their maintenance treatment. Among patients hospitalized at least once in the previous year (n = 311), 89 (28.5%) were currently treated with biologics, and 61 (19.6%) with oral steroids. One hundred sixty-six patients with uncontrolled asthma and no current biologic therapy had data for "T2 status"; 78 (47%), 89 (53.6%) and 137 (82.5%) of them had treatment criteria respectively for an
conclusionOur study updated "real-life" therapeutic management data for severe asthma in France in 2018. We highlighted a need for improved patient-phenotyping. This work also gives a striking insight of the position of current and forthcoming biologics.
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.