ArticleERJ open research2022
Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study.
Article in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Easier Biologic Access with Remission and Other Clinical Outcomes in Severe Asthma: A Global Real-World Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Clinical Remission in Severe Asthma: A Comparative Analysis of Patients with and Without Biologics from the Swiss Severe Asthma Registry.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists for severe asthma: insights from clinicians in the SHARP network.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Economic impact of steroid-induced comorbidities in severe asthma: a SHARP CRC simulation.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Benralizumab Outcomes in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Treated in Real-Life Settings: Results of the BREEZE Study in 5 Countries From Central Eastern Europe and Baltics.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025Article
- Real-World Safety Profile of Biologic Drugs for Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: A Descriptive Analysis from the Spanish Pharmacovigilance Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Long-term multicenter comparison shows equivalent efficacy of monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma therapy.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Severe asthma care trajectories: the French RAMSES cohort.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Outcome measures in asthma attack trials: can't see the good for the wheeze.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Initiation, response assessment, and switch of antibody therapies in patients with severe asthma - A survey among German specialists.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2023Article
- Combination of Biological Therapy in Severe Asthma: Where We Are?Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Characteristics of severe asthma patients on biologics: a real-life European registry study.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Assessing Physician Agreement in Biologic Therapy Initiation and Selection in Patients with Severe Asthma.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 20 institutions in 28 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown. Materials and methods: The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies. Results: Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity. Conclusion: Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation.
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.