ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2023
Clinical profiles of patients referred for biological therapy and major limitations in the qualification paths in a specialist asthma centre.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the proven efficacy of biologics in the treatment of severe asthma, still a limited number of patients are included in the Polish therapeutic programme. Aim: To identify major limitations in the qualification paths and predominant reasons leading to exclusion from available biologic treatments. The clinical profiles of patients referred for biologics were also examined. Material and methods: Data on demographic characteristics, clinical profile, biomarkers, and medical history from one visit of patients that had been referred for qualification for biologics in 2018/2019 to the Barlicki Hospital (Poland) were collected. A comparison between eligible and ineligible patients was made. Results: Within 2 years, only 116 patients had been referred to the biologic therapy of whom 93 (80%) had been suitable for the biologic programme. Criteria for the omalizumab programme included major limitations such as: frequent use of oral corticosteroids in the past, and serum total-IgE 30-1000 IU/ml, and for mepolizumab were blood eosinophil count (EOScount) > 350/μl and spirometric criterion. Ineligible patients had a significantly lower EOScount and better lung function than eligible individuals despite no significant differences in the number of exacerbations or quality of life between groups. A high percentage of ineligible patients had been referred to re-verify the diagnosis of severe asthma. Conclusions: Potential limitations for biologic therapy include restrictive criteria limiting the group of patients to the most severe cases and referring patients with difficult-to-treat asthma without a differential diagnosis. Low awareness and knowledge among physicians who often are not familiar with qualification criteria require extensive education.
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.