ReviewERJ open research2023
Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review.
Review in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Allergy · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical response and on-treatment clinical remission with tezepelumab in a broad population of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: results over 2 years from the NAVIGATOR and DESTINATION studies.The European respiratory journal · 2024Trial
- Therapeutic Switching of Biological Drugs in Paediatric Severe Asthma: Experience of a Referral Centre.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Review
- Asthma remission with benralizumab therapy in severe eosinophilic Indian asthmatics.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026Article
- Small Airways Disease Adversely Impacts the Response to Biologic Therapies in Severe Asthma.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Feasibility of a 50% Dosing Interval Extension of Anti-IL-5 Biologics in Patients with Severe Asthma in Clinical Remission: A Real-World Validation Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Redefining asthma treatment success: bridging remission goals with patient-centred outcomes.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Article
- International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR): 2017-2024 Status and Progress Update.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2025Article
- Patient-centred composite scores as tools for assessment of response to biological therapy for paediatric and adult severe asthma.The European respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Secondary Non-Response to Biologic Treatment in Patients with Severe Asthma.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025Article
- Evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Switching Biologics in Managing Severe Asthma Patients.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025Article
- Severe Asthma Questionnaire (SAQ) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) as Early Predictors of Biologic Response in Severe Asthma.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025Article
- The Role of Gut Microbiota in the Efficacy and Side Effect Profile of Biologic Therapies for Autoimmune Diseases.Cureus · 2024Review
- Safety of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: An Analysis of Suspected Adverse Reactions Reported in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Article
- Combination of Biological Therapy in Severe Asthma: Where We Are?Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Severe Asthma and Biological Therapies: Now and the Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.The European respiratory journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma. Methods: We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021 Results: 13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards. Conclusions: This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.
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.