ReviewCureus2023
Efficacy and Safety of Mepolizumab in the Management of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in Evaluating Clinical Remission in Severe Asthma: Insights from the Mayo Clinic.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Age-specific efficacy of biologics in severe asthma: a pediatric perspective.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Th2-High Severe Asthma with Hypereosinophilia in the Spectrum of Type 2 Inflammatory Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Mepolizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Insights From the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR).Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2025Article
- Eosinophil-Driven vs. Eosinophil-Associated Severe Asthma: Practical Implications for Target Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is characterized by persistent airway inflammation and frequent exacerbations despite standard treatments. Mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that reduces eosinophil levels by targeting interleukin-5, has emerged as an add-on therapy for patients with SEA. This systematic review evaluated mepolizumab's efficacy and safety for treating SEA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases. Thirty-two studies with over 6,000 patients were included, comprising randomized controlled trials, open-label extensions, and real-world observational analyses. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using standard tools. Meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to heterogeneity. Instead, a narrative synthesis was performed. Mepolizumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates by around 50% and improved symptoms and lung function compared to placebo in pivotal trials. Long-term open-label studies showed sustained reductions in exacerbations and stable lung function for up to 4.5 years. Real-world data demonstrated consistent 50%-90% exacerbation decreases across diverse patient populations over 6-24 months. Mepolizumab exhibited an acceptable safety profile, with mild injection site reactions and headaches as most common adverse events. While specific subgroups may show enhanced responses, mepolizumab displayed broad efficacy regardless of patient demographics or phenotypes. The extensive evidence provides robust support for mepolizumab as an efficacious and safe add-on treatment option for patients with severe, refractory eosinophilic asthma. Further high-quality comparative effectiveness research is warranted to optimize patient selection and positioning among emerging 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.