Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637825›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2024

A survey of severe asthma in Canada: results from the CASCADE practice reflective program.

Krystelle Godbout, Harold Kim, Irvin Mayers, James Paterson, Charles K N Chan

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Asthma.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Krystelle GodboutQuebec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada.
Harold KimDivision of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Irvin MayersDivision of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
James PatersonScientific Insights Consulting Group Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Charles K N ChanFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Charles.Chan@onelinkconnect.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7772-706X
Université Laval · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the last guidance was published by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there have been several advances in the clinical management of severe asthma. To gain a better understanding of the current standards of care and treatment patterns of patients, the CASCADE practice reflective program was established to conduct a real-world analysis of severe asthma management among specialists in Canada with a goal of identifying areas of opportunity to enhance patient management and outcomes.

methodsThe CASCADE program was a two-part practice reflective and assessment program delivered through an on-line portal for selected specialists (Respirologists and Allergists) in Canada. The program consisted of a one-time overview survey of physician practice to establish overall practice parameters, followed by a review of at least 5 severe asthma patients to establish the current landscape of severe asthma management.

resultsThe program collected practice overview surveys from 78 specialists (52 Respirologists, 24 Allergists, and 2 General practice physicians with an interest in respiratory disease) in 8 provinces. Practices included a variety of types in both large metropolitan centres and smaller regional settings. There were 503 patients reviewed and included in the program. Most (65%) patients were currently using a biologic treatment, 30% were biologic naive, and 5% had used a biologic treatment in the past. Most patients (53%) were reported to have mixed allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes, despite a perception that allergic, eosinophilic and mixed phenotypes were evenly balanced in the physician practice. Overall, patients currently treated with biologic agents had parameters suggesting higher control and were more satisfied with treatment. However, there was less than optimal treatment satisfaction for more than half of all patients, particularly for those patients not treated with a biologic agent.

conclusionsPhenotyping is hampered by poor availability for several assessments, and the full range of treatments are not currently fully utilized, partly due to physician familiarity with the agents and partly due to prescribing restrictions. Even when treated with biologic agents, patient satisfaction can still be improved.

Indexed as

Asthma phenotypeBiological productsSevere asthmaStandard of careTreatment goalsTreatment satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID38637825
PMCPMC11027544
OpenAlexW4394932154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.