ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2024
Systematic literature review of asthma biologic self-administration enhanced by a patient perspective.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several biologics for the treatment of severe asthma are available as self-administration devices. Objective: We performed a systematic literature review to understand the use, benefits, and challenges of these self-administration devices. Methods: Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched using terms for asthma, biologic treatment, and at-home/self-administration (GSK study 213094). Publications were scanned for relevance using prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design (PICOS) criteria. Data on efficacy, safety, patient experience, and economic outcomes were extracted; study quality was assessed. A firsthand patient perspective was obtained. Results: Thirty-five of 504 records met the inclusion criteria. Across four phase 3 studies, ≥95% of biologic self-administrations were successful on the basis of predefined criteria. At-home self-administration was preferred over in-clinic administration by 43-96% of patients across 5 studies. Most patients (≥89%) in two phase 3 studies reported completing self-administration easily without repeated reference to instructions; high proportions of patients (≥98%) were confident in their ability to self-administer their biologic, and ≥96% rated it as extremely, very or moderately easy to self-administer. Across 16 studies reporting efficacy data, there was evidence of reduced blood eosinophil counts and improved asthma control with biologic self-administration, with improved health-related quality of life shown across 6 studies. Economic outcomes data were limited. From a patient perspective, autonomy is the major benefit of self-administration. Conclusion: Although more evidence is needed, this systematic literature review provides consistent evidence of high injection success rates and, supported by a patient perspective, preference for self-administration of biologics among patients with severe asthma.
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.