ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2024
Eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma varies by healthcare provider type in the US: a retrospective study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home-Based FeNO Monitoring with the Vivatmo me Device Reveals Type 2 Inflammatory Patterns of Patients with Asthma at Different Treatment Steps: The FeNO@Home Study.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Rate and predictors of biologic initiation in patients with severe asthma: a retrospective cohort study.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype may be eligible for additional treatment options to improve disease control; however, the prevalence and frequency of eosinophil testing is unknown. This study assessed blood eosinophil count testing prevalence in patients with asthma by exacerbation frequency and healthcare provider (HCP) type.
methodsThis was a retrospective, longitudinal, real-world study (GSK ID: 214470) utilizing the Merative Explorys
resultsOf 400,254 patients included (mean age: 51.2 years; 70.8% female), the most common provider type at baseline was a PCP (76.8%). A higher proportion of patients with frequent exacerbations had blood eosinophil count tests at baseline (55.4-69.5%) and follow-up (67.9-75.1%), compared with patients with infrequent exacerbations (55.5-63.7%, 62.4-67.3%). Significantly more patients in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup had ≥ 1 blood eosinophil count test result compared with patients in the PCP subgroup at both baseline (59.9% vs. 50.7%; p < 0.001) and follow-up (59.0% vs. 56.2%; p < 0.001). In the total population, the mean (SD) number of tests ordered was 3.4 (5.3) and 4.1 (6.4) during the baseline and follow-up periods, respectively. A greater mean number of tests were ordered for patients with frequent exacerbations, most apparently in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup during baseline and follow-up (7.4 vs. 4.9). For patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophil count test results, the mean (SD) number of tests ranged from 3.1 (4.6) to 5.8 (8.3) at baseline and 5.1 (8.5) to 7.4 (10.6) during follow-up.
conclusionsThe prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma remains suboptimal. Routine blood eosinophil count testing should be considered by HCPs for patients with asthma to increase identification of the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, which may inform the decision to advance to targeted biologic therapy.
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.