ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2024
The Influence of Emphysema on Treatment Response to Biologic Therapy in Severe Asthma.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-life impact of anti-IL5 therapy on exacerbation types in patients with obstructive lung disease.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with severe asthma (SA) benefit from biologic therapy substantially. However, the impact of smoking-related comorbidities remains unclear due to the exclusion of patients with ≥10 pack-years from asthma studies. Our aim was to examine the effects of emphysema on biologic treatment response in SA in this retrospective cohort study. Methods: Pulmonary emphysema was examined using computed tomography. Patients with SA were included and divided into two groups based on emphysema quantity (≥5% or <5%). They received either anti-IgE (22.1%), anti-IL-5-(receptor) (52.3%), or anti-IL-4/IL-13 (25.6%) biologic therapy. Treatment response was assessed after 7.8 ± 2.5 months based on acute exacerbations (AE), oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy, Asthma Control Test (ACT), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and using the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS). Results: This study comprised 86 patients (mean age 56.1 ± 12.8 years; 54% female). Half (43, 50.0%) were never-smokers, half ex-smokers with an average of 26.9 ± 18.2 pack-years. Patients with ≥5% emphysema were more often ex-smokers (80% vs 41%, p=0.002), had poorer lung function (FEV1 median 1.3 [interquartile range: 1.0;1.6] vs 1.8[1-2;2.4] L, p=0.037), and more comorbid COPD (50% vs 21%, p=0.012). However, no significant differences were noted in treatment response regarding annualized AE rate (-2.5[-5;-1] vs -3.0[-5;-2] n/year, p=0.295) and OCS reduction (-4[-10;0] vs -5[-10;0] mg, p=0.691), ACT score (5[3;9] vs 4[0;9] points, p=0.579) or FEV1 improvement (0.03[-0.15;0.25] vs 0.23[-0.5;0.49] L, p=0.052), BARS (p=0.312), and remission rates (15.0% vs 19.7%, p=0.753). Conclusion: In patients with severe asthma, those with comorbid emphysema show similar treatment response to biologic therapy. Therefore, suitable patients should not be denied biologics due to the presence of emphysema.
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.