Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39709955›Full record

SynthesisInternational archives of allergy and immunology2025

Advanced Biologic Therapies in the Management of Asthma in Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis.

Jinting Lin, Kexin Yang, Qilin Zhou, Qiqing Ye, Zhuanggui Chen, Pingping Zhang, Min Zhou, Li Pan

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International archives of allergy and immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Update on biologic and small molecules treatments in pediatric allergic diseases.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Jinting LinDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, inining6969@163.com.
Kexin YangDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qilin ZhouDepartment of Allergy, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qiqing YeDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhuanggui ChenDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Pingping ZhangDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Min ZhouDepartment of Allergy, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Li PanDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmerging evidence has underscored the positive impact of biologics on asthmatic patients. However, there is a pressing need to verify their therapeutic efficacy in children and adolescents with asthma. To address this, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologics in the asthma management of this demographic.

methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched in our study until May 29, 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included to estimate the value of biologics on asthmatic children and adolescents. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two researchers. Outcomes were analyzed by a fixed effects model, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores were calculated to determine the likelihood of each biologic being the most effective intervention.

results2,672 patients were included for comparing four different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, lebrikizumab, and mepolizumab) with a placebo. Dupilumab has been demonstrated to have the highest efficacy in reducing asthmatic exacerbations, improving lung function, and improving patients' quality of life, with the SUCRA values of 0.956, 0.999, and 0.897, respectively. Omalizumab showed the best safety potential by reducing the risk of adverse and severe events, with the SUCRA values of 0.876 and 0.930.

conclusionsIn this NMA, focusing on biologics that target type 2 inflammation in childhood and adolescent asthma, four biologics demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Notably, dupilumab emerged as the most effective, while omalizumab was identified as the safest therapy. Further studies must be conducted in order to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Anti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBiological ProductsBiological TherapyAdolescentAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedChildHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBiological ProductsAsthmaBiologicsChildrenNetwork meta-analysisType 2 inflammation

Identifiers

PMID39709955
PMCPMC12324800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.