ArticleInternational archives of allergy and immunology2025
Use of Biologics to Treat Asthma during Pregnancy and Adverse Events in Pregnant Women and Newborns: A Global Pharmacovigilance Analysis.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel JAK1 variant in chronic eosinophilic leukaemia with response to benralizumab.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Asthma Medication Adherence and Exacerbations in Pregnancy: Bridging the Gap Between Evidence and Practice.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Omalizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Clinical Presentation and Management of Acute Exacerbation of Asthma During Pregnancy at a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the increasing evidence supporting the use of biologics for treating severe asthma, there is a lack of evidence regarding their use in pregnant women. This study aims to evaluate the safety of biologics for pregnant women, utilizing global pharmacovigilance database.
methodsReports documented between 1980 and 2023 were extracted from the VigiBase that mentioned pregnancy- or fetus-related reactions with drugs indicated for asthma, including reslizumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, and other non-biologics. A disproportionality analysis of case-non-case was conducted by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes associated with exposure to biologics compared with outcomes associated with other non-biologic asthma medications.
resultsA total of 15,715 pregnancy-related reports were analyzed. Reslizumab showed an overall lower reporting frequency of adverse events (ROR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67). Omalizumab (ROR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.16-4.77), mepolizumab (ROR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.05-3.36), and dupilumab (ROR, 5.34; 95% CI, 3.90-7.32) commonly showed higher frequencies of spontaneous fetal death. However, these three drugs also had lower frequencies of pregnancy and delivery complications, including preterm birth (omalizumab: ROR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31; mepolizumab: ROR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.34; dupilumab: ROR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.17), which are outcomes related to late pregnancy. In contrast, benralizumab (ROR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) differed from the other biologics by showing lower frequencies of spontaneous fetal death (ROR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and spontaneous abortion (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78) but higher frequencies of delivery complications (ROR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.72), including preterm birth (ROR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.14-1.86).
conclusionsThis global case-non-case study underscores the critical need for further well-designed research to investigate these overreported outcomes and emphasizes the importance of more rigorous monitoring efforts for these adverse events.
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.