Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018811›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in pulmonary medicine2025

Recent evidence for stepping down severe asthma therapies.

Eric Merrell, Sandhya Khurana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Eric MerrellDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.
Sandhya KhuranaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Funding

Multidisciplinary Training in Pulmonary ResearchT32HL171029 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Steve N Georas, Michael A O'Reilly · 2024 to 2026
$1.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL171029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewBiologics have proven safe and effective for severe asthma. Their introduction has offered hope for patients and prescribers with a growing list of novel medications and indications. While 'step-up' indications for biologic initiation are well described in guidelines, 'step-down' strategy remains poorly understood and thus guidance is limited. In this opinion article we aim to focus on recent practice changing evidence for stepping-down severe asthma management, tools for the assessment of biologic efficacy, propose a framework for the step-down of biologic and nonbiologic therapies and suggest topics of interest for future research. RECENT

findingsClinical tools have been developed to aid in assessing biologic response. Some patients experience marked improvement and may enter a period of clinical remission or even complete remission. Following positive response, add-on therapy may safely be approached for taper or withdrawal. SUMMARY: There is limited consensus but growing evidence for stepping-down therapies in patients who achieve clinical response and/or remission after biologic initiation. Further structured guidance would benefit clinicians who face clinical uncertainty when deciding to step-down therapy in patients with well controlled asthma.

Indexed as

Anti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBiological ProductsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRemission InductionSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAnti-Asthmatic AgentsBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID40018811
PMCPMC13092115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.