ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2025
Combining Dual Biologics Therapy for Severe Asthma: A Series of Ten Cases.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes During Concurrent Dupilumab and Advanced Immune-Modifying Therapy: A Real-World Cohort Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Asthma and Sinonasal Diseases: Shared Clinical Comorbidities, Inflammatory Pathways and Management Strategies.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cycling biologic therapy with tezepelumab and mepolizumab for eosinophilic otitis media and eosinophilic pneumonia in a patient with asthma.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Comorbid Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Asthma: Shared Risk Factors and Treatment Implications-An EAACI Task Force Report.Allergy · 2026Article
- Potential of alarmin-targeted bispecific and combination therapies in airway disease.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biologic therapy has revolutionized the management of severe asthma, but a subset of patients with severe asthma exhibits symptoms inadequately controlled by monotherapy, potentially due to the involvement of multi-type 2 pathways. Dual biologic therapy has emerged as a promising strategy, but its efficacy and safety are not yet fully understood. Objective: To describe the characteristics, endotyping features, decision-making process and therapeutic response of patients with severe asthma on dual biologic therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: We present ten patients on dual biologics for severe asthma. The biologic combinations include mepolizumab+ dupilumab (n=7), benralizumab+dupilumab (n=1), omazulab+mepolizumab (n=2). Therapeutic response was assessed by type 2 inflammation biomarkers, symptom control, frequency of acute exacerbations, daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage and side effects. Results: In our 10 cases, six of them are women, the mean age was 56±15 years old. The mean duration of combination therapy use was 13.5 months (range from 4 to 36 months). Dual biologic therapy was initiated because of inadequate asthma control (N1, N2, N6), poor control of comorbidities (N5, N7, N8, N9) or anti-IL4/13R-induced hypereosinophilia (N3, N4, N5, N7, N10) when treated with a single biologic agent. All ten patients exhibited good tolerance to the combined biologic therapies, leading to improvements in asthma and comorbidity management, and a reduction in OCS usage. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Dual biologics have been shown to be both effective and safe. However, more studies are needed to fully assess the long-term benefits and potential risks of different combinations of biologic treatments.
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.