ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2025
The Impact of Biological Therapies and the Significance of Their Adherence on Asthma Outcomes in a Single Tertiary Asthma Center.
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 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.
- Switching to twice-yearly depemokimab from mepolizumab/benralizumab in severe asthma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3A clinical trial (NIMBLE).American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Trial
- Safety and Tolerability of Twice-Yearly Depemokimab in Patients with Asthma and Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Pooled Results from SWIFT-1/-2 and ANCHOR-1/-2.Advances in therapy · 2026Trial
- Consistent adherence to biologic therapies is critical for improving outcomes in asthma.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Adherence to Biologic Therapies is Associated with Improved Clinical Outcomes and Reduced Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Severe Asthma in Japan.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
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
Purpose and Methods: Biological therapies have revolutionized the approach to treating asthma. This retrospective study evaluates the biologics impact on asthma outcomes, clinical remission, adherence prevalence, and the influence of adherence on outcomes. Baseline characteristics and post-therapy changes were analysed, and adherence was measured using percentage of days covered with therapy (PDC%). Results: A total of 67 patients initiated on biologics were included. Clinical improvements and statistically significant outcomes were observed across all biologics, including reduced asthma attacks, a lower dose of daily steroids, and improved symptom control and FEV1. Clinical remission was achieved in 24% of those who started on biologics. Patients demonstrated high adherence to biologics in the first year (average PDC% of 86%), though a modest decline to 84.5% was noted in the following year. Logistic regression revealed that adherence trends were not significantly associated with worsening asthma outcomes in the study cohort. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of sustained patient support and education in maintaining high adherence to biological therapies, which can lead to improved asthma outcomes and, in some cases, clinical remission. The study highlights the potential of personalized treatment strategies and adherence-focused programs to optimize asthma management, particularly in severe asthma patients. Future research should explore long-term adherence patterns and the impact of patient-specific factors on treatment success.
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.