ArticleERJ open research2025
Real-world comparative effectiveness of biologic therapies in severe asthma: EU-ADVANTAGE.
Article in ERJ open research, 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.
- Comparative effectiveness of biologics in lung function improvement among patients with severe asthma: a real-world study.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Characteristics of severe asthma patients with biologic treatment in the Swedish National Airway Register.European clinical respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Real-World Response to Dupilumab as Add-on Therapy in Adults and Adolescents with Type 2 Severe Asthma: A Spanish Cohort Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Comorbidities as a Personalized Target in Patients with Severe Asthma Treated with Dupilumab.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Europe, although multiple biologics have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma (SA), comparative data from real-world settings remain limited. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab with that of omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in European patients with SA. Methods: In the EU-ADVANTAGE study, physicians from France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands were recruited to review medical charts of patients (aged ≥12 years) who had physician-confirmed SA and initiated dupilumab, omalizumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab (index) between May 2019 and February 2022. Patients with ≥12 months of pre- and post-index records were included. Differences in baseline covariates were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) between dupilumab and other biologics. Reductions in SA exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions during the 12-month post-index period were estimated using a doubly robust regression. Results: A total of 2739 patients met all study criteria; 1281, 638, 406 and 414 received dupilumab, omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab, respectively. After IPTW, the majority of baseline covariates were balanced (standardised difference <10%) between dupilumab and other biologics in a pairwise manner. After regression, dupilumab was associated with a lower risk of SA exacerbations during the 12-month post-index period, as follows: 22% Conclusions: The findings suggest that dupilumab may reduce severe exacerbations and OCS use in patients with SA better than omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in European real-world settings.
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.