SynthesisAllergy2026
Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of IL-4RαR576 polymorphism on response to dupilumab in asthma, a genotype-stratified, randomized, placebo- controlled trial (IDEA trial): design, rationale, methods, strategies, and lessons learned.The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma · 2026Article
- Delphi Consensus of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (SIAIP) on the management of severe asthma in children and adolescents.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Are Phenotypic Baseline Characteristics Related to Abolition of AHR After Benralizumab and Dupilumab?Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Article
- Chronic Respiratory Diseases: The Stories You Don't Want to Miss.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Impact of sputum neutrophilia on the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
- From FEVJournal of asthma and allergy · 2026Review
- Predictive Factors And Treatments Associated with Clinical Remission in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- A Clinical Nomogram for Predicting Early Response to Biologics in Pediatric Allergic Asthma with Comorbid Allergic Rhinitis.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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biologics are effective for severe asthma, but not all patients benefit equally. There is an urgent need to understand which biologic works best for which patient. We systematically searched for predictors of response to biologics (except omalizumab) for severe asthma in four bibliographic databases and two trial registries from 1990 to 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified CASP checklist. Data were synthesized narratively, and certainty of evidence assessed using the modified GRADE framework. Comparable studies were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. From 5853 records, 21 studies were identified investigating predictors of anti-IL5/5Rα, 4Rα, and anti-TSLP response. We found predominantly 'moderate' to 'high' quality evidence that raised blood eosinophil counts (≥ 300 cells/μL), FeNO levels (> 40 ppb), lack of or low OCS dose (< 10 mg/day), and better asthma control predict biologic response. Evidence for the predictive value of other characteristics was limited and mostly 'low' quality. Key reasons for downgrading the evidence were heterogeneous response definitions and imprecision. No data were identified for the pediatric population or biologics targeting the non-T2 pathway. Outside of traditional inflammatory and clinical variables, there is an unmet need for universally applicable predictors of biologic response for severe asthma.
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.