ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Fixed airway obstruction and bronchodilator responsiveness phenotypes in severe asthma population from SANI registry.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on asthma with fixed airway obstruction (FAO) are heterogeneous due to different and misleading definitions. Describing the FAO phenotype has significant implications for severe asthma (SA) comprehension.
objectiveTo characterise SA patients with FAO in the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) registry at baseline, and to compare with those with reversible airway obstruction (bronchodilator responsiveness, BDR). The potential for re-evaluating FAO or BDR in the follow-up was explored.
methodsFAO was defined as a forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV
resultsAmong 354 patients, 190 (53.7%) reported AO with 116 (60.1%) resulting in FAO. The overall FAO rate at enrolment was 32.8%. Compared with BDR, FAO patients had better asthma control (34.5% vs 20.3%, p=0.004), a higher ACT (17.4 vs 15.2, p=0.005) and AQLQ (4.6 vs 3.8, p=0.001) score. FAO patients were less likely to visit the emergency room or be hospitalised than BDR (p=0.050), with no difference in AEs. The effect of airway calibre on fractional exhaled nitric oxide is more likely to cause its lower level within FAO compared with BDR (29.5 vs 46.0 ppb, p=0.04) than a lower T2 burden. A variation from FAO to BDR or no-AO was associated with the Global Initiative for Asthma classification (step 4 vs 5: HR 3.58 (95% CI 1.16 to 11.03)) and the age of asthma onset (30-39 vs <20 years: HR 3.94 (95% CI 1.09 to 14.30))
conclusionStratifying SA patients from the SANI registry reveals an FAO phenotype that expresses different clinical outcomes and biological markers compared to BDR. Over time, FAO may be reversible in late-onset SA with less inhaled corticosteroid treatment.
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.