ArticleRespiratory research2025
Use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists for severe asthma: insights from clinicians in the SHARP network.
Article in Respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThere is limited real-world evidence on the use and positioning of inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) for treating severe asthma.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the differences in clinicians' perspectives on prescribing LAMA for severe asthma across Europe.
methodsWithin the Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) network, we conducted a multi-country survey of 470 respiratory clinicians in 2023-24.
resultsMost participants were pneumonologists (83%). 68% reported using specific criteria for prescribing LAMA for severe asthma, primarily fixed bronchial obstruction (68%), frequent asthma exacerbations (65%), and a history of smoking (53%). Improved quality of life, lung function improvement, and reduction of asthma exacerbations were the three expected outcomes of LAMA treatment that showed the largest agreement across clinicians (85-95%). As compared to non-severe asthma specialists (about 50% of the sample), severe asthma specialists were more likely to report always prescribing LAMA before biologics (54 vs. 41%) and before oral corticosteroids (OCS) (51 vs. 40%). Approximately 90% of participants prioritised tapering or discontinuing OCS before stopping LAMA. Overall, participants in Northern (n = 73) and Western Europe (n = 71) appeared less prone to prescribe LAMA and less confident in their benefits compared to those from Eastern (n = 88) and Southern Europe (n = 238). In particular, most participants from Latvia (91%) and Lithuania (67%) reported that LAMAs are not reimbursed for severe asthma in their countries. Most participants who expressed their opinion favoured triple therapy (n = 236) over single inhaler therapy (n = 91).
conclusionOur findings show that barriers and heterogeneous approaches still limit LAMA prescription for severe asthma in Europe, potentially leading to the underuse of this treatment option. Establishing a clear role for LAMA within a precision medicine framework is crucial; this aspect is not yet firmly supported by current international recommendations.
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.