Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41474430›Full record

ArticleLung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society2026

COPD 2.0: Bronchodilators, biologics and beyond - A systematic review.

Huda Shamim, Anil Kumar Singh, Rahul Sharma, Rajat Kumar Mishra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Huda ShamimDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Chandan Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Anil Kumar Singh
Rahul Sharma
Rajat Kumar Mishra

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive respiratory disorder characterized by persistent airflow limitation and chronic inflammation. Conventional bronchodilators have been the mainstay of therapy; however, their efficacy in certain COPD phenotypes remains limited, and uncontrolled disease continues to be prevalent despite optimal conventional treatment. In recent years, biologic therapies have emerged as promising options, particularly for eosinophilic COPD phenotypes. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and clinical implications of biologic agents and novel therapeutic approaches in COPD. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for studies published up to March 2025, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and real-world evidence on biologic treatments. Several agents, including monoclonal antibodies targeting eosinophilic inflammation such as anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, have demonstrated significant benefits in specific COPD subgroups with frequent exacerbations and elevated eosinophil counts. These biologics have been associated with reductions in exacerbation rates and improvements in quality-of-life metrics, with an acceptable safety profile. Biologic therapies therefore represent a new frontier in the personalized management of COPD, especially in eosinophilic phenotypes. Further high-quality studies are warranted to better define their long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and broader applicability in COPD populations.

Indexed as

BenralizumabCOPDDupilumabItepekimabMepolizumabTezepelumab

Identifiers

PMID41474430
PMCPMC12857841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.