ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2025
Global prevalence of eligibility for biologic therapy in ATS/ERS-defined severe asthma: A systematic review.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 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.
- Prevalence and cost implications of broadening asthma biologic eligibility criteria.The World Allergy Organization journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biologic therapies improve outcomes in severe asthma, but eligibility criteria vary globally, influencing the proportion of patients who qualify. We systematically reviewed studies to estimate the global prevalence of biologic eligibility in patients aged ≥12 years with American Thoracic Society / European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS)-defined severe asthma and the proportion eligible for each biologic. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42023393897), we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between 2000 and 2025 that reported the proportion of biologic-naïve, severe asthma patients eligible for omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, or tezepelumab. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data on eligibility proportions and criteria, and assessed quality using the AXIS tool. Results: Ten observational studies, including 3500 patients with ATS/ERS-defined severe asthma, met the inclusion criteria. Across all studies, 1770 patients (51%) were eligible for at least 1 biologic, though estimates ranged widely from 24% to 91%, largely reflecting differences in national eligibility criteria. Omalizumab eligibility was reported in 8 studies (16%, range 6%-66%), mepolizumab in 9 studies (27%, 19%-78%), benralizumab in 6 studies (25%, 19%-53%), reslizumab in 6 studies (17%, 6%-41%), and dupilumab in 2 studies (41%, 37%-75%). No study assessed tezepelumab. Overall, the lowest eligibility (24%) was reported in the European IDEAL cohort due to stringent exacerbation and biomarker criteria, whereas the highest (91%) was observed in a Canadian single-centre cohort using less restrictive national regulatory criteria. Conclusion: Globally, approximately 51% of adults with severe asthma are eligible for biologic therapy, excluding tezepelumab. Among available biologics, eligibility is generally higher for anti-IL5/IL5Rα therapies than for anti-IgE, and appears highest for anti-IL4Rα, although data for the latter remain limited.
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.