ArticleBMJ open2026
Comparative analysis of the manufacturing carbon footprint of biologics for severe asthma.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify, compare and analyse the carbon emissions of biologic treatments for severe asthma.
designCradle-to-gate carbon emissions (from raw materials to finished product) for six monoclonal antibody therapies, benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab and tezepelumab, were estimated using Medicine Carbon Footprint Classifier, a standardised, mass-based method for medicine carbon footprinting. A representative patient, eligible for all therapies, was defined to enable comparisons. Sensitivity, scenario and pairwise analyses were conducted to explore variations in emissions and opportunities for reduction. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was first-year carbon emissions of biologic treatments for a representative patient with severe asthma, expressed in kg CO
resultsFirst-year treatment emissions for the representative patient ranged from 1.1 kg CO
conclusionsThe carbon footprints of biologic treatments for severe asthma vary widely, driven primarily by differences in dose and manufacturer electricity sources. Our analyses highlight near-term opportunities to reduce emissions, including replacing fossil fuel electricity with renewable or nuclear sources (NFFE) and optimising dosing practices. The approach can be applied across other therapeutic areas to support carbon-informed prescribing and healthcare decarbonisation.
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.