ArticleRespiratory research2026
Comparative effectiveness of biologics in lung function improvement among patients with severe asthma: a real-world study.
Article in Respiratory research, 2026. 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.
- Pulmonary Function in Adults with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Using Biologicals:A Case-Control Study.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiologics have demonstrated lung function improvement in clinical trials. However, real-world comparative effectiveness data from European countries are limited. This real-world study compared lung function improvements with dupilumab and other biologics across five European Union (EU) countries in patients with severe asthma (SA).
methodsThe EU-ADVANTAGE was a retrospective chart review study conducted in patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with SA who initiated a biologic (dupilumab, omalizumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab) between May 2019 and February 2022 (index date). Patients with at least one record of pre-bronchodilator (BD) or post-BD forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) available within 12-month pre- and post-index periods were analysed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance baseline characteristics between treatments. Improvements in percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) within 12 months after biologic initiation were assessed in those with either pre- or post-BD FEV1, using doubly robust linear regression.
resultsA total of 845 patients had pre-BD ppFEV1 and 557 had post-BD ppFEV1 data in both pre- and post-index periods, respectively. After IPTW, several baseline characteristics were balanced (standardised mean difference < 10%), and residual confounding was accounted for using doubly robust linear regression. Based on regression analysis, dupilumab-treated patients achieved a greater improvement in pre-BD ppFEV1 than those treated with omalizumab (Δ5.25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.02–7.49; p < 0.0001), benralizumab (Δ3.23%; 95% CI, 0.03–6.43; p = 0.048), or mepolizumab (Δ3.29%; 95% CI, 0.33–6.24; p = 0.029) within 12 months. Similar differences were observed in post-BD ppFEV1 (p < 0.05).
conclusionsPatients with SA initiating dupilumab had a greater lung function improvement than those initiating omalizumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab within EU clinical practice.
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.