ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab in asthma-COPD overlap vs. asthma: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) represents a heterogeneous phenotype with diagnostic challenges and variable responses to biologic therapies. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is effective in allergic asthma but shows limited efficacy in ACO, necessitating mechanistic insights into treatment heterogeneity. This study aims to compare the 20-week omalizumab efficacy between ACO and non-ACO asthma patients and to assess how differing ACO diagnostic criteria affect Th2-inflammatory biomarker dynamics and clinical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of asthma patients who received omalizumab therapy at our hospital between March 2024 and January 2025. All enrolled patients had a documented asthma diagnosis according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Participants were categorized into ACO and non-ACO asthma groups based on two distinct criteria. The ACO-A group was defined by a prior diagnosis or self-reported history of COPD superimposed on asthma. The ACO-B group required a post-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity ratio (post BD FEV Results: A total of 74 patients were enrolled, of whom 25 were ACO-A, 49 were non-ACO-A, 11 were ACO-B, and 63 were non-ACO-B. Patients with ACO exhibited poorer baseline lung function and higher smoking exposure than those with asthma alone. While both groups showed increased asthma control test (ACT) scores, the non-ACO-A group displayed decreased fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and eosinophil (EOS) (all Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the Th2-high inflammatory endotype, rather than the ACO diagnostic label, is the primary predictor of omalizumab response. Prioritizing direct assessment of Th2 inflammation over the ACO definition can better guide biologic therapy. Clinical trial registration: www.medicalresearch.org.cn/, identifier MR-31-24-055473.
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.