ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab and benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms and therapeutic strategies of asthma: from bench to bedside.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Mepolizumab versus Benralizumab in an Older Population with Asthma: A US Medicare Fee-for-Service Analysis.Journal of asthma and allergy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis real-world study compared the efficacy and the proportion of patients attaining the criteria constituting clinical remission at 12 months between mepolizumab and benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary medical centers in Taiwan between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024. Patients with severe asthma who received continuous treatment with either mepolizumab or benralizumab for a minimum of 12 months were included. Pulmonary function parameters, asthma exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, peripheral blood eosinophil counts, and asthma remission status were assessed at baseline and after 12 months of treatment.
resultsA total of 60 patients were included, with 34 receiving mepolizumab and 26 receiving benralizumab for the treatment of severe asthma. After 12 months, the benralizumab group showed a significant improvement in pulmonary function, with mean FEV₁% increasing from 61.6% to 69.5% (∆FEV₁%: +7.9; p = 0.001). Both groups exhibited significant reductions in blood eosinophil counts: −487.1/μL in the mepolizumab group (p < 0.001) and −520.3/μL in the benralizumab group (p < 0.001). The criteria constituting clinical remission at 12 months were met in 44.1% of patients in the mepolizumab group and 30.8% in the benralizumab group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Both treatments were similarly effective in reducing exacerbation frequency and enabling attainment of clinical remission criteria at 12 months, tapering off oral corticosteroids, and improving symptom control.
conclusionsAfter 12 months of treatment, mepolizumab and benralizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy in asthma control, exacerbation reduction, and clinical remission in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, benralizumab showed a tendency toward greater improvement in lung function.
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.