ArticleCureus2026
Real-World Effectiveness of Biologic Therapies for Severe Asthma in a Diverse Middle Eastern Cohort: Evaluation of Longitudinal Symptom Improvement.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Biologic therapies have transformed the management of severe asthma; however, real-world comparative data from ethnically diverse Middle Eastern populations remain limited. We evaluated the longitudinal effectiveness of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and tezepelumab in routine clinical practice in Dubai. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world performance and effectiveness of biologic therapies for respiratory diseases within the unique, high-dust environment and ethnically diverse patient population of Dubai, thereby providing data to bridge the gap between controlled clinical trials and routine clinical care outcomes. Methods This is a retrospective, single-center study of 47 adults with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving biologic therapy, contributing 141 longitudinal observations at baseline, six months, and 12 months. Baseline demographic and biomarker differences were assessed using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analyses with Dunn-Bonferroni correction. Longitudinal symptom trajectories (shortness of breath {SOB}, cough, wheeze) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and a logit link, accounting for repeated measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of SOB resolution at 12 months. Results Significant baseline differences in ethnicity, smoking status, weight, BMI, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and eosinophil counts reflected phenotype-driven biologic selection. Despite this heterogeneity, time on biologic therapy was the only independent predictor of symptom improvement. Each visit was associated with significant reductions in SOB (B = -3.93, p < 0.001), cough (B = -2.28, p < 0.001), and wheeze (B = -1.75, p < 0.001). Biologic class was not associated with differential symptom trajectories. The logistic regression model for SOB resolution demonstrated moderate explanatory power (pseudo R² = 0.397; likelihood ratio test {LRT} p = 0.054), with no biologic showing superiority. Adherence rates were high and adverse events were infrequent. Discussion In this real-world, multi-ethnic cohort, biologic therapy was associated with substantial and progressive symptom improvement over 12 months, independent of drug class. These findings support the comparable effectiveness of currently available biologics and reinforce the importance of prolonged treatment durations and longitudinal assessment in the management of severe asthma.
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.