ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Biologic switching in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis: a scoping review of published clinical experience.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is a type 2 (T2) inflammatory pulmonary disorder with limited long-term treatment options. Although biologic therapies targeting T2 inflammation are increasingly used off-label in ABPA, clinical responses are heterogeneous, and some patients require switching between biologic agents. Evidence on biologic switching in ABPA, however, has not been systematically summarized. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 30 July 2025. Eligible studies included ABPA patients treated with biologics who underwent at least one documented biologic switch. Data on patient characteristics, biologic agents, reasons for switching, switching patterns, and reported clinical outcomes were extracted and summarized. Results: Thirty-one publications were included, comprising 2 retrospective observational studies, 3 case series, and 26 case reports or letters, describing 73 patients with ABPA and 108 biologic switching events. Omalizumab was the most commonly used first-line biologic. The most frequent initial switching pathway was from omalizumab to anti-interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5 receptor agents, while subsequent switching from anti-IL-5/IL-5 receptor therapy to dupilumab was commonly reported. Inadequate clinical response and adverse events were the leading reasons for switching. Across studies, biologic switching was frequently associated with reported clinical improvement, although outcome definitions and follow-up durations varied substantially. Conclusions: Biologic switching is a commonly reported strategy in ABPA management, particularly in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to initial therapy. However, available evidence is largely descriptive and case-based, precluding conclusions regarding comparative efficacy or optimal sequencing. Prospective studies are needed to guide biologic selection and switching in ABPA.
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.