Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42327546›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of thoracic and critical care medicine2026

Position statement on the appropriate usage of biologic therapies for asthma in South Africa.

R N van Zyl-Smit, M Greenblatt, C Smith, N Singh, M Wong, South African Thoracic Society

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of thoracic and critical care 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R N van Zyl-SmitDivision of Pulmonology and UCT Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape own, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4115-5362
M GreenblattMilpark Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa.
C SmithMorningside Mediclinic, Johannesburg, South Africa.
N SinghDivision of Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8181-7062
M WongDivision of Pulmonology, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7178-7953
South African Thoracic Society

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biologic therapies such as monoclonal antibodies are highly effective in reducing disease burden (exacerbations/corticosteroid usage/ hospitalisation) in patients with severe asthma. These medications are currently prohibitively expensive for widespread use compared with standard inhaled and oral therapy. They are indicated for patients with predominantly type 2-high inflammation. Judicious use of biologic therapies in the South African context is imperative given the country's limited healthcare resources. The prescription and clinical use of these therapies within the scope of the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority registered indications therefore require clear guidance and appropriate preparatory optimisation to ensure that the appropriate patients receive the correct medication within an acceptable time frame. Not all patients with difficult-to-treat, or nominally designated as severe, asthma require a biologic therapy in order to be optimally controlled. Simple attention to basic asthma therapeutic principles and treatment of comorbid disease by a clinician with a special interest in asthma may be all that is required. This position statement, written by senior clinicians from the South African Thoracic Society (SATS), is intended to supplement the SATS asthma treatment recommendation of 2021. It provides clear guidance on the appropriate assessment of patients being considered for biologic therapy and clarifies which background medication is required to initiate a biologic therapy in an evidence-based manner. A balanced consideration of side-effects, scientific evidence and cost is essential to prevent unjustified harm to patients by delaying or denying access to biologic therapy. A process to endorse biologic therapy has been created in parallel, and forms are available from SATS, along with registration in the severe asthma registry to support clinicians in appropriate assessment and justification for prescription.

Identifiers

PMID42327546
PMCPMC13277373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.