ReviewPediatric pulmonology2026
Efficacy and Safety of Biologic Therapies for Uncontrolled Asthma: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Pediatric pulmonology, 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
backgroundAsthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease that can cause substantial morbidity, reduced quality of life, and socioeconomic burden when uncontrolled. Biologic therapies have become central to the management of moderate-to-severe asthma by targeting specific inflammatory pathways.
methodsThis overview of systematic reviews synthesized evidence on the efficacy and safety of biologic agents for uncontrolled asthma. Searches were conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library using MeSH and Emtree terms structured according to the PICOT framework. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses or network meta-analyses comparing omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab were included.
resultsIn indirect comparisons, dupilumab and tezepelumab were associated with more favorable outcomes in reducing the annualized exacerbation rate (AER) than benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab in severe uncontrolled asthma. In eosinophilic asthma, indirect evidence suggested more favorable outcomes with mepolizumab, tezepelumab, and dupilumab across eosinophil-defined subgroups (≥ 400 cells/μL, ≥ 300 cells/μL, ≥ 150 cells/μL, and < 150 cells/μL). In corticosteroid-dependent asthma, benralizumab and dupilumab were associated with more favorable outcomes in selected comparisons. For lung function (FEV
conclusionThe available evidence suggests that biologic therapies may be effective and generally safe options for uncontrolled asthma, although the methodological quality of most included reviews was critically low. These findings support individualized treatment guided by biomarkers and clinical characteristics and highlight the need for standardized, methodologically rigorous future studies.
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.