ReviewBMJ medicine2026
Biological treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Review in BMJ 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.
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
Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are highly prevalent heterogeneous airway diseases in which a subset of patients with severe disease have a disproportionate share of morbidity and mortality, largely through exacerbations. Major immunological advances have reframed both conditions around endotypes, with type 2 (inflammation driven by type 2 helper cells and group 2 innate lymphoid cells) and other inflammatory pathways defined and targeted with biological treatments. This review provides an overview of biological treatments in asthma and COPD. Biological treatments are engineered monoclonal antibodies targeting proteins (eg, IgE, interleukin (IL) 5 and IL5 receptor, IL4 and IL13, and upstream epithelial alarmins, such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and IL33) that enable precision treatment. Biological treatments consistently reduce exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life in biomarker defined populations. In asthma, short term biomarkers (blood eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and sputum eosinophils) guide selection, whereas emerging longer term markers, including transcriptomic signatures and imaging endpoints, offer mechanistic readouts and raise the prospect of disease modification. In COPD, type 2 biological medicines have yielded benefits among patients with high levels of eosinophils and who are prone to exacerbations, and anti-IL33 and TSLP treatments show mixed but intriguing signals. Blood eosinophil counts (≥300 cells/µL) remain the most robust predictor of benefit; FeNO may provide complementary categorisation in select settings. Priorities for treatment are identifying treatable traits, supporting comprehensive self-management, and timely referral for patients with exacerbations despite optimised inhaled treatment. Key gaps include head-to-head comparisons, criteria for switching or stopping biological medicines, feasibility of de-escalation of inhaled treatment, and type 2 low strategies.
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.