ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2026
Prevalence and cost implications of broadening asthma biologic eligibility criteria.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale: Eligibility for biologic therapy in severe asthma varies internationally because government-funded schemes apply stricter criteria than pivotal trials. While relaxing eligibility thresholds may expand access, the effects on prevalence and healthcare costs remain uncertain. Objective: To quantify how alternative biologic eligibility criteria affect prevalence, clinical characteristics, and budget impact in adults with asthma. Methods: We studied adults with active asthma (2004-2021) using nationally representative primary care and hospital records. Biologic eligibility was assessed yearly using asthma severity (inhaled corticosteroid dose, additional controllers, rescue therapy) and exacerbations (oral corticosteroid prescriptions, emergency visits and hospitalisations). We assessed prevalence using United Kingdom (UK) criteria (severe asthma, ≥3 exacerbations), Global criteria (severe asthma, ≥1 or ≥2 exacerbations) and RCT criteria (moderate asthma, ≥1 or ≥2 exacerbations). Anti-IL-5/5Rα eligibility was evaluated using blood eosinophil counts. Budget impact was modelled over 5 years. Results: Among 1,306,307 asthma patients, 7.2% had severe asthma. Under UK criteria, 19,093 patients were biologic-eligible (20.4% of severe asthma; 1.5% of all asthma). Global criteria increased eligibility to 2.4% (≥2 exacerbations) to 4.3% (≥1 exacerbation), while RCT criteria expanded eligibility to 4.7% (≥2 exacerbations) and 9% (≥1 exacerbation). Among patients with eosinophil data, 38-45% met anti-IL-5/5Rα criteria. UK-eligible patients had higher prevalence of lower respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, and bronchiectasis. Five-year costs were £261 M under UK criteria, £436-767 M under Global criteria, and £878M-1.6B under RCT criteria. Conclusion: Only one-fifth of patients with severe asthma met UK biologic eligibility. Global criteria tripled eligibility and RCT criteria increased it six-fold, with substantial budget implications.
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.