ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Pulmonary Function in Adults with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Using Biologicals:A Case-Control Study.
Article in Current health sciences journal. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The era of biologics has revolutionized the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Although biologics appear to control SEA, pulmonary function is still poorly assessed with effective techniques. This study aimed to compare pulmonary function between adults living with severe asthma (alwSEA) with and without the use of biologics through a comprehensive approach to measuring pulmonary function, including assessments of pulmonary mechanics, static lung volumes, and small airways. METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional study in which 15 alwSEA using biologics (biological group-BG) and 17 alwSEA using conventional therapy (control group-CG) were evaluated. These individuals underwent spirometry, body plethysmography, and respiratory oscillometry. In addition, they underwent the Asthma Control Test and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.
resultsThe sample was predominantly female, with 14 women (93.3%) in the BG and 16 (94.1%) in the CG. The groups differed significantly in age, with the BG being younger than the CG [52 (47-61) vs. 60 (54-66) years, p=0.045]. The BG presented significantly higher values of forced expiratory volume in the first second [1.77 (1.45-1.91) vs. 1.27 (1.18-1.47) L, p=0.005]. The CG presented a higher residual volume to total lung capacity ratio [141 (128-157) vs. 108 (89-117) % predicted, p<0.001]. Respiratory system resistance at 20 Hz was higher in the CG [170 (137-216.5) vs. 131.5 (110.8-179.2) % predicted, p=0.038].
conclusionsIn alwSEA, biologics appear to improve not only volumes and flows, but also air trapping. Furthermore, biologics appear to act on central airway resistance.
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.