ReviewClinical and translational allergy2026
Efficacy of Biologics in Aspirin Exacerbated Respiratory Disease.
Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 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
backgroundAspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), also termed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), is characterized by asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, and hypersensitivity to cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitors, frequently resulting in severe, treatment-refractory airway disease. Biologic therapies targeting type 2 inflammation are increasingly used in AERD; though their relative efficacy remains incompletely defined.
methodsWe conducted a semi-systematic narrative review of biologic therapies in AERD, guided by established narrative review frameworks. PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies reporting clinical outcomes in AERD/NERD or clearly defined AERD/NERD subgroups. This review synthesizes current evidence and presents an evidence-informed clinical framework to support biologic selection in patients with AERD.
resultsEighteen studies identified, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and real-world studies. Across these studies, dupilumab was most consistently associated with improvements in both upper and lower airway outcomes. Anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies reduced eosinophilia and asthma exacerbations, with variable sinonasal benefit. Omalizumab demonstrated efficacy in selected atopic phenotypes and in conjunction with aspirin therapy following desensitization. Emerging subgroup data suggests that Tezepelumab may reduce asthma exacerbations in AERD.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests biologic therapies provide meaningful benefit in AERD, although available evidence is limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous designs. Prospective comparative studies are needed to inform optimal biologic selection and sequencing.
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.