ReviewRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2025
Unlocking Asthma Remission: Key Insights From an Expert Roundtable Discussion.
Review in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary Concise Review 2025: Asthma.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Review
- Consensus of Korean Asthma Study Group on Definition of Clinical Remission in Severe Asthma: A Modified Delphi Study.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2026Article
- Effect of the Arg16Gly βAllergy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Treatment targets in severe asthma have evolved towards a remission-focused paradigm guided by precision medicine. This novel concept requires a shift from evaluating the efficacy of therapies based on a single outcome at a single time point to an outcome that captures the complexity of asthma remission involving several domains assessed over a sustained period. Since the concept is still emerging, multiple definitions have been proposed, ranging from symptom control and exacerbation-free to resolution of underlying pathobiology, with varying rigour in each parameter. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current construct is needed to progress further. We conducted a roundtable discussion with 27 asthma experts to address this issue, and discussions were narratively synthesised and summarised. The participants observed that between one in three and one in five people treated with targeted biological therapies or macrolides experience low disease activity over a sustained period. They unanimously agreed that labelling the attained clinical state as clinical remission is useful as a clinical (e.g., facilitating a treat-to-target approach), policy (e.g., widening eligibility criteria for biologics), and scientific (e.g., a path to understanding cure) tool. Current remission rates vary significantly due to definition variability. When assessing remission, it is essential to consider confounding factors (e.g., steroid use for adrenal insufficiency). More research is required to reach an acceptable definition, and including the patient's voice in such research is essential. In conclusion, the concept of treatment-induced clinical remission is possible and valuable in asthma. However, further refinement of the definition is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.