ArticleERJ open research2026
Real-world effectiveness of biologic therapies in severe asthma patients ineligible for phase 3 randomised controlled trials of biologics: an analysis from the UK Severe Asthma Registry.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From FEVJournal of asthma and allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most patients in real-world severe asthma populations would not be eligible for biologic randomised controlled trials (RCTs), although observational evidence has confirmed the effectiveness of biologics in real-world populations. We therefore investigated whether satisfying specific RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria affects biologic response in the real world. Methods: Inclusion and exclusion criteria from 11 pivotal phase 3 asthma biologics RCTs were reviewed to identify criteria themes, and median stringency within each characterised. Patients within the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) with at least one year of follow-up on biologics were assessed as to whether they would satisfy inclusion/exclusion for each theme. Regression models were undertaken to assess whether the proportion of patients achieving a composite biologic response, defined as a ≥50% reduction in exacerbations or maintenance oral corticosteroids, was noninferior in patients ineligible by each theme. Superiority analyses and domain-specific responses were also analysed. Results: 1421 adult patients with severe asthma from 13 specialist centres were included in this analysis. Noninferiority of composite response was demonstrated for all eligibility criteria except medication adherence. In superiority analyses, patients ineligible by adherence theme had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) for composite response of 0.37 (95% CI 0.20-0.68), whilst patients ineligible by (low) baseline asthma symptom score had a significantly higher OR for response of 2.09 (1.31-3.32). Conclusions: Ineligibility by typical RCT inclusion/exclusion themes was generally not associated with inferior biologic composite response. Asthma biologics are effective in a broad range of patients, many of whom would not have met clinical trial eligibility criteria.
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.